Homosexual Oriegonean
TurnMeLoos
Oriegone taxpayers may be proud as they find themselves part of the first
provincial state in the nation giving homosexual partners of gay state
employees insurance benefits.
Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease, besides other human
ailments of non-state homosexual employees. When does the non-state
employee insurance benefit expire after the partnership dissolves? Since
many partnerships are never legally consummated, how can the taxpayer be
protected from paying benefits to simple friends of state employees?
Homosexual state employees, sans partners, have always had their choice of
health insurance.
Is it fair to traditional, consummated families of state employees? Are
traditional families bound to mores providing society with children,
community and social gatherings (soccer, sewing clubs et al) - the spirit
of comradeship - the defense of the nation? Factoid: according to the
People magazine on homosexual partnerships, [most] of their children are
not well adjusted , are not proud, are not comfortable, are not fitting
in
Thanks to shoe salesman past Oriegone Governor Goldschmidt, who took it
upon himself without legislative approval, there is no discrimination
against homosexuals by Oriegone state agencies. It is important that
people who are happy and homosexual be allowed to live their lifestyle.
However, when they intimidate, or force, their lifestyle on others, it
becomes an offense. Yes they do. Having four such experiences so far in
public settings, I am not ignorant of their tactics. It is an ugly
encounter: soft spoken, clammy hand shake, piercing eye contact, a tug on
the arm as you politely provide an innocent salutation. Then their
motivation smacks you and one becomes nauseated and defensive.
Hillary used the Oriegone health program as a model (and she almost got
away with nationalizing health care). Is health care a right of birthing
in the United States: from cradle to grave? If anything dissolves and
evolves into a freedom right, should not every household should be given a
telephone - one of the most important instruments in emergencies, in
caring for the family, in keeping communities together, in everyday life?
Only in Oriegone
Derek R. Larson
In article <4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
TurnMeLoos <turnm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Oriegone (sic) taxpayers may be proud as they find themselves part of the
>first provincial state in the nation giving homosexual partners of gay
>state employees insurance benefits.
You know, when I first heard the report on NPR that's EXACTLY the emotion
I felt-- pride that Oregon may be the first state to throw off the chains
of religious conformity in what has become a very secular act, and provide
equal benefits to all its citizens. It certainly fits with the state's
(once) progressive nature.
[wnip]
>[when will the non-state] employee insurance benefit expire after the
>partnership dissolves?
This and your other procedural objections are easily dealt with; many
major coporations (inc. Disney and Apple) already extend benefits to
domestic partners, regardless of sexual orientation. There are simple
ways to define the partnership so that they are dissolved when couples
split, just as there are simple ways to limit who qualifies in the first
place.
>Is it fair to traditional, consummated families of state employees? Are
>traditional families bound to mores providing society with children,
>community and social gatherings (soccer, sewing clubs et al) - the spirit
>of comradeship - the defense of the nation?
Ahh, the bigoted voice of ignorance. Many problems here, first off-- what
makes a "consumated" family? Children? If so, what makes adding to our
population problem such a good thing? Why do you assume heerosexual
couples are more likely to have "community and social gatherings?" And
what the hell does any of this have to do with the "defense of the
nation?"
>Factoid: according to the
>People magazine on homosexual partnerships, [most] of their children are
Oh! Stop already! People Magazine! Was this research confirmed by
Readers Digest also?
>against homosexuals by Oriegone state agencies. It is important that
>people who are happy and homosexual be allowed to live their lifestyle.
>However, when they intimidate, or force, their lifestyle on others, it
>becomes an offense.
Oh, yes, like those times when the courts find they are being illegally
discriminated against?
> Yes they do. Having four such experiences so far in
>public settings, I am not ignorant of their tactics. It is an ugly
>encounter: soft spoken, clammy hand shake, piercing eye contact, a tug on
>the arm as you politely provide an innocent salutation. Then their
>motivation smacks you and one becomes nauseated and defensive.
This is the typical reaction of someone that is, as they say, "insecure in
his own sexual orientation." Why exactly should you feel threated (much
less "nauseated") if someone finds you attractive? Why not a polite "no
thanks?"
