Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

be...@metronet.com

unread,
Apr 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/25/95
to
mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:

>I feel it is a choice, and I do not want
>my 8 year old told that he has to make a choice to be hetero, homo, or bi
>sexual

What if you are wrong and it is not a choice? Did you make a
choice to be heterosexual?

>This has already been been taken to such an extreme
>that some schools have removed materials that portray blantent heterosexuality
>( not porn, but dual sex couples ).

"I believe that schools should purge all books that contain
heterosexuality, so that children won't have to make a choice at
such an early age!"

(Do you realise how stupid you sound?)

>There are certain moral values I want my children to have. Tolerance is one,
>and heterosexuality is another.

Can you tell me how the moral *values* of a heterosexual differ from that
of a homosexual? Are you saying homosexual people are not able
to be moral and are evil?

What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
values.

It's just like the lie about the "gay lifestyle". The gay
lifestyle is IDENTICAL except that gay people can love anyone of
any gender and aren't limited by the fear of the same sex that
heterosexuals have.

>In many of these matters, society superceeds the right of
>the parent to teach their children what they feel is right.

I believe that society has an interest in teaching children that
it is NOT ok to hate gay people or discriminate against gay
people -- that way less gay people will be murdered for who they
are.

Didn't you realise that there were thousands of hatecrimes
against gays last year? YOUR children are committing these
crimes, and I have a right to be protected from them.

>When the media takes over, and begins to teach children things that parents
>feel are not appropriate for their age, it is superceeding the parents rights
>to raise the child as they feel is healthy.

I think that mental health of children is important, and
that they should not be indoctrinated in irrational hatred like
that you propose to teach to your children about gay people.

>If ST were an adult show, this
>would not be an issue, but it is not only an adult show.

Most of the episodes are PG in rating for "parental guidance".
Your argument is moot. Further, I don't know why you are
bitching about this, as YOU HAVE THE CHOICE of what your CHILDREN
watch on TV.

If you don't like it, then fucking switch it off!!!

>We could further this by asking if every parent is in a position to raise
>their child in a healthy way. Who will make the choice of what is healthy ?

People who are objective -- and that means Christians are
automatically ruled out.

>Raising children is not a place the government should superceed the parent
>except in extreme situations.

The murder of gay people is serious. You'd have us believe
otherwise.

>When it comes to issues where people have no choice ( sex, race, etc... )
>society has the right (IMHO) to say everyone is equal ( as it was founded to
>do ).

I had no choice to be gay. I deserve protection.

>On the otherhand, when a person makes a lifestyle choice ( as I believe
>Homosexaulity is, although it has not been proven either way ) it is
>different.

Even if I *did* choose, I should have the same rights of
protection as a minority. I note that RELIGION is chosen, and
protected under anti-discrimination laws.

I note also, that people who are given the CHOICE to have a limb
amputated are covered under anti-discrimination laws after they
have had an amputation and become differently-abled...


Anyway, can't black people bleach their skin, and Asians get
plastic surgery to look more "European"? Wouldn't that solve
their discrimination (modification of how they look)?

That is *EXACTLY* what you suggest when you tell gay people to
not act upon their innateness. I'm sorry, but I can't change who
I am. I never chose to be gay. I will stand by that, and so
will science.

Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |

<a href="http://nether.net/~rod/html/index.html>Surf the net to my webpage</a>

Mike McKee

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
In article <3njpv7$k...@fohnix.metronet.com> be...@metronet.com writes:
>From: be...@metronet.com
>Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
>Date: 25 Apr 1995 16:35:35 -0500

>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:

>>I feel it is a choice, and I do not want
>>my 8 year old told that he has to make a choice to be hetero, homo, or bi
>>sexual

>What if you are wrong and it is not a choice? Did you make a
>choice to be heterosexual?

no I didn't, it is natural.

>>This has already been been taken to such an extreme
>>that some schools have removed materials that portray blantent heterosexuality
>>( not porn, but dual sex couples ).

>>There are certain moral values I want my children to have. Tolerance is one,
>>and heterosexuality is another.

>Can you tell me how the moral *values* of a heterosexual differ from that
>of a homosexual? Are you saying homosexual people are not able
>to be moral and are evil?

I am saying that heterosexuality vs. Homosexaulity is a value in itself, not
indicitive of any other values.

>What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
>homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
>values.

And I satate again, they are values in themselves.

>It's just like the lie about the "gay lifestyle". The gay
>lifestyle is IDENTICAL except that gay people can love anyone of
>any gender and aren't limited by the fear of the same sex that
>heterosexuals have.

I have never said anything about the gay lifestyle, only about gay sex.

>>In many of these matters, society superceeds the right of
>>the parent to teach their children what they feel is right.

>I believe that society has an interest in teaching children that
>it is NOT ok to hate gay people or discriminate against gay
>people -- that way less gay people will be murdered for who they
>are.

I agree with you 100%. You assume that anyone that does not feel being gay is
natural automatically hate all gays. Stop being so bigoted.

>Didn't you realise that there were thousands of hatecrimes
>against gays last year? YOUR children are committing these
>crimes, and I have a right to be protected from them.

yes, I do know this, but my views do not kill gays. I do not bash them, and
I do not terrorize them. Just like I don't kill, bash or terrorize catholics
for their choice that I also feel is wrong. And do most catholics ( not the
few educated ones, but the masses. This is not to slam religon but the
people on the net are in the upper 1% of education in the country. Most
people never question even the simplest of things ) choose to be catholics.
No they are raised in it, and their environment shapes them in that way.

>>When the media takes over, and begins to teach children things that parents
>>feel are not appropriate for their age, it is superceeding the parents rights
>>to raise the child as they feel is healthy.

>I think that mental health of children is important, and
>that they should not be indoctrinated in irrational hatred like
>that you propose to teach to your children about gay people.

I did not propose that. I have never proposed any hatred. You are being so
reactinoary, and bigoted it is scary. In your little world, anyone that
disagrees with your homosexuality wants to kill you. Sorry to pull your
blinders off, but this is a foolish stereotype.

>>If ST were an adult show, this
>>would not be an issue, but it is not only an adult show.

>Most of the episodes are PG in rating for "parental guidance".
>Your argument is moot. Further, I don't know why you are
>bitching about this, as YOU HAVE THE CHOICE of what your CHILDREN
>watch on TV.

>If you don't like it, then fucking switch it off!!!

Ah the old this is MY show, and if you don't like it, turn it off.
You have the choice of what to watch also. If you want t see homosexuality on
TV so much, why don't you choose another show. You are the one lobbing for
change.

>>We could further this by asking if every parent is in a position to raise
>>their child in a healthy way. Who will make the choice of what is healthy ?

>People who are objective -- and that means Christians are
>automatically ruled out.

You frighten me. This is the same rational used for the slaughter in WWII.
Nice attitude.

>>Raising children is not a place the government should superceed the parent
>>except in extreme situations.

>The murder of gay people is serious. You'd have us believe
>otherwise.

You are right it is wrong. I never said otherwise, as you seem to think.

>>When it comes to issues where people have no choice ( sex, race, etc... )
>>society has the right (IMHO) to say everyone is equal ( as it was founded to
>>do ).

>I had no choice to be gay. I deserve protection.

Great. So what ? everyone has the right to be protected. Now do you have
the right to force your ideals on others. This is the question.

>>On the otherhand, when a person makes a lifestyle choice ( as I believe
>>Homosexaulity is, although it has not been proven either way ) it is
>>different.

>Even if I *did* choose, I should have the same rights of
>protection as a minority. I note that RELIGION is chosen, and
>protected under anti-discrimination laws.

adn once again I agree. You should be protected. Not prefered, nor given
special treatment, but protected.

>I note also, that people who are given the CHOICE to have a limb
>amputated are covered under anti-discrimination laws after they
>have had an amputation and become differently-abled...

so what ?

>Anyway, can't black people bleach their skin, and Asians get
>plastic surgery to look more "European"? Wouldn't that solve
>their discrimination (modification of how they look)?

your begining to ramble. this is not even related to the discussion.

>That is *EXACTLY* what you suggest when you tell gay people to
>not act upon their innateness. I'm sorry, but I can't change who
>I am. I never chose to be gay. I will stand by that, and so
>will science.

Science does not stand by that statement. If you think it does, could you
show me one link to genetics. Just one.

I have also never said you should not act on your feelings. I just don't want
you TELLING me what my child will or will not be tought in school.

I think it is really sad that you preach tolerance, but are completely
intolerant to my opinions. I don't think what you are doing is natural. You
are free to do it, and I will even fight for your right to do it. But you
refuse to tolerate my opinion that it is still wrong.

You are the intolerant one, not me.


>Rod

Mike

The STrait Man :-)

Mike McKee

unread,
Apr 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/28/95
to
In article <3noba2$o...@fohnix.metronet.com> be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>From: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift)

>Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
>Date: 27 Apr 1995 09:56:02 -0500

>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:

>>>How nice of you to think you have the right to choose to
>>>eradicate gay people or not in the first place.

>>If you had bothered to read what I followed, you would understand this comment.

>If you had written your comment better, maybe along the lines of
>disagreeing with even the concept that one has a right to judge
>another and then execute them, then maybe you would have
>understood why I wrote a condemnation of it -- yours was lacking.

Oh give me a break. That is why we follow posts, so that we don't have to
rewrite the entire persons comments. Learn to read the whole thing, and not
only what you want to falme.

>>>>With advances and the acknowledgement
>>>>of the necessity of mental health, I do not feel it will be an issue.

>>>Considering homosexuality is beyond any "mental health"
>>>treatment and does not respond to any treatment of a "mental
>>>health" nature, it would be easy to say that homosexuality is not
>>>a mental illness. BTW, the APA and the ASA and the AMA concur.

>>You have no proof of this, because none exists. There is no answer to the
>>nature/nuture argument on Homosexuality. Despite what you think.

>Science, which psychology is a branch of, shows that
>homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Mental disorders are
>treatable with reparative-style therapies -- all of which have
>failed in the treatment of gay and lesbian people.

So have all medical attempts to find a genetic link. Just because something
is not found does not mean it is not there.
Just because Psychology has not been able to treat it does not mean it is
genetic. That is not a very scientific argument.

>Further, the case that homosexuality is an "addiction" is not
>validated, as all reparative or treatment programs to curb
>homosexuality in gay people does not work.

I did not call it an addiction. But you are not correct. Heron addicts have
not been treated sucessfully yet either ( except in the *vast* minority
of cases )

>>The only reason that the APA, ASA, and AMA do not list it as a mental
illness >>is because it has not been proven yet, they also do not concur that
it is not, >>they just don't mention it at all. Nice try.

