A problem with gay rights
Rob Arch Ward
marriage, it seems true to me that the pro-arguments are logical and
well-thought out.
It seems genuinely fair to extend these legal protections for
homosexual couples and retract DOMA (which cannot stand anyway due
to conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment), so that homosexual couples
have all the rights that het couples do as a matter of course.
However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
which support it.
Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality and that
although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them, and he is
actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
[for psychological stability],
he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
opinion is) ? Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
circumspect with his birth family.
What would happen if one of my straight brothers suddenly decided to
become polygamous and bring home three (3) wives ? Can the reader see
the repercussions and strife that such an action would engender in
a family ? What then is the difference between this and an expansion
of the marriage laws for same-gendered couples ?
--
------------------------------------------
(arms) rw...@smtpgw.arms.ohio-state.edu
(other) wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> (in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
> recognition of their relationships
Personally, my birth family loves my life partner and considers him an
intergal part of my family.
Since every gay male's birth family is different, some very accepting,
some not, how about we embrace the concept of *CHOICE* and allow every gay
person in a committed relationship the choice of how much or how little
they want to involve their family in their relationship.
Incedentally, this entire concept has little to do with legal gay
marriage. There are many straight couples whose marriages are met with
disapproval from the families involved.
> Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
> towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
> towards his family
Why would I want to do this? *MY* family is 100% accepting. Don't
generalize the less-than-accepting nature of *YOUR* family upon the entire
population. That's not very intellectually sound.
> What would happen if one of my straight brothers suddenly decided to
> become polygamous and bring home three (3) wives ? Can the reader see
> the repercussions and strife that such an action would engender in
> a family ? What then is the difference between this and an expansion
> of the marriage laws for same-gendered couples ?
Some families (especially if they are Morman) would have no problem with
polygamy. Once again you seem to be generalizing the less-than-accepting
nature of your family onto the entire population. Why should a gay man
with an accepting family be hamstrung because of your unique situation?
The whole idae of legalizing same-sex marriage is to provide everyone, gay
or straight, with the same rights as everyone else. If you personally
choose not to exercise your rights, well, that is up to you...only you
know your own situation.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
John De Salvio
> As a homosexual male, I concur with most of the arguments for legal gay
> marriage, it seems true to me that the pro-arguments are logical and
> well-thought out.
>
> It seems genuinely fair to extend these legal protections for
> homosexual couples and retract DOMA (which cannot stand anyway due
> to conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment), so that homosexual couples
> have all the rights that het couples do as a matter of course.
>
> However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> (in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
> recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
> like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
> portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
> support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
> clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
> of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
> much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
> as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
>
> So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
> which support it.
>
> Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
> towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
> towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
Yes.
He can refrain from getting married. He can still cowtow to ignorant
and/or bigoted parents. He can hang on to the apron strings.
He can wallow in self-pity about his "plight."
He can relegate his life to one without a loving mate not ashamed
to love and be loved.
But not at the expense of all those who want legally recognized
same-se marriages.
So your argument has no bearing whatsoever on the legal
question at hand.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Ezekiel Krahlin
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
>that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
>towards guys.
Your family can go to hell and suck eggs.
>That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
>(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
>for the desires of their birth families
The wishes of one's birth family is often at odds with gay integrity.
If it comes down to acquiescing to them, or doing what's right, I
certainly will opt for the latter. If any family member acts offended
over my freely expressed love for my same-sex partner...he or she can
go to hades and eat leeches.
>support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
>clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
>of homosexual relationships in open society,
Personally, I'm fed up with blatant flaunting of heterosexuals...as if
their relationship were God's gift to man. I'm also fed up with have
female organs shoved in my face wherever I go, just to entice me to
buy some product or other. Women's rights also has a bone to pick on
objectifying the female for crass commercialism.
>Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
>towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
>towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
To cowtow to such repression, is putting yourself in the line of
friendly fire. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd sooner divorece myself from
my blood family, than permit them to regard me as some sort of freak,
even if tacitly.
---
Pennsylvania Dutch Gay Jesus says:
"Throw the hetero over the fence some hay."
---
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
I cum like a thief in the night!
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
Allen
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
>that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
>towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
>(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
>for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
>recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
>like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
>portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
>support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
>clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
>of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
>much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
>as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
Rob, this is a matter between you, your self-esteem, and your family.