>away with nationalizing health care). Is health care a right of birthing
>in the United States: from cradle to grave?
Not yet, but basic health care should be consider a right for all humans,
especially in a nation as wealthy as ours.
If figured this court decision would bring the OCA types back out of the
woodwork, but this was a quick one.
Any more balanced reactions to the decision out there? Is the state
going to appeal? One would expect so, if only to clarify their standing.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
"Nothing interesting occurred today..."
-Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Ghostdancer
TurnMeLoos <turnm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
> AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease,
Ah yes my little chickadee, ignorance also is a preventable disease and it
is curable too. Hie yourself to the nearest healer and open your mind and
let in the light of tolerance.
Ryan Shaw
In message <4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> - turnm...@aol.com (TurnMeLoos)
writes:
>Oriegone taxpayers may be proud as they find themselves part of the first
>provincial state in the nation giving homosexual partners of gay state
>employees insurance benefits.
here] the progressive state for some reason.
>Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
>AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease, besides other human
>ailments of non-state homosexual employees.
lung cancer is preventable. colon cancer is almost always preventable. why
should i pay for the expensive treatment of such a preventable disease?
>When does the non-state
>employee insurance benefit expire after the partnership dissolves? Since
>many partnerships are never legally consummated, how can the taxpayer be
>protected from paying benefits to simple friends of state employees?
this is rather easy to deal with. there are already several huge companies
[Disney] that extend benifits to domestic partners of all flavors
[*including* heterosexual couples]. there are ways to make a union `legal'
so that benifits are handed out correctly.
>Is it fair to traditional, consummated families of state employees? Are
>traditional families bound to mores providing society with children,
>community and social gatherings (soccer, sewing clubs et al) -
first, please define `traditional' in a global sense. i dare you to try to
make it fit everyone's sense of what traditional is.
second, what makes you thinks overpopulating the earth is a good thing?
thirdly, what makes you think these so-called `traditional' families are the
only ones that have a sense of community and hold social gatherings.
> the spirit
>of comradeship - the defense of the nation?
the defense of the nation? there are homosexuals in the armed forces.
> Factoid: according to the
>People magazine on homosexual partnerships, [most] of their children are
>not well adjusted , are not proud, are not comfortable, are not fitting
>in
people magazine?! now that's a credible source. thanks for clearing that
up. i now know you are a toilet seat philosopher.
>Thanks to shoe salesman past Oriegone Governor Goldschmidt, who took it
>upon himself without legislative approval, there is no discrimination
>against homosexuals by Oriegone state agencies.
as it should be. ALL citizens should have EQUAL rights. you are one sick
puppy if you think otherwise.
> It is important that
>people who are happy and homosexual be allowed to live their lifestyle.
>However, when they intimidate, or force, their lifestyle on others, it
>becomes an offense. Yes they do. Having four such experiences so far in
>public settings, I am not ignorant of their tactics. It is an ugly
>encounter: soft spoken, clammy hand shake, piercing eye contact, a tug on
>the arm as you politely provide an innocent salutation. Then their
>motivation smacks you and one becomes nauseated and defensive.
you are a special case. really, you are.
what this says to me is that you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality.
if you were comfortable with yourself, and your own sexuality you could
simply say `no thanks' and be on with your life instead of experiencing such
a thing and then writing this homophobic tripe on alt.culture.oregon.
you are making a specific group of people the subject of our ridicule. why
do you have to tear people down and persecute them in order to feel ok?
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`~*
...words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup...across the universe...
._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~~*-,._.,-*
rs...@gladstone.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~rshaw
rs...@oregon.uoregon.edu
C. O. Clause
In article <4unlu2$7...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Derek R. Larson <drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>TurnMeLoos <turnm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>first provincial state in the nation giving homosexual partners of gay
>>state employees insurance benefits.
>
>I felt-- pride that Oregon may be the first state to throw off the chains
>of religious conformity in what has become a very secular act, and provide
>equal benefits to all its citizens. It certainly fits with the state's
>(once) progressive nature.