>No. They reversed their statement based on the principles that
>there is *NO* evidence to say that it is mental. You are
>claiming they have no proof it is mental. They do have proof
>that it being a mental condition has been invalidated.

BS. There is no proof. I repeat, no studies have been done to prove it is
not psychological.

>>>>I think that it is not a genetic condition, but one of preference
>>>>( this is a >personal opinion, because nothing has been proven either way ).

>>>Will you give your religion up when the NIH finishes its study of
>>>the Xq28 region of the genetic codes of gay twins?

>>If they prove it, of course I will. Until then, my opinion is just as valid
>>as yours. SHall we turn the tables though,

>>Will you give up YOUR religion when it is not shown to have genetic links ?

>I have the fortunate case that I can claim that discrimination
>against gay people is wrong -- genetic or not. If it is genetic
>then it is just like other non-chosen behaviours or human
>conditions. If it is NOT genetic, then it's just like religion.

If it just like religion, it is learned, and as psychology advances, a
treatment will be found. ( or preventative treatment ).

I have also never said discrimination is right. It is your stereotype of me
that claims this.

>>>Christianity is a mental impairment which can be cured with time
>>>and education.

>>I would like to think so, but history proves you wrong :-)

>Maybe you should adapt your argument and look at homosexuality.
>:) You will then see the trap I set, and how you fell straight
>into it.

Not at all. They are both learned behavior. The only difference is one is
favored by evolution, the other is not. With Christianity, it forms a group
that kills to protect its ideals, and reproduces to continue its clan. With
Homosexauls, they do not reproduce their own kind to continue their clan.

>>>>I do not care what people do in the privacy
>>>>of their own homes, nor do I feel discrimination should be tolerated against
>>>>them.

>>>Yes you do care, and yes you do want discrimination to exist...

>>Why thank you for clairifying my thoughts for me. I don't know what I was
>>thinking to express myself without consulting you first.

>Well, isn't it always the case of straight people knowing best
>for gays? Again, you stepped right into the trap. I notice
>*you* don't like being told how you think.

I have never told you how to think. It is you that are telling me that I must
accept you as normal. I don't. You may believe anything you like, and until
we have proof, we will just not know.
You are further telling me what my child will be taught. At home you can
teach anything you like. At school, they should be taught what the majority
of society feels is right.

I can turn tables here, and tell you that your entire argument here is that
you want to change the current status and portray your opinion to us confused
heterosexuals.

>Why do you expect me to think any different of your assumption
>that "gays chose to be the way they are" when I know I made no
>such choice.

Can you point to many parts of your personality that you can show a direct
cause for ? No. Can I think that I made a chopice to be heterosexaul ? no.

>>>>But I do not what my children brought up believing that Homosexuality
>>>>is normal.

>>>Don't you mean that you don't want your children to treat gay
>>>people as normal people?

>>No, I mean exactly what I said. I don't want my children to be Catholic
>>either, but I don't them to discriminate against Catholics. Get a real
>>argument instead of telling me what I think, but have of yet not written.

>Take a leaf out of your own book, hypocrite. Don't presume to know what it
>is like to live life as a gay person -- or to presume what they
>want or need.

Try a lucid responce to my comments next time.

>>>>This is not a bigoted opinion as I don't treat Homosexuals any
>>>>different than Heterosexuals

>>>Bull shit.

>>Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you have been with me and my homosexual
>>friends, and seen the way we interact.

>Have you ever asked your gay friends what they think of the way
>you want to oppress their rights to exist?

Yes actually I have. But I spoke with him not about his right to exist ( as
you seem to be arguing ), but on his normalicy. He wishes he was strait, but
just is not. There is nothing he can do about it. We are both good friends,
and he obviously has a right to exist, but we do agree that being strait is
the normal thing to be.

>>BTW, one of my best friends while growing up is a homosexual.
>>Not that you will believe me, but who cares

>Of course I believe you. I won't believe you when you say that
>you care about them or for them, because the way you treat me is
>exactly the way you treat your friend -- with piecemeal rights,
>second-class citizenship, and undue hardship to the love that
>they have and no respect for the relationships they hold.

poor little marter. I have said none of these things.

>>>>Tolerance is one thing, but to force it on others is another.

>>>Can you please tell me how me wanting to live with my partner is
>>>forcing anything on you...?

>>It isn't, and you should be allowed to do so without any problems.

>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?

sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.

>>I'm still not sure how you living with your partner is forcing it on me.
>>Maybe you can clairify this?

>Maybe if you cared to read my posting, instead of assuming that I
>have written something, you will see that I asked YOU how MY
>relationship is forcing things on you, and how they exactly
>impact on your day to day life.

I said it didn't. I am not even sure why you asked the question. It is
irrevelant because we are not discussing how your relationship even affects me.

>>>I can tell you that forcing us to live in separate countries,
>>>forcing our love to be criminal, forcing our lives to be
>>>interrupted at the most fundamental level, forcing us to hide who
>>>we are in our jobs, forcing us to be unemployed at the whims of
>>>employers, forcing us to be left destitute as we cannot leave our
>>>partners our assets after we die, forcing us to give up our
>>>children to other people's custody, forcing...

>>>... I think you get the idea.

>>Yes I do, and I stated that all the above is wrong ( you must have missed that
>>part of the post in your haste to flame me )

>You have never stated any condemnation of these unconscionable
>acts, nor have you proposed any ways or means to remove these
>injustices. Maybe if you were honest enough, you might suggest
>methods to solve the inequality.

Get a clue dude.

I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already said that gays should
have equal rights ( on several occasions ), and I have said intolerance in
unacceptable ( on several occasions ). Possibly, you should get a dictionary
and learn their meaning.

I am also not trying to solve the problem on injustice toward gays. Possibly
it would help if you tried to stick to the topic.

>I gather you are admitting that gay people are unfairly and
>unjustly treated in this society, and that they are indeed
>second-class citizens?

AS with lots of people. Society is basically unfair. Learn to live in the
real world. I don't think the method you choose will work to balance the
scales. The same method has been used in race relations for years, and they
still don't seem to be working.

>>>Mike, just consider the difference between gay people wanting
>>>equal rights compared with what you *enforce* against gay people
>>>by subscribing to the people you vote for, worship with, and
>>>ultimately write our laws.

>>I have always been an advocate of equal rights. Gay or otherwise. Not
>>special treatment, just equal chances.

>But yet you have no solutions, nor do you support any other
>solutions offered -- solely because they get in the way of your
>beliefs, even if they will not be imposed upon your beliefs.

You have ony proposed one solution. To have science make a determination,
based on no proof. In the 16th century this may have been acceptable, but not
in the 21st.

This also means that you feel that you know better than anyone else what I
should believe, and what my child should be taught. The US was founded on
different principles. I am sorry you disagree with them, but that is what
this country was founded for. The freedom to form our own opinions and
beliefs.

>>>You *FORCE* gay people to tolerate your beliefs and hatreds with
>>>laws, we only want freedom to ignore you.

>>I force nothing. But since most of society is strait, I would think that
>>being strait is what society should present.

>I don't care if you even respect my relationship, or want to see
>it, or even agree with it.

>I do care that you want to *DENY* my rights to marry my partner
>and live with them. That DOES impact on my life.

Hell, I don't care if you marry your partner. This is not the debate. If you
want to debate the scoial sanctions of homo's, go to a different newsgroup.
If you want to discuss Gays on ST then do so.

>>I could care less what you
>>choose to do, but when you TELL me that my child WILL be tought that to be gay
>>is a good thing, I get alarmed.

>I have never made such a statement. Please retract that lie.

You said it very directly.

>>It is you ( the minority ) that are forcing your beliefs on me.

>No I am not. I have never and will never. However, I will force
>onto you the fact that I do have rights, and should be able to
>freely exercise them. You do not have to agree with the outcomes
>of them, but that is my right. You don't even have to accept
>them, but you have no right to stop me based solely on your
>beliefs.

Again, I could care less what you do. This is not the topic we are discussing.

>>I could not care less what you do, but you do not want to be
>>accepted, you want everyone to believe what you are doing is good.

>What the *FUCK* are you talking about. All I want to do is live
>with my partner. Is that too much to ask, or is it
>"indoctrinating your children from 12,000 miles away because a
>queer lives with another queer"?

Get a life.
This is NOT THE TOPIC !!!!!
If that is all you want to do. Great go do it, and leave this thread. This
is specifically about GAYS ON ST.

( remaining babling on societys percusion of gays deleted )

either address the topic, or take your babling to the appropriate group. I am
not a gay basher, nor do I allow it. I hope this is clear enough for you.

be...@metronet.com

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:

Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
busted...

>Homosexuality is either a natural and/or environmentally induced anomoly,
>as it inhibits the powerful instinct all animals share - that of
>reproduction.

"How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual
is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during
early childhood. However..., scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at early age through
complex interactions of biological, psychological and social
factors." -APA.

It's not an anomaly, Ousey. They're for space, and for ships
named Enterprise -- nice try though.


>Same-sex households implicitly devalue relationships between children
>and the excluded sex parent.

"Can lesbians and gay men be good parents? Yes. Studies
comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by
heterosexual parents find NO DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES between
the two groups of children in their intelligence, _psychological
adjustment_, _social adjustment_, popularity with friends,
development of social sex role identity..." -APA.

>Homosexuality leading to homosexual activity
>leading to a MEDICALLY AFFIRMED high risk of catching death prematurely,
>which serves to wreck and terminate relationships regularly.

"... or development of sexual orientation" -APA

It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
gay or straight parents.


>If homosexual marriages are deemed Consitutional
>(I would not doubt that it could happen), we have the preogative to
>amend the Constituion to spell out explicitly into law the moral conviction
>that the State can only act as a party to those marriage contracts
>that involve only one man and one woman, who are not related, are above
>are certain age (definable by States - 10th Amendment).

Yes. Change the constitution to deny gay people rights. How
noble of you? What do you fear? The legal recognition of gay
unions which exist anyway? How wonderfully bigoted of you.

BTW, since marriage is a state-reserved right, a Federal
Constitutional amendment would not work, as it would require
revokation of the 10th, and the states WILL not like that.


>Those who would support such an Amendment simply believe that a child
>IDEALLY is raised by a mother AND a father.

Which is completely debunked. Kids are just as well raised by
gay or straight parents -- and the only level of good parenting
is the ability to be a good parent (and not sexual orientation).

>Such a scheme GUARANTEES the
>presence of a LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE member of each sex to serve as role
>models for any children.

Since children of gay or straight parents develop equally as well
in sex roles, then this is completely moot, and restricting a gay
person's right to be a parent is not necessary....