Perhaps all of you need counseling. There are plenty of gays out
there who are accepted by their parents, and their sexual orientation
and partnered relationships don't cause them any embarrassment.
To limit the rights of others based on whether or not a family will be
embarrassed in asinine because every family will react in its own way.
>So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
>which support it.
How, exactly, does open relationships figure into this? You make it
sound as though that's all that gay people can expect to have.
>Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
>towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
>towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
Only if he chooses, but that choice shouldn't be forced upon others
for whom it is not an adequate solution.
>that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality
Why should I "apologize" to anyone for not "fully understanding" my
being gay?
Do you fully understand the biological and mental processes that make
you a male? Does anyone? If anyone did, there would be no further
need to study it if the information could be distributed. So since we
don't, should we restrict rights based on gender? Should we be
apologizing to people for being men?
>and that
>although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them,
>and he is
>actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
>[for psychological stability],
Many gay romances are not clandestine. Why should we force all of
them to be? What if the family isn't embarrassed by it but actually
supportive of it?
>he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
>himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
>any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
Some people just can't live this way. Why would you propose to limit
their freedom? Why must gay men hide themselves for the comfort of
others? Being tactful is one thing, being a closet-case is quite
another.
>Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
>not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
>variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
>opinion is) ?
You can befuddle yourself all you want. If you want to foster a
negative self-image of yourself by thinking of yourself as mentally
defective, go right ahead. It's your life.
But any shrink with any shred of credibility will tell you that a
negative self-image, regardless of HOW or WHY it is formed, can be
detrimental to your psychological well-being if it's strong enough.
Your choice to indulge your oh-I'm-so-pitiful-because-I'm-a-gay-man is
going to bring about the same amount of happiness as a strong belief
that no one would ever want you because you're ugly. You're
performing nothing less than self-flagellation.
Nobody can stop your from living your life in mental misery, Rob. You
can only make that choice for yourself. But to attempt to force that
world-view on others or extrapolate it to everyone you perceive as
being gay is gross egotism on your part.
The psychiatric and psychological fields long ago established that gay
people can be and are well-rounded, mentally healthy individuals if
they accept themselves. The genetics vs. choice controversy is
irrelevant to being *happy* with yourself.
> Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
>to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
>circumspect with his birth family.
So are you going to force me to live by this creed? When I had a
partner, he was accepted as a full member of the family and came to
holiday celebrations with tons of extended family attending. Everyone
treated him wonderfully. Why on earth would I want to present the
appearance that I was ashamed of having him there?
>What would happen if one of my straight brothers suddenly decided to
>become polygamous and bring home three (3) wives ? Can the reader see
>the repercussions and strife that such an action would engender in
>a family ?
If it was against the family's religion, yes. But religion and sexual
orientation, while they define a person's identity, are fundamentally
different things. You might as well be making the comparison of
bringing my partner to meet the family to me announcing to them that I
was going to become a Hari Krishna. The former would go over FAR
BETTER than the latter.
>What then is the difference between this and an expansion
>of the marriage laws for same-gendered couples ?
The difference is that the legal recognition of polyamourous marriages
could only happen with a new interpretation of the freedom of
religion. But no one can argue that polygamists can't marry the
person of their choosing, they are just limited in the number that are
recognized.
Plus if you look at the thoery behind it, the law HAS TO decide a
number at some point, otherwise, in theory, a person could marry any
number of people and that would trash innumerable other laws, upseting
virtually every area of life. Therefore if the government has the
right to decide on a limiting number it is perfectly within its right
to limit the number to 2 people. Basic contract law.
Same-sex marriage is based on the discrimination of gender, a fixed
and immutable trait. And it specifically says two people of the same
gender CANNOT MARRY AT ALL, a law which denies a segment of the
secular public from marrying the people they love. When the
government starts dictating WHO can particpate in a contract based on
gender and not on questions within its scope such as the number of
people involved, it engages in a nefarious form of discrimination that
is based on animus rather than any legitimate reason such as
unworkability or negative impact on the functioning of the courts.
Allen
---------------------------
afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com
Address fudged to foil spam-bots. Take out the HATESPAM for correct address.
Rob Arch Ward
>
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:04:33 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> >However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> >that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> >towards guys.