(snipped for bandwidth)
Well said Derek. I felt pride too. Let's hope that people will realize
that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have committed relationships,
children, and attend family bbqs.
//Celia Clause
Ghostdancer
TurnMeLoos <turnm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
>
>
> Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
> AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease, besides other human
> ailments of non-state homosexual employees.
So you are saying that it would be okay for Oregonians to pay for the
treatment of only non-state heterosexual employees who have AIDS?
P Delaval
> If figured this court decision would bring the OCA types back out of the
> woodwork, but this was a quick one.
>
> Any more balanced reactions to the decision out there? Is the state
> going to appeal? One would expect so, if only to clarify their standing.
Unfortunately, those "evil, liberal, unionized scum" state employees will
probably be scapegoated again. Just look at the ballot measures! This is
not a good time for this to happen.
Personally, I see more and more reasons to allow homosexual marriages. If you
can "allow" people to marry for reasons other than child bearing, why should
anyone care who they are.
A marriage would give legal recognition of the relationship with all its
benefits and responsibilities. Divorce would be like any other divorce
with property settlements, etc.
Without this, I see a potential for scamming up the "ying yang." The taxpayers
of Oregon as well as other state employees whose benefits are already under
attack SHOULD be concerned.
Larry Caldwell
In article <4unkjc$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
turnm...@aol.com (TurnMeLoos) wrote:
> Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
> AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease, besides other human
> ailments of non-state homosexual employees. When does the non-state
> employee insurance benefit expire after the partnership dissolves? Since
> many partnerships are never legally consummated, how can the taxpayer be
> protected from paying benefits to simple friends of state employees?
As I'm sure you know, the state doesn't pay for health insurance for state
employees. The state *does* negotiate a set of group insurance plans for
employees that the employee can select from. There is also a cash allowance
set aside for each employee for health insurance. If the employee
chooses not to take the insurance, the savings are paid directly to the
employee as wages.
As I see it, the only difference is elegibility. BFD.
> Homosexual state employees, sans partners, have always had their choice of
> health insurance.
As they still will. No change.
> Is it fair to traditional, consummated families of state employees?
What difference does it make?
> Thanks to shoe salesman past Oriegone Governor Goldschmidt, who took it
> upon himself without legislative approval, there is no discrimination
> against homosexuals by Oriegone state agencies. It is important that
> people who are happy and homosexual be allowed to live their lifestyle.
Once again, what is the big deal? You *want* to go out and harrass someone
because you don't like their lifestyle? What business is it of yours?
I don't know about you, but I spend my energy harrassing people who really
tick me off, like people who use my place as a dirt bike track. Of course,
the law doesn't protect people who really deserve harrassing, so I can
lean on them to my little black heart's content. I can even call the cops
and the cops will harrass them for me. Then I can take them to court,
and the courts will harrass them for me.
Your rights stop at my fence line.
> However, when they intimidate, or force, their lifestyle on others, it
> becomes an offense. Yes they do. Having four such experiences so far in
> public settings, I am not ignorant of their tactics. It is an ugly
> encounter: soft spoken, clammy hand shake, piercing eye contact, a tug on
> the arm as you politely provide an innocent salutation. Then their
> motivation smacks you and one becomes nauseated and defensive.
You are evidently a latent homosexual who gives out "come on" vibes to
other homosexuals. You really need to learn not to come on to homosexuals
unless you mean it. I'm 49 years old and never had a homosexual come on
to me, but then I'm heterosexual. I happen to know several homosexuals,
and none of them have ever come on to me, though I've known some of them
for years. If you come to terms with your own sexual orientation, I'm
sure you will experience much less conflict.
> Hillary used the Oriegone health program as a model (and she almost got
> away with nationalizing health care).
Hillary didn't like the Oregon Health Plan, and opposed it. It took some
heavy lobbying by Kitzhaber and DeFazio to get the administration to sign
off on the necessary wavers. The Clinton's specifically objected to
prioritized care. For instance, if you have allergies there are some
fairly expensive and common treatments that are pretty much worthless.