>It acknowledges that since there are TWO sexes
>involved, then the restriction of marriage to TWO people is not arbitrary.

... and hence *YOUR* arbitrary decision to limit marriage to whom
you think deserves them (based on religion, not objective fact),
is also debunked completely.

>Why should a homosexual fight for the right to marry only one other
>homosexual if they were in fact in love with two or twenty?

Polygamy is not part of this debate. I note that being denied
the right to be married to more than one person does not deny the
right to be married to any one of the people.

Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex is not
only inhumane, but removes the right to marry that person
completely, and there is no way to marry that person.

>True, humans tend to NATURALLY bond in pairs, as they NATURALLY
>tend to bond with members of the opposite sex, but why should such
>an arbitrary value judgement be employed if "morality is subjective"?

Because sex-discrimination is not an arbitrary decision, nor
arbitrarily justifiable, as I have shown.

>Yes. But many homosexuals have integrated very deeply their sexuality
>into their whole identity.

So? That's normally a good thing.

>I have not always been proud of everything
>sexual I hae ever done, but I regard my sexual identity as the result
>of my natural attraction toward the opposite sex AND my sexual behavior
>(ie free will).

Good for you. I do not define it that way. The APA doesn't
agree with you.

>What many homosexuals here don't seem to realize is that
>the behavioral component of your sexual identity is what we refuse to
>de-stigmatize or equivocate with heterosexuality.

But I want to marry on the basis of my relationship, not on the
basis of sex. And who is this *we* you refer to? The
heterosexual majority?

>Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>activity, which generally leads to society.

This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
society. Not just the procreative sides of it.

>We oppose presenting this MEDICALLY AFFIRMED dangerous
>behavioral component as a "natural alternative" to our children in the
>school system.

Medically-affirmed dangerous behavioural component?

You are claiming it is medical science which has categorised it
as:
1) dangerous?
2) behavioural?

In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
"Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
mental health professionals agree that
homosexuality is not an illness, mental
disorder or emotional problem. Much
objective scientific research over the past
35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
in and of itself, is not associated with
emotional or social problems." -APA.


> Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous
> behavioral component as does homosexuality.

Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?

>Does any of the above sound kooky, Bible-thumping, or homophobic?

Yes. Completely. You really need to get the facts on
homosexuality. The APA publishes a brochure called "Answers to
Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality".

I have reprinted it elsewhere.


>In America, the only identity issue that should count is whether or not
>you are an American. Then any judgements on tolerance should be reflective
>of INDIVIDUAL character, not group identity.

But of course, you would never treat gay people as anything but a
product of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and be
damned with whether they are good people or not.

>The behavioral component of
>homosexuality often implies that an individual embraces (of their own free
>will) certain behaviors.

Free will? You mean there is a choice in homosexuality? You
are yet again WRONG.
"Is sexual orientation a choice? No. Sexual orientation
emerges for most people in early adolescence without
any prior sexual experience. And some people report
trying very hard over many years to change their
sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not
consider sexual orientation for most people to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

The question that ponders is where all those heterosexuals are
who have also been trying to change their sexual orientation for
years without success... Oh, that's right, heterosexuality is
claimed to be *normal* and homosexuality is *sick*.

Now you can see why spreading such lies as "homosexuality is not
natural and is sick" hurts gay people -- leading to suicide for
a lot of teens who are told intolerant and hateful things.


>Employers should be FREE to make such judgements.

Employers should have no right to ask information about one's
personal life. The only thing that employers should consider is
if a person can and does their job.

That is the judgement they are allowed to make -- to employ or
not based on rational job-related criteria.

I claim that employers have no right to meddle in my personal
life!

>Homosexuals who do not agree with such judgements should be FREE to boycott
>that business and would probably get a lot of support from many Americans
>at large.

No, maybe we should sue for discrimination based on political
affiliation?

>If I were an employer, I would personally not care what people do
>in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Well, that makes me feel very secure!!! NOT!

>Exceptions for me include the military
>and teaching - any institution that includes character as its keystone.

Are you saying gay people are totally devoid of character? But
my dear Ousey, you can clearly see that nothing above supports
this line. Homosexuality has been in the military and gay
teachers have always been in the classroom. It didn't affect the
world last century, when there was no way to spy on someone's
bedroom life!

>Hopefully you will respnd fairly to me too as I am always willing to
>seriously improve my reasoning and belief system.

I've respondede fairly, with scientific fact. Now, consider all
those anti-gay laws like sodomy laws, probate laws, custody
laws, immigration laws, marriage laws, cohabitation laws, housing
laws, etc, etc...

You have no justification for them being discriminatory now! Gay
people are completely equal to heterosexual people in all ways
and all manners of public life...

... Unless, of course, you wish to subjugate us into second-class
citizenship where you have always considered us to belong.

>True, homosexual relationships can be as emotionally valid, but our society
>does not have an institution of marriage that centers on individual happiness.

Yes it does. It is a choice by two people for their own
happiness. It was found in Loving v Virginia that marriage was a
*pleasure* of life exercised in "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
HAPPINESS".

Marriage is for the pleasure of those who wish to formalise their
love. Gay people want that too.

>The marriage institution is geared to represent the basic building blocks of
>our society, acknowledging that children are the most important potential
>by-products.

And it will still recognise that, because you are extending
marriage to same-sex couples. That does NOT involve the denying
or removal of marriage as a right for heterosexual, child-bearing
couples.

>Guaranteeing the presence of a mother AND a father for any
>children that may result is simply something that our society VALUES as
>IDEAL.

The society values it as ideal, but science shows us that this
ideal need not be necessary. Further, as I have already stated,
the issue of allowing same-sex couples legal union is irrelevant
to the status of children -- heterosexuals will still have
children in and outside of marriage, and homosexuals will still
also have children. Your proposal would keep these children of
gay people outside of a stable legal union, rather than offering
a stable legal union.

It should be society's responsibility to provide same-sex
marriage for gay parents, so that they can exercise the marriage
tax break for their kids, and claim other benefits *for the
children*.

>Homosexual parents can still makes great parents, but the implication
>there that either motherhood or fatherhood is disposable with society's
>blessing is not ideal.

Please show me how providing equal legal union will diminish the
roles of parents?

>That is why I, at least, oppose the social validation
>of same-sex relationships.

Well, the opposition is not founded on any scientific or social
basis, nor is it in the best interests of the children of gay
parents, nor is it logical to think that straight parents will be
affected by about 1% more marriages (between gay people).

Society can PERMIT something while NOT PROMOTING it -- smoking,
alcohol, etc, etc.

Society does NOT SOCIALLY VALIDATE alcohol abuse, but permits
alcohol consumption. Society should similarly allow same-sex
union.

Your argument, as always, is completely shattered and flawed,
David. As a gay man, I'm no threat to "motherlessness". I have
of course no desire to have children. I do have a great desire
to marry my partner for three years so that we can live together.

I believe that ultimately the denial of a choice to exercise
freedom is more harmful to society than permitting the choice and
allowing people to choose.

If you believe in Republican ideals of getting government out of
the private lives of people, you will respect every person's
right to choose which person they wish to marry -- irrespective
of the gender of that person.

Rod Swift

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
--[Rod Swift wrote:]--

>Considering homosexuality is beyond any "mental health"
>treatment and does not respond to any treatment of a "mental
>health" nature, it would be easy to say that homosexuality is not
>a mental illness. BTW, the APA and the ASA and the AMA concur.

--[Mike McKee <mc...@larscom.com> wrote:]--


>You have no proof of this, because none exists. There is no answer to the
>nature/nuture argument on Homosexuality. Despite what you think.

--[kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:]--
>Mike, read what people are saying. Rod didn't comment on the
>"nature/nurture" debate. He pointed out that homosexuality is no longer
>considered a "mental health problem". See below.

--[Mike McKee <mc...@larscom.com> wrote:]--


>The only reason that the APA, ASA, and AMA do not list it as a mental illness
>is because it has not been proven yet, they also do not concur that it is not,
>they just don't mention it at all. Nice try.

--[kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:]--
>WRONG, Mike. Homosexuality was *once* considered a mental disorder. All
>sorts of approaches were made to "treating" it, including shutting people
>away in asylums, giving them electric shocks... homosexuality has been
>*dropped* from the DSM-IV (the APA's list of mental health conditions)
>because, after many years of research and attempted "cures", it is NO
>LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE A MENTAL "PROBLEM".

Kate:

It's so true, but Mike would rather spread DISINFORMATION (I
believe that's called "false witness" in his religion). He has
claimed that the only reason the APA, ASA and AMA do not list it
as a mental illness is:
1) because it has not been proven yet
2) they do not concur that it is not (a mental illness)

So let us hear exactly what the APA _does_ say about
homosexuality:


From: "Psychology and You: Answers to Your Questions About
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

By: The American Psychological Association

[This pamphlet is available from APA, 750 First St NE, Washington
DC 20002-4242, phone 202-336-5700]


Q: What is sexual orientation?

A: Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality
and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic,
sexual or affectional attraction to individuals of a particular
gender. The three other components of sexuality are
biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of
being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to
cultural norms for feminine and masculine beaviour). Three
sexual orientations are commonly recognised: _homosexual_,
attraction to individuals of one's own gender; _heterosexual_,
attraction to individuals of the other gender; or _bisexual_,
attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a
homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as _gay_
(both men and women) or _lesbian_ (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behaviour because
it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may
not express their sexual orientation in their behaviours.


Sidebar:
Homosexual orientation is not limited to a particular type of
person. Gay men and lesbians are of all ages, cultural
backgrounds, races, religions and nationalities. They work
in all occupations and live in all parts of the country.


Q: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

A: How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual


is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during

early childhood. However, many scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age


through complex interactions of biological, psychological and
social factors.


Q: Is sexual orientation a choice?

A: No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early


adolescence without any prior sexual experience. And some
people report trying very hard over many years to change
their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider

sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be
voluntarily changed.


Q: Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

A: No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health


professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness,
mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective
scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that
homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated
with emotional or social problems.

Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness in the past
because mental health professionals and society had biased
information about homosexuality since most studies only
involved lesbians and gay men in therapy. When researchers
examined data about gay people who were not in therapy, the
idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was found to be
untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the
importance of the new research by removing the term
"homosexuality" from the official manual that lists all
mental and emotional disorders. In 1975 the American
Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting
this action. Both associations urge all mental health
professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness
that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Since the original declassification of homosexuality as a
mental disorder, this decision has subsequently been
reaffirmed by additional research findings and both
associations.


Q: Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

A: Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by
homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental
differences between the two groups of children in their
intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment,
popularity with friends, developmment of social sex role
identity or development of sexual orientation.

Another stereotype about homosexuality is the mistaken
belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual
men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence
indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals
to molest children.


Sidebar:
The APA encourages all mental health professionals to work to
help persons of all sexual orientations to accept and
integrate their inner feelings and to overcome their
prejudices and false beliefs about one another.


Q: Why do some gay men and lesbians tell people about their
sexual orientation?

A: Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is
important to their mental health. In fact, the process of
identity development for lesbians and gay men, usually called
"coming out", has been found to be strongly related to
psychological adjustment -- the more positive the gay male or
lesbian identity, the better one's mental health and the
higher one's self esteem.


Q: Why is the "coming out" process difficult for some gays and
lesbians?

A: Because of false stereotypes and unwarranted prejudice towards
them, the process of "coming out" for lesbians and gay men can
be a very challenging process which may cause emotional pain.
Lesbian and gay people often feel "different" and "alone" when
they first become aware of same-sex attractions. They may
also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers and
religious institutions if they do "come out".

In addition, homosexuals are frequently the targets of
discrimination and violence. This threat of violence and
discrimination is an obstacle to lesbian and gay people's
development. In a 1989 national survey, 5% of the gay men and
10% of the lesbians reported physical abuse or assault related
to being lesbian or gay in the last year; 47% reported some
form of discrimination over their lifetime. Other research
has shown similarly high rates of discrimination and violence.


Q: What can be done to help lesbians and gay men overcome
prejudice and discrimination against them?

A: The people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians are those who say they know one or more gay
person well. For this reason, psychologists believe negative
attitudes toward gays as a group are prejudices that are not
grounded in actual experience with lesbians or gay men but
on stereotypes and prejudice.

Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination
are very important, just as they are for other minority
groups. Some states include violence against an individual on
the basis of her or his sexual orientation as a "hate crime"
and eight US states have laws against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.


Q: Can therapy change sexual orientation?

A: No. Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental
illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt
conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation,
some individuals may seek to change their own sexual
orientation or that of another individual (for example,
parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists
who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have
changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to
heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports
indicates several factors that cast doubt: many of the claims
come from organisations with an ideological perspective on
sexual orientation, rather than from mental health
researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly
documented; and the length of time that clients are followed
up after the treatment is too short.

In 1990 the American Psychological Association stated that
scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy
works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's
sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's
sexual behaviour. It would require altering one's emotional,
romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's
self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health
providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, others
question the ethics of trying to alter through therapy a trait
that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an
individual's identity.

Not all gays and lesbians who seek therapy want to change
their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians may seek
counselling for any of the same reasons as anyone else. In
addition, they may seek psychological help to "come out" or
to deal with prejudice, discrimination and violence.


Q: Why is it important for society to be better educated about
homosexuality?

A: Educating all people about sexual orientation and
homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially
important to young people struggling with their own sexual
identity. Fears that access to such information will affect
one's sexual orientation are not valid.


Q: Where can I find more information about homosexuality?

A: The publications and organisations listed below can all
provide you with further information:


References:

Garnets, L.D., et al, "Issues in Psychotherapy
With Lesbians and Gay Men", _American_
_Psychologist_, Vol 46 #9, pp 964-972.

Goodchilds, J.D., _Psychological_Perspectives_
_on_Human_Diversity_In_America_, American
Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1993.

Garnets, L.D., and Kimmel, D.C., _Psychological_
_Perspectives_on_Lesbian_&_Gay_Male_Experiences_,
Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.

Gonsiorek, J.C., and Weinrich, J.D., _Homosexuality:_
_Research_Implications_For_Public_Policy_, Sage
Publications, California, 1991.

Herek, G.M., and Berrill, K.T., _Journal_of_
_Interpersonal_Violence_, Vol 5 #3.


Organisations:

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
1734 14th Street NW
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: 1-202-332-6483

National Institute of Mental Health
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7C02
Rockville MD 20857
Telephone: 1-301-443-4513

Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays
1012 14th Street NW Suite 700
Washington DC 20005
Telephone: 1-202-638-4200

Sex Information and Education Council of the United States
130 West 42nd Street, Suite 2500
New York NY 10036
Telephone: 1-212-819-9770


Special Thanks:
Special thanks to the following APA members and staff whose
assistance made this brochure possible:

Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., University of California at Davis.

Oliva M. Espin, Ph.D., San Diego State University, president
of APA division 44.

APA Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns.

Clinton W. Anderson, M.A., APA Office on Lesbian and Gay
Concerns.


Brochure written by Stephen J. Blommer.
Produced by the APA Office of Public Affairs.

[end brochure]

Rod Swift

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:

>: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: busted...

>Gulp...

Gulp indeed!

>: It's not an anomaly, Ousey. They're for space, and for ships


>: named Enterprise -- nice try though.

>It is an anomoly, and the above does not discredit that. I have
>never argued that it was unnatural (ie not occuring in nature).

Did you know what anomaly means? Anomalous means that it does
not occur spontaneous, that it is odd, that it is
uncharacteristic, and even unnatural.

Homosexuality is not an "anomaly".

Zot! I win.

>: >Same-sex households implicitly devalue relationships between children


>: >and the excluded sex parent.

>: "Can lesbians and gay men be good parents? Yes. Studies
>: comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by
>: heterosexual parents find NO DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES between
>: the two groups of children in their intelligence, _psychological
>: adjustment_, _social adjustment_, popularity with friends,
>: development of social sex role identity..." -APA.

>Can incestual, polygamal, pedophilial ad infinitum make good parents? Yes.

But that was NOT the question you proposed, Ousey. You are
clutching at straws.

FACT: Gay men and lesbians are just as good parents.

FACT: The parents you described above (incestual, polygamous,
pedophiles) are not *gay* and would be spread through
heterosexuals and homosexuals on an even ratio. All things
considered, like your claim that 1% of people are gay, it would
mean that for every one possible incestual relationship of a gay
person there are 99 heterosexual cases.

Yet another reason to remove heterosexuals from parenting. They
are sick and depraved :) Thank you for providing the
ammunition.

>I know this is hard for many people to understand, but as a society,
>we VALUE motherhood AND fatherhood TOGETHER, and we decry any implicit
>separation that comes with "alternative definitions of the family".

Yes. I value them too.

>If the Supreme Court finds in your favor, then we will amend the Constitution-
>it's that easy.

Why? Marriage has nothing to do with the removal of sex roles in
parenting.

>It would be interesting to watch how many Liberal
>politicians commit political suicide by opposing such an Amendment.

I wonder how many Republicans would hear screams from the states
as you would have to repeal the 10th and basically abolish any
state control of state affairs.

You'd probably find that it would be quite happy and accepted by
most, and your rabble-rousing will not either have any impact on
the case, nor on society.

The fact is still that gay people will still be parents, whether
they are allowed to marry or not. They will still be the same
proportion of parents, and heterosexuals will still have the same
huge proportion of parenthood (namely about 99.9%). Further,
there are pervasive reasons to PERMIT same-sex marriage -- to
protect the interest of the children inside families with gay
parents.

I note in the latest case where this happened, the Bottoms case,
the grandmother now has the child even though the mother, the
biological father and the child, along with the mother's partner,
all want the child to live with the biological mother...

... yet another case of a child being dragged screaming from a
home in which he is loved to be isolated from the parents he
knows by someone who applied for custody and won based on
discrimination which exists in society.

>Dan Quayle was right (Atlnatic Monthly a couple years back) and even
>Clinton and Gore are jumping on the VALUES bandwagon. Gore, only a few
>months ago, was hanging out at a fatherhood empowerment event. If your
>standard is one of "who can make a good parent" then I claim that I can.
>Let me marry my three favorite girlfriends, and we'll all make great parents.

You already have the right to marry any one of them, and knock
them all up. Why don't you get them all pregnant?

I don't think you even have a CLUE about parenthood!

>One of my wives can marry my five brothers, making me their husband by default,
>how far can all this go? Obviously, a pithy thing such as a social moral
>standard is meaningless, right?

Of course, this little bark up the wrong tree is your usual
attempt at escaping from the undeniable conclusion that you are
withholding "a fundamental right which may be exercised by
all ... for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

By denying equal access based on gender discrimination to
marriage, you are denying about 20,000,000 people of "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Just where in the hell did you get this mandate of misery?

>: >Homosexuality leading to homosexual activity


>: >leading to a MEDICALLY AFFIRMED high risk of catching death prematurely,
>: >which serves to wreck and terminate relationships regularly.

>: "... or development of sexual orientation" -APA

>: It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
>: gay or straight parents.

>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner.

No.

>Don'y you
>think it would be less stigmatized and therefore less dangerous if
>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?

Didn't you read the bit about sexual orientation being fixed
during or before early childhood?

>: Yes. Change the constitution to deny gay people rights. How


>: noble of you? What do you fear? The legal recognition of gay
>: unions which exist anyway? How wonderfully bigoted of you.

>What I fear:
>The devaluation and disposability of motherhood and fatherhood as well
>as social moral fiber to stand on implicit moral grounds in the face of
>anomolous and dangerous, socially irrelevent BEHAVIOR.

Which is of course not evident by any of the proposals. It will
just take the status quo and legalise one of the current family
structures under the status quo, leaving -- you guessed it --
the status quo.

There is no evidence, nor will there be, of heterosexuals
marrying less or not having children. This is ludicrous, as gays
already exist in society.

Is the true fear gay visibility, and hence the eventual end to
the discrimination you treat them to? Do you fear that society
tolerating gay and lesbian people and treating them equally will
mean you will have no religious enemy?

>: BTW, since marriage is a state-reserved right, a Federal


>: Constitutional amendment would not work, as it would require
>: revokation of the 10th, and the states WILL not like that.

>We just may see.
>Again, political suicide, for those politicians who resist.

Political suicide for the 10th amendment revokation. It's the
amendment which state rights are based. I don't think you'll get
a pass of a constitutional amendment in 3/4 of the houses :)

>T'will be fun to watch - like last November.

Sure. The fact is that there is no case of appeal above Hawaii,
and it's got you shitscared -- like that for once gay and lesbian
people will have to be treated to certain rights that
heterosexuals take for granted. Immigration, probate law, home
ownership, next-of-kin...

Very basic stuff. But since the heterosexual majority has
treated gay and lesbian people so discriminately for so long I
suppose it was the only option left to us...

... if you had considered giving us immigration rights, and
probate law rights, and living wills, and the other things our
relationships NEED to keep them going, then we'd never need to
demand what we need.