Chances are you will get over your allergies yourself before any treatment
cures you. Therefore, the OHP doesn't cover allergies. They save enough
money not treating allergies to give several children a year a bone marrow
transplant, which is their last chance to recover and lead a normal life.
Probably a thousand children snuffle through life on sudafed for each child
that gets a bone marrow transplant. Not only that, but mommy and daddy get
to buy the sudafed because the OHP doesn't cover it. That's what prioritized
care is about. Put the available money where it will actually cure people
and help them live longer and more productive lives.
> Only in Oriegone
Your first post of Oregon factoids was kind of tongue in cheek and funny.
Now you're losing complete touch with reality, and a bunch of hate propaganda
isn't humorous. It's really not funny when you use lies and distortions
to demonize groups of people.
Everywhere you look in Oregon there are things to poke fun at.
The Great Exploding Whale caper may just be one of those immortal stories
people tell a hundred years from now.
The very first winner of the very first Oregon Megabucks lottery really
was a farmer who really did say, "Guess I'll just keep farming until it's
all gone."
There was the night DelMonte shut down it's whole cannery in Salem and
started tearing cans of beans apart. It seems the lab found half a mouse
in one of the sample cans, and they *really* wanted to find the other half
of the mouse. No, they never did.
Then there was the nameless OSC undergrad who wrote "Be Kind to Your Web
Footed Friends," to the tune of "Stars and Stripes Forever." I've heard
people sing it 3,000 miles away who have never heard of the U of O.
Polish up that sense of humor, dude. Let the rough side drag, keep the
shiny side up, and if you shoot out all the streetlights you'll see the
stars.
-- Larry
TurnMeLoos
Ok, big chick, a condom will do nicely.
TurnMeLoos
Oregoneans will pay (simply concept). Many are ignorance of prevention,
whether AIDS, polluted water, Indian Treaties, or their own health
insurance.
only in Oriegone...
TurnMeLoos
Proves Oregoneans are diverse
Jack Kemp
TurnMeLoos (turnm...@aol.com) wrote:
<among other things>
: Factoid: according to the
: People magazine on homosexual partnerships, [most] of their children are
: not well adjusted , are not proud, are not comfortable, are not fitting
: in
Two problems here. First, a factoid is something other than a fact. If
you have a fact, call it that. If you have a factoid, call it an opinion.
Second, you quoted People Magazine (I think). People Magazine is little
more than a mainstream version of the National Enquirer. If not for
these, I might have listened to your argument.
Jack Kemp
jk...@eosc.osshe.edu
Nick Bruels
Yet another zany-handled aol'r fails to learn how to
properly post a followup...
nickb
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ni...@cv.hp.com -is- Nick Bruels at Hewlett-Packard in Corvallis, Oregon
"Portland and Seattle are America's beer capitols." -- M. Jackson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Brown
Well, homosexuality defies the definition of marriage.
>Personally, I see more and more reasons to allow homosexual marriages. If you
>can "allow" people to marry for reasons other than child bearing, why should
>anyone care who they are.
Who would want the hassle??
>A marriage would give legal recognition of the relationship with all its
>benefits and responsibilities. Divorce would be like any other divorce
>with property settlements, etc.
???
Homer Brown
I don't think that the government should pay for treatment of diseases
such as AIDS which are terminal anyway. The money should go to those
whom it would help. So far as health insurance, well that should be
up to the provider.
>> Factoid: Oriegoneans will most likely pay for the expensive treatment of
>> AIDS (many hospice cases), a preventable disease, besides other human
>> ailments of non-state homosexual employees. When does the non-state
>> employee insurance benefit expire after the partnership dissolves? Since
>> many partnerships are never legally consummated, how can the taxpayer be
>> protected from paying benefits to simple friends of state employees?
>
Well, it seems that too often people forget those engaged in a
homosexual lifestyle are still human beings. Sexuality should not be
in the workplace anyway. Keep it at home.
>> Thanks to shoe salesman past Oriegone Governor Goldschmidt, who took it
>> upon himself without legislative approval, there is no discrimination
>> against homosexuals by Oriegone state agencies. It is important that
>> people who are happy and homosexual be allowed to live their lifestyle.
>> However, when they intimidate, or force, their lifestyle on others, it
>> becomes an offense. Yes they do. Having four such experiences so far in
>> public settings, I am not ignorant of their tactics. It is an ugly
>> encounter: soft spoken, clammy hand shake, piercing eye contact, a tug on
>> the arm as you politely provide an innocent salutation. Then their
>> motivation smacks you and one becomes nauseated and defensive.
>
Why be so rude? I can tell by your posts that you are in intelligent
person, why be so nasty as to suggest that this guy is homosexual?
You could have came up with a better reply. He has made it quite
clear that he opposes homosexual behavior.
>You are evidently a latent homosexual who gives out "come on" vibes to
>other homosexuals. You really need to learn not to come on to homosexuals
>unless you mean it. I'm 49 years old and never had a homosexual come on
>to me, but then I'm heterosexual. I happen to know several homosexuals,
>and none of them have ever come on to me, though I've known some of them
>for years. If you come to terms with your own sexual orientation, I'm
>sure you will experience much less conflict.
Homer Brown
ho...@viser.net
Celia C.
In article <321fe303...@news.viser.net>,
Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>
>Well, it seems that too often people forget those engaged in a
>homosexual lifestyle are still human beings. Sexuality should not be
>in the workplace anyway. Keep it at home.
>
*sigh* Do you keep your sexuality at home? No pictures of the wife
at work, never saying "my wife" in the presents of you co-workers,
never mention the house you just bought with your spouse. NO ONE
keeps their sexuality at home. Your partner (be it heterosexual or
homosexual) is a huge part of every aspect of your existence. Even
if you are single. Do you really NEVER mention that you have a date
when you are at work, never send your girlfriend flowers at work?
Never bring her to the company picnique?
>
>Why be so rude? I can tell by your posts that you are in intelligent
>person, why be so nasty as to suggest that this guy is homosexual?
I don't think that it is appropriate to accuse anyone who is
homophobic of being a homosexual, but I would hardly call
suggesting that someone is homosexual nasty.
//Celia Clause
Homer Brown
>>Well, it seems that too often people forget those engaged in a
>>homosexual lifestyle are still human beings. Sexuality should not be
>>in the workplace anyway. Keep it at home.
>>
>
>*sigh* Do you keep your sexuality at home? No pictures of the wife
>at work, never saying "my wife" in the presents of you co-workers,
>never mention the house you just bought with your spouse. NO ONE
>keeps their sexuality at home. Your partner (be it heterosexual or
>homosexual) is a huge part of every aspect of your existence. Even
>if you are single. Do you really NEVER mention that you have a date
>when you are at work, never send your girlfriend flowers at work?
>Never bring her to the company picnique?
>
not normal, not okay. But a persons personal life is THEIR personal
life and as long as they keep it to themselves and treat their
coworkers with respect it doesn't even matter if they have a romantic
relationship with their dog.
>>
>>Why be so rude? I can tell by your posts that you are in intelligent
>>person, why be so nasty as to suggest that this guy is homosexual?
>
>I don't think that it is appropriate to accuse anyone who is
>homophobic of being a homosexual, but I would hardly call
>suggesting that someone is homosexual nasty.
Why is it that someone who does not agree with homosexuality is a
homophobic person?? That is incorrect.
I do not agree with pedophilia, does that make me pedophobic, I do not
sanction sexual relations with dead people does that make me
necrophobic??
I think that people should treat each other honestly and with respect
irregardless of anything else like criminal history, sexual
orientation, political affiliation, gender, race, religion, etc.
However I do not feel that voicing concern about issues with which we
don't agree with in an appropriate forum (such as a newsgroup, church,
city hall, etc) is the same equivalent of parading in brown shirts as
it seems to often be implied.
So far as to not call homosexuality nasty... What do you call some
dude ripping another dudes fecal-filled anus apart?? Personally I
think that the term nasty might be appropriately applied here.