>:>Those who would support such an Amendment simply believe that a child


>:>IDEALLY is raised by a mother AND a father.

>: Which is completely debunked. Kids are just as well raised by
>: gay or straight parents -- and the only level of good parenting
>: is the ability to be a good parent (and not sexual orientation).

>Ideally, children are not separated from their natural parents. Ideally,
>we work toward such a society where every child is loved and wanted
>by mature responsible mothers and fathers who are married. Ideals like
>these are what our country is founded on, and it is simply what people
>want and VALUE.

The world is not ideal. Reality states that there are children
already in single parent homes. Reality states that gay people
parent children now.

The reality is that same-sex marriage will not change any of
that, in any particular group's favour.

If you claim the ideal world is so great -- why is it not
working? Why is heterosexual marriage failing in society? It's
had the monopoly on rights and benefits...

... The fact is that there are so many other family structures
which are EQUALLY valid and EQUALLY good, and provide EQUAL role
models and EQUAL development to heterosexual unions of marriage,
yet are not protected in any way by the law.

This is wrong, it needs to be changed.

>Again, a gorilla could make a great parent, your point?

A gorilla cannot make a good parent. Your cheap shot failed.
A lot of heterosexuals cannot make good parents -- does that mean
we should remove ALL heterosexuals from parenting?

I believe parenting should be left up to the parents, not you. I
believe marriage should be left to the participants, not you.
Your controls are needlessly restrictive and abusive of the
freedom of self-determination.

>: Since children of gay or straight parents develop equally as well


>: in sex roles, then this is completely moot, and restricting a gay
>: person's right to be a parent is not necessary....

>Nor three gay parents, and they can marry three friends,
> ... and so on, and so on...

>Or incestuals...

Which has, as usual, nothing to do with two gay people marrying.
This is not a debate about people who are unfit to parent (i.e.
pedophiles, child bashers, etc, etc) nor polygamous
relationships.

In fact, the whole debate is not about parenting, but about
marriage rights, which has NOTHING to do with parenting.

>I favor your right to be a parent, I just don't favor a social ENDORSEMENT
>of that potential via a marriage contract.

Duh. How many times do I have to tell you that PERMISSION is not
ENDORSEMENT. Are you completely devoid of a brain, Ousey?

But let's say it did permit it, and it might *endorse* it.
Here's one gay marriage to 200-300 straight marriages. Which one
is doing more *endorsing*? Which one is powerful and persuasive?

Aren't gay marriages endorsing themselves now without legal
union? I think so! They still exist! Just more of how YOUR
pointless arguments fail.

>Such a contract would serve
>as a proclaimation of the irrelevence of motherhood,

No. It would serve as a proclamation of a marriage between two
people.

>Our society values motherhood - not a relationship
>centered around socially irrelevent, anomolous behavior.

Since there will be no children in my relationship, there will be
no *degradation* of motherhood. Neither would there be if I had
a child, as I could have it in or outside wedlock.

Don't you see? It's not the marriage that is the bit that is
important here, but that if there is any "motherlessness
promotion" it is because there is no mother in the parent
structure.

If I had a child now, it would have no mother. I am not offered
legal union. Offering me legal union does not change the
motherlessness.

Why can't you see that your father/motherlessness arguments are
not only irrelevant, non-correlatable and foolish, but also not
true anyway?

Gay people provide BOTH SEX ROLE MODELS just as well as
heterosexuals AND single parents.

Children aren't isolated from adults until age 18 you know. They
do meet literally thousands of male and female adults over their
formative years and learn from them.

Your father/motherlessness argument is moot.

>:>It acknowledges that since there are TWO sexes


>:>involved, then the restriction of marriage to TWO people is not arbitrary.

>: ... and hence *YOUR* arbitrary decision to limit marriage to whom
>: you think deserves them (based on religion, not objective fact),
>: is also debunked completely.

>Why do you always go off on religion?

Because that is what you base this bullshit on. It's certainly
not based on sciences like psychology and sociology which prove
you wrong.

>I am not a Bible thumper, but use sound political reasoning.

There is no *political* reasoning to your argument. If it was
anything it would be *social* reasoning. But there is no social
reasoning either.

What about "personal beliefs".

>Political resaoning encompasses our society's value system.

No it does not. There are many things in this society's "value"
system that are based not on political reasoning, but bias,
prejudice and ignorance -- take the past examples of slavery,
miscegnation laws, etc, etc. Current examples include consensual
sodomy laws, etc.

>I might also add that, contrary to popular belief, atheism
>is not the offical State religious viewpoint in America.

No religion is. BTW, my religion supports my marriage. Should I
claim religious discrimination by being denied the right to be
legally married??

>The State is separate from ALL religious viewpoints.

Nope. The state is OBLIGATED to treat all people equally before
the law, including protecting their religion aka First Amendment.

>And finally, morality can be found neatly tucked in any good psych text.

Nor can it be found in your head. Do you claim gay people
marrying is inherently immoral. Please show your deductive logic
to determine so, and which tenets of immorality it would break.

>My "arbitrary" limits involve ideals, which imply social relevence and
>consistency with our society's value system.

You admit that they are arbitrary. Yet you cannot justify this
arbitrariness when they are challenged. In defense of challenges
you claim "but it's always been this way". You never care to
investigate or even try to see if an alternative works. This is
called dogmatic behaviour, and is an antithesis to improving
things. Society will not have any chance of improving itself
while you dogmatically cling on to outdated principles and ideals
which are unattainable and unrealistic.

>: Polygamy is not part of this debate. I note that being denied


>: the right to be married to more than one person does not deny the
>: right to be married to any one of the people.

>: Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex is not
>: only inhumane, but removes the right to marry that person
>: completely, and there is no way to marry that person.

>Why can't it be part of the debate?

Because we are dealing with, specifically, the sex-discrimination
of marriage, c.f. a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot
marry a woman, and vice versa.

>We are felling moral standards and
>stigmas against sexual peculiarities before our might scythe of equality,
>aren't we?

No. We are not talking about SEXUAL ACTS at all! We are talking
about human relationships equivalent to a two-person heterosexual
relationship.

>Why stop at non-related, over the age of consent, pair-bonders?

Because we are not examining donkeys marrying horses, idiot.
We are comparing similarities, not differences. If tomorrow we
allowed any three heterosexuals to marry each other, then I'd
start an equivalent debate of equal opportunity for ANY three
people to marry.

>Do they or do they not have the same right you want?

They do not. I have explained this. They already have the right
to enter into a pairbonded marriage if they so wish -- unless
they want to marry someone of the same gender...

If they wish to challenge the rules of law, let them -- it is
there requirement to prove the laws are discriminatory and remove
their rights to marry. I do not believe this is demonstrable for
them, but it is certainly demonstrable for any man wanting to
do that which a woman can but he cannot -- marry another man.

>Hypocrisy.

Yes, you are. Red herrings will no longer work in this debate.
We are evaluating, SOLELY, the sex-discrimination in the marriage
choice of adults. We are not talking about bestiality, or
polygamy, or incest, or anything else but REMOVING the SEX
CLASSIFICATION of marriage.

>: Because sex-discrimination is not an arbitrary decision, nor


>: arbitrarily justifiable, as I have shown.

>But number discrimination is OK? Tsk, tsk.

We are not talking about numeric discrimination. That is another
argument with completely different arguments. We are talking
specifically about the arbitrariness of a sex-discrimination --
one that seems to have no justification under the law (and has
been found in one state to be discriminatory under the law).

>A very selective revolutionary. Not enough studies done yet?
>I've argued with many a homosexual in love with more than one,
>and they'll be happy to disagree with you.

We are talking changing the sex-discrimination status of the
existing marriage laws. Please continue to stay on the topic.
Red herrings will no longer work, Ousey.

>: >Yes. But many homosexuals have integrated very deeply their sexuality
>: >into their whole identity.

>: So? That's normally a good thing.

>Versus, the Greeks who simply took boys on the side and never made a
>big stink.

You are clearly inept at reasoning. I stated quite clearly the
APA passage which states that sexual identity is formed early in
life, and is not changeable -- I also outlined that criticism of
that identity is a harmful thing.

I don't see how you get "sex with boys" out of a comment about
accepting one's sexual identity. Or do you mean that a gay sexual
encounter will make a boy or girl gay?

Well I'll repeat from my last post: "Is sexual orientation a


choice? No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early

adolescence WITHOUT ANY PRIOR SEXUAL EXPERIENCE."

I will have you note, if you had done your research, that Papua
New Guinean tribes make their boys between age 12 and 19 ingest
semen each day -- they believe it will turn them into men. Even
after this considerably rituallistic homosexuality, the usual x%
turn out to be gay after 19 years of age. [Source PFLAG
brochure on why people are gay].

>: Good for you. I do not define it that way. The APA doesn't
>: agree with you.

>Free will have any role? Maybe just a little teeny weeny bit?

Nope. Sexual identity is an innate thing. It is not learned,
and it not changeable by free will. Sexual activity might be
able to be controlled and directed into "untrue" acts to the
person's innate self.

>: But I want to marry on the basis of my relationship, not on the


>: basis of sex. And who is this *we* you refer to? The
>: heterosexual majority?

>That part of society (the majority) who strongly VALUE motherhood AND
>fatherhood TOGETHER.

What right do you have to dictate such restrictions to my and my
partner's inalienable rights?

>And your desire to marry is still based around
>an anomous lifestyle condidtion.

No it is not. It is not a "lifestyle condition". It is who I
am, and it is UNCHANGEABLE. I am not going to go through life
having YOUR type of buffoon dictate to me that I cannot live with
my partner or have ANY of my rights recognised because I love
someone who is of the same gender.

I am not going to allow you to sit and spit on me from high on
the basis that I have the EXACT same love as you do, and I WILL
get exactly the same RIGHTS granted to me FROM SOCIETY.

I refuse to sit down and be a second-class citizen, or a subject
in a crude social experiment with my life that you propose to
perform in the name of "parenting".

>Not ideal and socially irrelevent.

It is IDEAL for me.

It is not IRRELEVANT to me, and millions of others.
Have you any evidence that it is irrelevant? What is your
solution to these irrelevant lives? Extermination?

The fact is that homosexuality is relevant socially.

>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual


>: >activity, which generally leads to society.

>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.

>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".

Yes. I agree. Homosexuals work. Since that is not beneficial
to society, you will not miss my taxes when I *DON'T* pay them.

Are you claiming that society grants me no equality? If so, I owe you
nothing in return.

>: >We oppose presenting this MEDICALLY AFFIRMED dangerous

>: >behavioral component as a "natural alternative" to our children in the
>: >school system.