Derek R. Larson
In article <322274d2...@news.viser.net>,
Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>Yes, but homosexuality is a destructive and repugnent behavior. It is
>not normal, not okay.
What standard are you using to judge "normal"? If it fall soutside of
your personal reading of a modern translation of an ancient text of
dubious origin (your bible) that's your business, but what gives you the
right to push this view on others? I find your bigotry repugnant as well.
Most would find it destructive. Psychologists would probably not consider
it normal. But nobody has suggested that you should be persecuted for it,
much less told to hide it when in public.
>However I do not feel that voicing concern about issues with which we
>don't agree with in an appropriate forum (such as a newsgroup, church,
>city hall, etc) is the same equivalent of parading in brown shirts as
>it seems to often be implied.
Agreed. But when you advocate forcing homosexuals to "keep their
sexuality at home" and pretend to be something else simply to fit your
narrow definition of what's acceptible in the workplace, you cross the
line.
>So far as to not call homosexuality nasty... What do you call some
>dude ripping another dudes fecal-filled anus apart?? Personally I
>think that the term nasty might be appropriately applied here.
Colorful. Clearly you're well informed on the particulars of homosexual
eroticism, at least between gay men. Guess there's no point in talking
about candlelit dinners or walks on the beach with you...
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
Homer Brown
On 28 Aug 1996 13:51:57 GMT, drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R.
Larson) wrote:
>In article <322274d2...@news.viser.net>,
>Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>>Yes, but homosexuality is a destructive and repugnent behavior. It is
>>not normal, not okay.
>
>What standard are you using to judge "normal"?
Well, obviously people and animals are designed sexually for
male-female relationships. Do you dispute this?
I ask you what standard do you use to judge "normal"? Or do you have
any standards?
If it fall soutside of
>your personal reading of a modern translation of an ancient text of
>dubious origin (your bible) that's your business,
Yes, Homosexuality is a sin. But it is not necessary to bring the
bible into this. Yes, I am a Christian.
Is it okay for you to say that the Bible (The basis of most of the
world's religions - Christianity, Islam, Judism, Mormanism, etc) is
not correct but it is not okay for me to say that homosexuality is not
a correct behavior??
but what gives you the
>right to push this view on others?
How am I pushing my views onto others? Aren't you doing the same?
> I find your bigotry repugnant as well.
>Most would find it destructive. Psychologists would probably not consider
>it normal.
How is my opposition to a behavior biggoted?? As I said in my
original post people are people irregardless of anything else and
should be loved for that.
> But nobody has suggested that you should be persecuted for it,
>much less told to hide it when in public.
That sounds to me pretty much what you are suggesting.
>>However I do not feel that voicing concern about issues with which we
>>don't agree with in an appropriate forum (such as a newsgroup, church,
>>city hall, etc) is the same equivalent of parading in brown shirts as
>>it seems to often be implied.
>
>Agreed. But when you advocate forcing homosexuals to "keep their
>sexuality at home" and pretend to be something else simply to fit your
>narrow definition of what's acceptible in the workplace, you cross the
>line.
Homosexuality is a disgusting and immoral behavior. If that is a life
style that a person chooses that is their business. When they try to
force those around them to accept something that is wrong as something
that is right, then THEY are crossing the line.
>>So far as to not call homosexuality nasty... What do you call some
>>dude ripping another dudes fecal-filled anus apart?? Personally I
>>think that the term nasty might be appropriately applied here.
>
>Colorful. Clearly you're well informed on the particulars of homosexual
>eroticism, at least between gay men.
Yep, I had a friend that was homosexual, he had to have operations on
his anus and stuff because of damage. Unfortunately he died of AIDS a
few years back.
I do not think that it is abnormal at all for people of the same
gender to love each other, it is just abnormal for them to want to
have sex with each other.
>Guess there's no point in talking
>about candlelit dinners or walks on the beach with you...
A walk on the beach is fine, I'll pass on the candlelit dinner though.
:)
________________________________________________________________________
>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
> "Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
>-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
Department of History huh? I LOVE history! What is your position?
Homer Brown
ho...@viser.net
zach gemmill
In article 176...@news.viser.net, ho...@viser.net (Homer Brown) writes:
>
> Why is it that someone who does not agree with homosexuality is a
> homophobic person?? That is incorrect.
"Homophobic" is a political term. Literally, it has nothing to do with
fear of homosexuals though the meaning is inferred. And calling anyone
who disagrees with a homosexual lifestyle "homophobic" is a logical
fallacy: just saying something does not make it so.
> I do not agree with pedophilia, does that make me pedophobic, I do not
> sanction sexual relations with dead people does that make me
> necrophobic??
Nope. That would make you a "pedophilophobe" and a "necrophilophobe" !^)>
Zach
Homer Brown
>> I do not agree with pedophilia, does that make me pedophobic, I do not
>> sanction sexual relations with dead people does that make me
>> necrophobic??
>
>Nope. That would make you a "pedophilophobe" and a "necrophilophobe" !^)>
>
>Zach
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I guess that pedophobia would be the fear of feet??
Homer Brown
ho...@viser.net
>
>
>
>
Derek R. Larson
In article <3225a69a...@news.viser.net>,
Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 1996 13:51:57 GMT, drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R.
>Larson) wrote:
>>
>>What standard are you using to judge "normal"?
>
>Well, obviously people and animals are designed sexually for
>male-female relationships. Do you dispute this?
People are not "designed" to fly, live underwater or in space, live
through heart attacks, or weigh 900#. Yet people do all these things.
Is it relevant?
>I ask you what standard do you use to judge "normal"? Or do you have
>any standards?
I'd probably accept a definition of normal that included anything that
more than 50% of the population practiced, thus making it a "norm." So
smoking is "not normal" either. Normality is subjective and shouldn't be
used to judge the acts of others, especially acts that don't impact anyone
else (or any non-consenting others).
>Is it okay for you to say that the Bible (The basis of most of the
>world's religions - Christianity, Islam, Judism, Mormanism, etc) is
>not correct but it is not okay for me to say that homosexuality is not
>a correct behavior??
I don't believe I said it was incorrect. I did imply, however, that it is
unacceptible for you to proscribe the behaviors, identity, or beliefs of
others based on your personal religious or cultural tradition. Of course,
in the U.S. you can *say* whatever you want, but that doesn't give you the
right to take active measures to suppress the right of others to do the
same.
> but what gives you the
>>right to push this view on others?
>
>How am I pushing my views onto others? Aren't you doing the same?
Telling people to "keep their sexuality at home" but only applying that
standard to homosexuals is pushing your view on them, quite clearly. I am
advocating a non-discriminatory standard, if you will.
>Homosexuality is a disgusting and immoral behavior. If that is a life
>style that a person chooses that is their business. When they try to
>force those around them to accept something that is wrong as something
>that is right, then THEY are crossing the line.
I disagree. You are free to make a personal judgement that a "behavior"
is disgusting and immoral, yes. They also have the right to openly
advocate that you do otherwise. But we started this by talking about
forcing gays to "keep their sexuality out of the workplace," which someone
pointed out is *not* a standard that heterosexual persons are held to.
Can you provide any compelling reason that they should be singled out,
other than your personal, subjective opinion that something about them is
"not normal?"
[snip]
>I do not think that it is abnormal at all for people of the same
>gender to love each other, it is just abnormal for them to want to
>have sex with each other.
Why? Beyond your "square peg in a round hole" argument, why? Sexuality
at its best is an expression of love. Why deny it to consenting adults,
in any form? Love is rare enough as it is.
>>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
>> "Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
>>-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
>
>Department of History huh? I LOVE history! What is your position?
Doctoral student, teaching assistant, instructor-- I wear a variety of
hats, depending on the time of year. My research is in environmental
history and the American West, but I primarily teach 20th c. U.S. history.
-drl
--
Homer Brown
Yep, we don't agree on this subject. We probably aren't going to
either.
I would continue the debate but I don't see the point. I think that
both of our positions are clear.