>: Medically-affirmed dangerous behavioural component?

>: You are claiming it is medical science which has categorised it
>: as:
>: 1) dangerous?
>: 2) behavioural?

>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>: mental health professionals agree that
>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>: objective scientific research over the past
>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>: emotional or social problems." -APA.

>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".

There is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour either, idiot.
You have yet to prove anything. All the ramifications of the
activity show no social impact whatsoever on families, the
individuals concerned, etc.

>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. When are you going to
start applying facts to your "ideal" world?

>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?

Sexual activity has nothing to do with marriage rights of course.
I want to marry my partner because I love him, not because I
sleep with him.

Of course, marriage will promote less promiscuity and hence less
disease spread. Isn't that a good thing? Or do you want even
more of your tax dollars going to pay for hospital beds?

>: > Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous


>: > behavioral component as does homosexuality.

>: Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
>: concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
>: that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?

>I could care less what you do in your bedroom.

Yes you do. You care about it so much that you would stop me
from exercising my choice to marry my partner.

>Just keep your bedroom away from the first grade and the
>Justice of the Peace, and we'll be fine.

Fuck off. Denying me the right to marry will NOT stop my
relationship existing, but it will provide hardship for it. I
already laugh in your face knowing that I already have a greater
relationship based on GREATER trust and GREATER responsibility
and STRONGER foundations and GREATER hardship and GREATER effort
than you ever will have, you pathetic little breeder.

>: >Does any of the above sound kooky, Bible-thumping, or homophobic?

>: Yes. Completely. You really need to get the facts on
>: homosexuality. The APA publishes a brochure called "Answers to
>: Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality".

>: I have reprinted it elsewhere.

>Question:
>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
>than not?

No. You will not die earlier. You have been listening to Paul
Cameron again.

>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>we'll be OK.

No. I will not. I will seek to make the next generation
tolerant so that they do not kill gay people. I will see to
marrying my partner in defiance of your statist desires to deny
me my rights as a human.

>: But of course, you would never treat gay people as anything but a


>: product of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and be
>: damned with whether they are good people or not.

>I love the sinner and hate the sin.

Strange, Ousey, I wonder if you have ever considered the meaning
of hatred -- all I see from you is hatred for who I am, and no
love.

Do you stop to consider that? Have you ever stopped to listen?
Or do you just claim to do things out of love when there is no
love there, or the love is not love towards me, but what you
think is love?

>: >The behavioral component of


>: >homosexuality often implies that an individual embraces (of their own free
>: >will) certain behaviors.

>: Free will? You mean there is a choice in homosexuality? You
>: are yet again WRONG.
>: "Is sexual orientation a choice? No. Sexual orientation
>: emerges for most people in early adolescence without

> ^^^^
>: any prior sexual experience. And some people report
> ^^^^
>: trying very hard over many years to change their


>: sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
>: no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not
>: consider sexual orientation for most people to be a

> ^^^^
>: conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>sexually.

I have no free will to change my innate homosexuality. That
sexual orientation is "different from sexual BEHAVIOUR because it
refers to FEELINGS and SELF-CONCEPT".

I have no way of changing my feelings or who I am. I can curb my
sexual behaviour (I am celibate for 11 months a year). It
doesn't make me a nonsexual though.

Can you honestly say that you have the free will to self-identify
and feel towards men -- and I'm not talking *sexually*?

You will see now it is impossible to change sexual orientation.
Further, since you have admitted that I am unable to change my
sexual orientation, then it is an innate thing -- and I should not
be penalised or discriminated on the basis of it.

I will hope that you will support equal rights for gay people
now, considering it is not a choice nor under the exercise of
free will.

>: The question that ponders is where all those heterosexuals are


>: who have also been trying to change their sexual orientation for
>: years without success... Oh, that's right, heterosexuality is
>: claimed to be *normal* and homosexuality is *sick*.

>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).

It is not sick. It is natural, and is a natural extension of the
sexual orientation of homosexuality. The point I was making is
that it is only the STRAIGHT society that pressures homosexuals
to change to heterosexuals...

Of course, you claim gays recruit straight children -- which is
why I asked where all the straight teens were that were having
all the problems trying to change into a gay person...

>: Now you can see why spreading such lies as "homosexuality is not


>: natural and is sick" hurts gay people -- leading to suicide for
>: a lot of teens who are told intolerant and hateful things.

>A) I've always said homosexuality was largely a natural anomoly

Anomaly is a biased word, and you are using it with a negative
connotation to mean unnatural. If it is a naturall occurence
(which it is) then there is nothing wrong with the occurence if
it occurs in accordance with other morals -- namely that it is
done with consent of all participants and the act of homosexual
sex is performed only between the consenting partners.

>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.

That is a sick thing to say. It is THIS society -- the one you
call ideal -- that is killing gay kids. Your ideal society
supports suppressing information about gay people, and
characterising it as something which is not wanted. I suppose if
society were to change to be more like you want it, more gay kids
would die from the intolerance in it -- especially from their
parents. The same parents you glowingly glorify as PERFECT.

>: >Employers should be FREE to make such judgements.

>: Employers should have no right to ask information about one's
>: personal life. The only thing that employers should consider is
>: if a person can and does their job.

>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.

It didn't for me. Someone started a rumour and pried into my
personal life by contacting friends and past employers of mine.

I was terminated. I believed in the same principle. I suppose
this is another one of those IDEAL outcomes in your IDEAL world?

>: That is the judgement they are allowed to make -- to employ or


>: not based on rational job-related criteria.

>: I claim that employers have no right to meddle in my personal
>: life!

>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.

No. They should not. This is patently unfair. You do not know
of the discrimination this can lead to. I was terminated solely
on the basis of someone finding out -- even though I kept from
disclosing from my own ethical position of a no-need-to-know
position.

>: No, maybe we should sue for discrimination based on political
>: affiliation?

>Then I'll create Nose Pickers of America, pick my nose in front of my
>boss and sue should he respond appropriately. Silly politicization
>of socially irrelevent BEHAVIOR.

Wrong. How would one know you picked your nose at home? If you
picked your nose at work there might be a case. Of course, so
would there if you were having ANY sexual relationships at the
workplace -- heterosexual or homosexual.

Your argument supports me. Protections from discrimination based
on non-office related activities is required and is MORAL.

Or doesn't that morality have a place in your ideal world -- like
when it works against your anti-gay position?

>: >If I were an employer, I would personally not care what people do

>: >in the privacy of their bedrooms.

>: Well, that makes me feel very secure!!! NOT!

>: >Exceptions for me include the military
>: >and teaching - any institution that includes character as its keystone.

>: Are you saying gay people are totally devoid of character? But
>: my dear Ousey, you can clearly see that nothing above supports
>: this line. Homosexuality has been in the military and gay
>: teachers have always been in the classroom. It didn't affect the
>: world last century, when there was no way to spy on someone's
>: bedroom life!

>And things were peaceful when no one was politicizing their
>silly socially irrelevent behavior.

No one is now. Maybe if you had granted everything we asked for
in regards to equal protection, we'd not have to politicise to
get what we need to even survive on a day to day level!

Gay people will be quite content to make no fuss once society
treats us in a humane way.

It's part of the responsibility of the majority, to quote -- "The
best measure of a democracy is how well the majority provides
equality for the minority".

If the majority in this nation had cared to listen when we
challenged that things were not right or that we were being
denied essentially equal rights, then the minority would never
have had to complain.

But as the majority, the minority will complain until it gets its
way. It is all we have left as we are politically powerless in
essence.

>: You have no justification for them being discriminatory now! Gay


>: people are completely equal to heterosexual people in all ways
>: and all manners of public life...

>VALUES, VALUES, VALUES are what justify society and law. We can't turn
>the foundation into sand.

Values vary from person to person. Your values offend mine, and
restrict my values to only being able to work inside yours.

I find that to be offensive. With my choice in marriage, I do
not remove your right to exercise your values in your
relationship.

And that is the nutshell of this, your determination to squash
my freedom to self-determination -- if we had nothing but each
person, there would be no law to stop me living with my partner.

The law obstructs me from my day-to-day life. I consider that to
be a breach of fundamental freedoms and that which I was granted
from the Creator.

>: ... Unless, of course, you wish to subjugate us into second-class


>: citizenship where you have always considered us to belong.

>Your "full-citizenship" as you see it requires a fundamental cultural
>shift in which motherhood and fatherhood become disposable

So you agree that gay and lesbian people are not accorded equal
rights, protections, and "equal citizenship" in this society?

How convenient! Of course, the equalisation of these rights will
not affect existing heterosexual dominance.

>: Yes it does. It is a choice by two people for their own


>: happiness. It was found in Loving v Virginia that marriage was a
>: *pleasure* of life exercised in "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
>: HAPPINESS".

>Ugh... an unwise finding. Happiness should remain subjective.

Yes. I am not happy. I believe that should be rectified.

>Having federal standards of happiness should have died with Socialism.

This is the sort of bullshit that comes from you, Ousey. There
is no "federal standard" of happiness. It was recognised,
however, that marriage is something that brings happiness, and
that in Loving v Virginia, the denial of the marriage brought
MISERY.

This is exactly what you bring me with your denial of my want to
marry my partner Christopher -- and you claim to love the sinner.

This "sinner" is in complete misery because he cannot even
establish a life with his loved one -- how humane. You offer no
solution to this, why?

Now you can put your money where YOUR mouth is. I challenge you
to see how "socially irrelevant" my relationship is. Come down
to Dallas Fort Worth on June 20/21. You will see about 10 people
be ripped apart and all sent into misery because they do NOT have
a solution to their predicament and that they cannot live
together as a family.

You come down and comfort my partner's mother as she loses her
son again for the THIRD TIME in three years.

Yes. You offer nothing to solve this misery and inhumane
treatment. Your red herrings don't help solve this, do they?

I have a social value to my family, and you help in actively
ripping that apart.

I hope you have a conscience. I challenge you to be there.
I bet you don't have the courage.

>: Marriage is for the pleasure of those who wish to formalise their


>: love. Gay people want that too.

You never even answered this. I suppose love is such a foreign
concept to you that you don't even know what it is anymore.

>: And it will still recognise that, because you are extending


>: marriage to same-sex couples. That does NOT involve the denying
>: or removal of marriage as a right for heterosexual, child-bearing
>: couples.

>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.

Bullshit. Ideals would remain, as thre will be no change to the
status quo of how relationships are structureed, and only a
slight variation of the legal protections of ONE type relationship.

Your red herring of "ideals" does not work, Ousey.

>: The society values it as ideal, but science shows us that this


>: ideal need not be necessary. Further, as I have already stated,
>: the issue of allowing same-sex couples legal union is irrelevant
>: to the status of children -- heterosexuals will still have
>: children in and outside of marriage, and homosexuals will still
>: also have children. Your proposal would keep these children of
>: gay people outside of a stable legal union, rather than offering
>: a stable legal union.

>: It should be society's responsibility to provide same-sex
>: marriage for gay parents, so that they can exercise the marriage
>: tax break for their kids, and claim other benefits *for the
>: children*.

>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>disposable and irrelevent.

They will not be "disposable and irrelevant" but loved and
cherished by numerous adults during their childhood, from both
genders.

Of course, I don't see you screaming to have single parents
removed of their children because they cannot provide any role
models for their missing spouse!

Further, you are hypocritical to claim that my life and my
partner's and my family's lives are disposable or able to be
filled with misery by your impositions.

>: Please show me how providing equal legal union will diminish the
>: roles of parents?

>Obviously, there is an implicit PREREQUISITE exclusion of a natural parent.

There is an exclusion of TWO natural parents in adoption. What
is your point? Oh you meant sex-role models. Well, as I said,
children learn from ALL adults they meet, not just the parents.
Further, they will meet many thousands of adults who will provide
"male" and "female" role models for them.

I still don't see how this could possibly be related to two gay
people who marry, and have no children?

Why should they be penalised by your system of idealistic
bullshit?

>: Society can PERMIT something while NOT PROMOTING it -- smoking,
>: alcohol, etc, etc.

>Exactly.

>: Society does NOT SOCIALLY VALIDATE alcohol abuse, but permits


>: alcohol consumption. Society should similarly allow same-sex
>: union.

>But the State would VALIDATE it by acting as a legal partner in
>the marriage contract.

No... Not VALIDATE. PERMIT it. When you make a business
contract with another person, the state honors it by
administering the law. They do not VALIDATE the contract, only
permit the framework.

This is the same with the marriage contract, and you damn well
know it, so don't lie and make facetious claims of endorsement,
or validation or the ilk.

Parking permits get endorsed and validated, marriages get
permitted.

>As the State runs the educational system, so too
>does it have a say when choosing between PROMOTING, PRESENTING, and
>CONDEMNING a given issue of social relevence.

But this is not a broad based education, but a contractual
decision between two people. There is no indoctrination or
swaying of minds.

>Quality motherhood and fatherhood within wedlock should be PROMOTED.

Yes. And it can be done without restricting marriage legally.

Of course, considering you are basing this on a completely moral
argument, you could claim that since it is religion's role to
bolster the family values of society that it should be the CHURCH
doing the regulating of HOLY WEDLOCK and the state allowing
anyone to get married before a JP.

That way, the CHURCH is the one promoting the good marriages.

Ooops. You didn't think of that, did you, simpleton.

>: Your argument, as always, is completely shattered and flawed,


>: David. As a gay man, I'm no threat to "motherlessness". I have
>: of course no desire to have children. I do have a great desire
>: to marry my partner for three years so that we can live together.

>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>your mind.

Wrong. I am gay, and as my biological clock ticks, I will only
get more infuriated by the fact that you will not grant me what I
want to live my life.

And my bitterness will grow for you. Yes, you claim to love the
sinner -- with torment.

Cal Jacobson

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) cleared their throat and cried:
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:

: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
: >: busted...
: >Gulp...
: Gulp indeed!

I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.

--
CJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and probably not my employer's.
Live with it.

<http://www.mystech.com/~jake>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbara Lynne Nash

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
David Ousey <ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>be...@metronet.com wrote:
>
>: It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
>: gay or straight parents.
>
>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner. Don'y you
>think it would be less stigmatized and therefore less dangerous if
>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?

You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
anomalous or dangerous.

>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual


>: >activity, which generally leads to society.
>
>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>

>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".

Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.

These things are not beneficial to society?

>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to


>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>: mental health professionals agree that
>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>: objective scientific research over the past
>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>: emotional or social problems." -APA.
>

>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".

>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".
>

>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?

Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.

Safe sex is safe sex, whether you're straight or gay. Where's your
reasoning or proof that gay sexual behaviour (or gay behaviour at all) is
inherently dangerous?

>
>: > Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous


>: > behavioral component as does homosexuality.
>
>: Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
>: concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
>: that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?
>

>I could care less what you do in your bedroom. Just keep your bedroom


>away from the first grade and the Justice of the Peace, and we'll be
>fine.

Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
either.

>Question:
>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
> than not?
>

>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>we'll be OK.

In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
just want to get your way.

>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>sexually.

You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
or bisexual is not a choice. Sleeping with any particular individual
(excepting cases of rape) is. Bisexuals are attracted to members of both
genders. They, like gays or lesbians or straights, choose which *people*
within their group of 'people I'm attracted to' they wish to become involved
with.

>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).

What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
vaginas?

>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.

Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.

>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.

Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
street, or...

>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.

So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.

>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.

What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
You're talking yourself in circles.

>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>disposable and irrelevent.

Where the hell did that come from?

>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>your mind.
>

Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
of crap?


Barb -> Straight but not narrow
--
Barb Nash | bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu | Real Men Don't
English/Comp Sci. | bn...@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu | Fear Gays
Cal Poly, SLO, CA | "Remember the winds and the waves." -E. Sternberg

Conrad Sabatier

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
In article <3o3dao$d...@mystech.mystech.com>,

ja...@mystech.mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) wrote:
>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) cleared their throat and cried:
>: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>
>: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: >: busted...
>: >Gulp...
>: Gulp indeed!
>
>I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.

Possibly so.

All I can say is, when articles start reaching nearly a thousand lines
in length, it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and consider
what, if anything, is being accomplished here.

To paraphrase a line from the sleeve of the Mothers of Invention's
"Absolutely Free" album:

THIS THREAD IS UGLY AND IT WANTS TO DIE!

--
Conrad Sabatier -- con...@neosoft.com

Dewey

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to
On 1 May 1995, Publius wrote:

> Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
> they will be extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species
> lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS

This is so idiotic. I can't even imagine where people learn to think
like this. It is disgusting to me. It is also VERY disgusting that some
people still think of AIDS as a gay disease, I guess they won't figure
out the truth until they get it, not that I would wish that on anyone.

John

Publius

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to

Rod Swift

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:

>>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner. Don'y you
>>think it would be less stigmatized and therefore less dangerous if
>>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?

>You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
>anomalous or dangerous.

Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.

>>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".

>Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
>understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
>These things are not beneficial to society?

Nope. Ousey believes that the only thing beneficial to society
is a man and a woman parent together -- taxes, murder, thuggery,
rape, charity, hope, role-models, leadership, love, care,
compassion, etc, etc are all irrelevant because parents will save
the day!

[Although it is proven that the status-quo, by his own admission,
of two parent opposing gender households dominate but society is
still going to hell in a handbasket... I wonder why? Maybe it is
all the other really important things that make a good society...]

>>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
>>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>>: mental health professionals agree that
>>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>>: objective scientific research over the past
>>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>>: emotional or social problems." -APA.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".
>>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".
>>
>>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?

>Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
>The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
>between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
>about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.

For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).
He believes that children will get HIV from parents or some such
bunk. Basically, HIV has nothing to do with the ability to
parent. It does, however, have strong leanings to providing
marriage as an option for same-sex partners. The two fold
benefit is that we can remove domestic partnership laws (which
has allowed heterosexuals to get the unmarried partial benefits
that homosexuals cried out for in the 80s and 90s) and provide
monogamy as a role model for *gay* people.

It means heterosexuals will marry *more* and homosexuals will
also marry more -- this will promote monogamy and fidelity, and
hence less sexually transmissable disease of ALL types.

>Safe sex is safe sex, whether you're straight or gay. Where's your
>reasoning or proof that gay sexual behaviour (or gay behaviour at all) is
>inherently dangerous?

There is none. It's another elaborate red herring. And we all
know sexual activity has no bearing on the ability to parent or
raise children, or even be married which is the REAL question here.

>>I could care less what you do in your bedroom. Just keep your bedroom
>>away from the first grade and the Justice of the Peace, and we'll be
>>fine.

>Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
>lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
>either.

Yes. Let's remove heterosexual special rights. Let's destroy
marriage now, then we would not have all this fuss.
Heterosexuals would not be able to live with their foreign
partners, nor file joint income tax returns. Heterosexuals, now
because they are single, shall be subject to custody challenges
from concerned parents. Your partner dies without a will?
Tough, you don't get a red cent. And guess what, if your
"mother-out-of-law" doesn't like you, you can be kicked out of
the hospital room where your partner is dying, or from the
funeral.

Yes. Let's eliminate special rights for straights. They
wouldn't and haven't felt the injustice they cause same-sex
couples... Maybe they should feel that injustice?

>>Question:
>>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
>> than not?
>>
>>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>>we'll be OK.

>In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
>just want to get your way.

Yes. Ousey's bigotry is easy to get to if you wipe away the thin
layers of partial-civility.

>>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>>sexually.

>You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
>or bisexual is not a choice.

Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.

>>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).

>What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.

Nothing.

>What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?

Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
age.

>Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
>vaginas?

Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.

>>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
>> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.

>Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.

Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.

>>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.

>Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
>she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
>street, or...

Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I
won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
ask him.

>>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.

>So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
>orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.

See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
his loaded questions.... :)

>>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.

>What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
>You're talking yourself in circles.

Yes. It's all completely circular or fallacious, including the
following fallacies:

1) Marriage is for procreation (reality: for many
reasons, one of which *may be* procreation, as can
be seen by the fact that infirm people or elderly
people marry to comfort each other, and people who
are co-infertile marry, and people who love each
other marry, and the fact that the states have
delinked procreation from marriage, and that the
state has no right to annul a marriage if it turns
out to be between infertile people or one with a
post-menopausal wife).

2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)

3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:
they are fit, and it's provable)

4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this
is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
would be better than single families -- as single
families do not have one gender, and only have one
of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
completely condone and allow single families to exist).

5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a
"natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
as part of human conditioning or life).

6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
which are heterosexual. Further, sexually trans-
mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
parenting, except that they normally reduce the
incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
unmarried straights and gays).

>>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>>disposable and irrelevent.

>Where the hell did that come from?

Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
parents are identical in outcome and development as the
children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
minded and insular.

>>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>>your mind.

>Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
>behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
>of crap?

If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the
straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
marriage and kids....

I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay
parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!

What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to
hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
and "discardable".

Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!

Rod Swift

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
ja...@mystech.mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) writes:

>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) cleared their throat and cried:

>: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:

>: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: >: busted...
>: >Gulp...
>: Gulp indeed!