>
>
>>>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
>>> "Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
>>>-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
>>
>>Department of History huh? I LOVE history! What is your position?
>
>Doctoral student, teaching assistant, instructor-- I wear a variety of
>hats, depending on the time of year. My research is in environmental
>history and the American West, but I primarily teach 20th c. U.S. history.
>
What do you mean by environmental history?
I love reading history. It does seem sad though that man seems to
fail to learn from history. It keeps being repeated again and again.
I am very concerned about the reemergence of black slavery in Sudan
and (umm, that other African nation that started with an M.)
Little Man With a Gun in His Hand
In article <322274d2...@news.viser.net>,
Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>So far as to not call homosexuality nasty... What do you call some
>dude ripping another dudes fecal-filled anus apart?? Personally I
>think that the term nasty might be appropriately applied here.
I can't help but notice that anti-gay crusaders on the net are
invariably obsessed with fecal matter.
Why is that?
Perhaps some counseling would be in order?
--
What we will have instead is a small island of new free music
surrounded by some good reworkings of past idioms and a vast
sargasso sea of absolute garbage.
Soren F. Petersen ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ so...@teleport.com
Derek R. Larson
In article <3226486c...@news.viser.net>,
Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>>>>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
>>>> "Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
>>>>-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
>>>
>>>Department of History huh? I LOVE history! What is your position?
>>
>>Doctoral student, teaching assistant, instructor-- I wear a variety of
>>hats, depending on the time of year. My research is in environmental
>>history and the American West, but I primarily teach 20th c. U.S. history.
>>
>
>What do you mean by environmental history?
Environmental history is a relatively new field, growing over the last 20
years or so from the study of the American West and what used to be called
"conservation history." It's an interdisciplinary approach to history
that examines changes in the human/nature equation (and the larger
environment) over time. This can range from studies of the history of
ecology (like Donald Worster's _Nature's Economy_) to investigations of
pre-Columbian agricultural practices to studies of the Sagebrush
Rebellion. My own work combines history, ecology, geography, folklore,
and rural sociology to form a model of the way the natural environment
affects the development of a distinct regional culture in the Pacific
Northwest; to be completely honest the same thing was done by Walter
Prescott Webb in 1931 (_The Great Plains_), at least after a fashion.
Basically, if you take any "regular" history course and look at everything
from the perspective of "how does the environment fit in here" you have
our approach, though that oversimplifies the more complex studies like
Worster's. For example, I'm teaching a course this winter on the history
of the U.S. National Park system, which will include ecology, geography,
politics, and culture in using the parks to reflect and highlight various
forces in American history over the 124 years since the first park was
founded.
It's good stuff, and students really relate to it.
>I love reading history. It does seem sad though that man seems to
>fail to learn from history. It keeps being repeated again and again.
That's possibly the ultimate message of environmental historians, but by
traddition we are an activist lot, commonly engaged in contemorary events
and politics as well as historical pursuits. Indeed, I do my best to
relate current events to historical practices, so students get an idea of
the historical roots behind issues like the New World mine outside of
Yellowstone, which Clinton just put a stop to. History underlies
everything, and is at its heart a political act, so there's little point
in divorcing it from current events.
regards-
Derek
jacque greenleaf
In article <505pkh$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, so...@teleport.com (Little
Man With a Gun in His Hand) wrote:
> In article <322274d2...@news.viser.net>,
> Homer Brown <ho...@viser.net> wrote:
>
> >So far as to not call homosexuality nasty... What do you call some
> >dude ripping another dudes fecal-filled anus apart?? Personally I
> >think that the term nasty might be appropriately applied here.
>
> I can't help but notice that anti-gay crusaders on the net are
> invariably obsessed with fecal matter.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Perhaps some counseling would be in order?
>
or even some basic anatomy/physiology. not to be gross, but anyone with a
"fecal filled anus" is going to be more interested in a laxative than sex.
zach gemmill
In article 289...@news.viser.net, ho...@viser.net (Homer Brown) writes:
>
> I guess that pedophobia would be the fear of feet??
Or fear of children???
Aladdin Sane
Or fear of bicycles and tricycles?