>I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.

Yes. But when do mothers gulp?

Russell Stewart

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
In article <3o3i0k$n...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu> (1 May 1995 13:57:56 -0700), Barbara Lynne
Nash(bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu) said...

>
>David Ousey <ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>>be...@metronet.com wrote:
>>
>>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>>: >activity, which generally leads to society.
>>
>>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
>
>Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
>understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
>
>These things are not beneficial to society?

Homosexuality is also helping (even if only minutely) to keep population
down; that is certainly beneficial to society.


--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/|
/_____________________________________________________________/ |
| Russell Stewart | Albuquerque | This space for rent | |
| dia...@rt66.com | New Mexico | Rates negotiable | /
|__________________|___________________|______________________|/
If the militias are our defense against the government, what is
our defense against the militias?


David Ousey

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
: bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:

: >You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
: >anomalous or dangerous.

: Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
: activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.

If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual activity
than someone who is not. As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual activity
(that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that homosexuality
is dangerous. If there was a natural phenomenon like homosexuality that
involved a genetic predisposition toward IV drug use (accounting for fewer
AIDS deaths in the US, but more globally), then even you would consider
that natural phenomenon a dangerous anomoly.

An anomoly, as I define it, is something that counteracts the intent of
nature. People are sometimes naturally born blind or with a mental illness.
These are natural anomolies. I was born cross-eyed. That was a natural
anomoly. Homosexuality counteracts the natural desire to sexually respond to
members of the opposite sex.

: >>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to


: >>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.

: >> Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".

: >Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
: >understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
: >These things are not beneficial to society?

: Nope. Ousey believes that the only thing beneficial to society
: is a man and a woman parent together -- taxes, murder, thuggery,
: rape, charity, hope, role-models, leadership, love, care,
: compassion, etc, etc are all irrelevant because parents will save
: the day!

I would go a long way in helping. Of course I never said hetero- exclusive
parenting was the ONLY ideal the State should advance. Others include:
promoting the general public health, advancing the cause of science,
advancing the exploration of space etc..

: Although it is proven that the status-quo, by his own admission,


: of two parent opposing gender households dominate but society is
: still going to hell in a handbasket... I wonder why? Maybe it is
: all the other really important things that make a good society...]

The divorce rate is at 50%, because of the selfishness and self-gratification
that characterized the baby-boomers who grew up (used loosely) in the late
'60s and 70s. That rate will likely recede, as ideals reemerge,
and cynicism toward marriage (and society in general) wanes.

: >>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high


: >>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?

: >Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
: >The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
: >between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
: >about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.

: For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
: invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
: possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).

We don't politicize our sexuality, though. Nor should that State form
a non-medical opinion on socially irrelevent (ie non-procreative) sexual
acts. I beleive that the implicit exclusion of a natural parent at the
heart of homoseuxal unions should not be validated by society with society's
consent to their marriage contract.

: He believes that children will get HIV from parents or some such


: bunk. Basically, HIV has nothing to do with the ability to
: parent. It does, however, have strong leanings to providing
: marriage as an option for same-sex partners. The two fold
: benefit is that we can remove domestic partnership laws (which
: has allowed heterosexuals to get the unmarried partial benefits
: that homosexuals cried out for in the 80s and 90s) and provide
: monogamy as a role model for *gay* people.

: It means heterosexuals will marry *more* and homosexuals will
: also marry more -- this will promote monogamy and fidelity, and
: hence less sexually transmissable disease of ALL types.

At the expense of claiming motherhood and fatherhood are irrelevent.
We VALUE them both, together. That's why it is not going to happen.

: >> Just keep your bedroom away from the first grade and the Justice

: >> of the Peace, and we'll be fine.

: >Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
: >lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
: >either.

It is not anomolous, and is quite necessary for the continuation of our
society. Homosexuality is socially irrelevent except when its characteristic
behavior poses a medical danger to society.

: Yes. Let's remove heterosexual special rights. Let's destroy


: marriage now, then we would not have all this fuss.
: Heterosexuals would not be able to live with their foreign
: partners, nor file joint income tax returns. Heterosexuals, now
: because they are single, shall be subject to custody challenges
: from concerned parents. Your partner dies without a will?
: Tough, you don't get a red cent. And guess what, if your
: "mother-out-of-law" doesn't like you, you can be kicked out of
: the hospital room where your partner is dying, or from the
: funeral.

: Yes. Let's eliminate special rights for straights. They
: wouldn't and haven't felt the injustice they cause same-sex
: couples... Maybe they should feel that injustice?

But heterosexuals are special. We are not anomolous and actually have
something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death. Homosexuality
may yield happiness for some people, but happiness is like religion - the
State allows us to freely pursue and exercise them while not VALIDATING
any one defintion.

: >>Question:

: >>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
: >> than not?

:>>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
:>>we'll be OK.

:>In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
:>just want to get your way.

: Yes. Ousey's bigotry is easy to get to if you wipe away the thin
: layers of partial-civility.

But, of course, the question remains unanswered.

: >>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my


: >>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
: >>sexually.

: >You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
: >or bisexual is not a choice.

: Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
: is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
: attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.

Well, Rod, you ignored bisexuality. What does the APA say about it? DO they
lack free will, too? Should they have the right to marry one member of each
sex, lest they be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?

: >>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural


: >>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).

: >What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.

: Nothing.

Generally all of the AVOIDABLE diseases that results, that society has to
pay for.

: >What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?

: Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
: age.

This definition can include incest (?).

Regardless, I don't care what sick things you do, as long as my kids don't
have to hear about it, nor ideals sacrificed.

: >Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
: >vaginas?

: Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
: but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.

When they have p's and v's (blush) then the sexual behavior actuallly has
some positive social relevance. Otherwise, why should society form
a non-medical opinion about anything sexual?

There, no religion involved with my answer.

I like to keep my religion and my happiness far above my politics, where
they belong.

: >>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than


: >> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.

: >Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.

: Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.

Do either of you have the facts wrt to my comment?
I am genuinely curious. It would seem to me that the suicide rate palls
in comparison vs. the death rate.

: >>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.

: >Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
: >she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
: >street, or...

Too bad. Freedom of expression. Heterosexual courtship rituals are also
socially relevent :-)

: Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I


: won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
: same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
: ask him.

Not gonna happen.
The ring might give it away for ME though.

:>>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character
:>>judgements.

: >So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
: >orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.

: See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
: his loaded questions.... :)

They implicitly are disposed to embrace a particular set of anomolous
behaviors. As long as they don't advertise their socially irrelevent
sexuality, then employers should not act on rumors, probing, or spying.
I, and any Republican worth his credibility, oppose such institutional
power over an individual life.

: >>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.

: >What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
: >You're talking yourself in circles.

It is simply anomolous, socially irrelevent, and sexually exclusive.

: Yes. It's all completely circular or fallacious, including the
: following fallacies:

: 1) Marriage is for procreation (reality: for many
: reasons, one of which *may be* procreation, as can
: be seen by the fact that infirm people or elderly
: people marry to comfort each other, and people who
: are co-infertile marry, and people who love each
: other marry, and the fact that the states have
: delinked procreation from marriage, and that the
: state has no right to annul a marriage if it turns
: out to be between infertile people or one with a
: post-menopausal wife).

The most important benefit TO SOCIETY of a marriage is a new member of
society. Ideally, society should work toward having all of its members
originating from the marriage institution with a mother AND a father.

This should not have to be made explicit in any law - it is simply a
VALUE that the majority of society holds.

: 2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:


: it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
: state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
: throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
: is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
: but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)

The State gets to choose the framework for gaining its consent. These four
standards involve disctrimination based on the age, sex, famial status, and
number of the parties attempting to enter into the marriage contract.
Similarly, business contracts and licenses require the parties to obey
commerce laws.

: 3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:


: they are fit, and it's provable)

I have never said that gays can't make great parents. Tarzan was raised by
a gorilla (or was it a chimp) and he turned out fine. If you propose a
standard revolving around the ability to parent, then you must be
consistent and acknowledge that incestuals and polygamists can make
swell parents, too.

: 4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this


: is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
: would be better than single families -- as single
: families do not have one gender, and only have one
: of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
: same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
: and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
: completely condone and allow single families to exist).

I agree that gay couples may have an advantage over single parents, but
the State does not attempt to reward single parents who are not married.
(Welfare may currently subsidize this lifestyle, but that will soon end.)
Regardless, the two sexes are not identical, and the differences usually
relate directly to to reproduction and child raising. Society should not
take a position to spell out gender roles, but society does VALUE this
natural sexual diversity and CONDEMNS the implicit social disposablility
of motherhood and fatherhood that homosexual unions suggest.

: 5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a


: "natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
: is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
: part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
: as part of human conditioning or life).

I have described homosexuality as "socially irrelevent" and a "natural
anomoly". Disease is also naturally occuring and an innate part of
humanity. Polygamy among males is also natural but is more of a cultural
anomoloy (in Western culture). WE do not have institutionalized polygamy
in our society becuase we VALUE our females equally, even though polygamy
may yield more members for society (ie socially relevent).

I have decribed homosexual behavior as "sick" and "wrong" as easily as I
would with IV drug use, which leads to fewer deaths in the US.

: 6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV


: affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
: 20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
: which are heterosexual.

It is the most preventable disease. All it takes is an exercise of free will.

: Further, sexually trans-


: mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
: parenting, except that they normally reduce the
: incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
: unmarried straights and gays).

Ideals, again, would have to be sacrificed for a small gain.

: >>Any children in such a situation will come to understand that since


: >>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
: >>disposable and irrelevent.

: >Where the hell did that come from?

: Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
: is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
: parents are identical in outcome and development as the
: children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
: and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
: minded and insular.

Again, an ideal would be sacrificed and any quantity,type, or species
of parenting can yield equal results.

: >>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
: >>your mind.

: >Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
: >behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
: >of crap?

Actually, it referred to Rod's desire to marry and his assurance that
since he currently wanted no children, I should feel reassured about
the non-potential for motherlessness to result.

: If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the


: straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
: marriage and kids....

Socially irrelevent.

: I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay


: parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!

You mean the implicit exclusion of a natural parent and the lack of a
social guarantee that a role model of each sex has legal responsibility
over the children? Yes, I have noted the ramifications.

: What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to


: hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
: feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
: and "discardable".

Discardible descibes the excluded sex parent. I have never described
children that way.

: Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!

Promoting ideals beats out yielding to cynicism.

At least our discussion, or any political discussion, should be about ideals,
not the apparent futility of pursuing them.

That's not the Star Trek spirit.

OOZMAN

Cal Jacobson

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95