>
That is your opinion - however, since these are the only
family I have, I am more solicitous than you, a stranger,
of their opinion of how I should conduct myself
> >That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> >(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> >for the desires of their birth families
>
> The wishes of one's birth family is often at odds with gay integrity.
> If it comes down to acquiescing to them, or doing what's right, I
> certainly will opt for the latter. If any family member acts offended
> over my freely expressed love for my same-sex partner...he or she can
> go to hades and eat leeches.
[see above]
> >support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
> >clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
> >of homosexual relationships in open society,
>
> To cowtow to such repression, is putting yourself in the line of
> friendly fire. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd sooner divorece myself from
> my blood family, than permit them to regard me as some sort of freak,
> even if tacitly.
I think that a man of kindness and compassion would be very
solicitous of his parents and pay good attention to how they would
prefer that he conduct himself in society, so as not to besmirch
the good reputation of his family in general society. Society may
know that the man is homosexual, however, in his expression of his
affections
towards his close companions, he is discreet and judicious in the public
display of such affections.
His intelligent discretion is a worthy object of general admiration.
Rob Arch Ward
>
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:04:33 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> >However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> >that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> >towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> >(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> >for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
> >recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
> >like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
> >portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
> >support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
> >clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
> >of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
> >much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
> >as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
>
> Rob, this is a matter between you, your self-esteem, and your family.
> Perhaps all of you need counseling.
Why do I or any in my family need counseling since we hold possibly
diverging opinions of which human relationships should be recognized in
a
moral society ?
> There are plenty of gays out
> there who are accepted by their parents, and their sexual orientation
> and partnered relationships don't cause them any embarrassment.
>
> To limit the rights of others based on whether or not a family will be
> embarrassed in asinine because every family will react in its own way.
But this is the crux of the matter - one family views open homosexuality
as immoral, and they don't want "gay" relationships to be further
accepted
in society, certainly not in law. This is the Christian viewpoint, that
it should not be accepted in society because it will lead to further
moral degradation if accepted legally - and harems of women for men
may one day again be accepted, because we have diverged from the
original definition.
So, what is wrong with a family being against that (legal recognition) ?
Families may genuinely believe that it is immoral and we have to stop
somewhere...
why not at gay marriage ?
> >So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
> >which support it.
>
> How, exactly, does open relationships figure into this? You make it
> sound as though that's all that gay people can expect to have.
At PFLAG, which supposedly is an organization in support of the
homosexual
male, you cannot hold the opinion that gay marriage is not a valid
way for the homosexual male to life his life, just because it is immoral
and is not a valid way to build families (due to an unquestioned belief
in a Christian model for how societies should be structured) - it
is very pro-gay-marriage and thus in conflict with the way certain
families believe how homosexual men should comport themselves
So, they say that they support the homosexual male, yet they have a
decided political agenda to pursue. It is not a unbiased, apolitical
interest in the homosexual male.
This is what I meant.
> >Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
> >towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
> >towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
>
> Only if he chooses, but that choice shouldn't be forced upon others
> for whom it is not an adequate solution.
OK - I see your point
However, there are those that hold that *all* gay males should bend
in acquiesence on this point, to encourage the continuance of stability
in the definitions of legally-recognized relationships in society
> >that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality
>
> Why should I "apologize" to anyone for not "fully understanding" my
> being gay?
You dont have to apologize to anyone
However, when it comes to changing the legal relationships recognized
by society, since science seems not to have much agreement on such a
complex
topic, a portion of society is very leery of changing these legal
definitions
A lot of families, my own included, prefer the older definitions
> Do you fully understand the biological and mental processes that make
> you a male? Does anyone? If anyone did, there would be no further
> need to study it if the information could be distributed. So since we
> don't, should we restrict rights based on gender? Should we be
> apologizing to people for being men?
>
> >and that
> >although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them,
> >and he is
> >actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
> >[for psychological stability],
>
> Many gay romances are not clandestine. Why should we force all of
> them to be? What if the family isn't embarrassed by it but actually
> supportive of it?
So, this is where one family is different than another family,
about how it prefers its members to conduct themselves when in open
society.
Essentially, one family feels that it is more moral to have
homosexual members that actively refrain from certain activities and
definitions of their personal relationships for the good of the family,
so that the family is not embarassed.
Another family would not call a "gay" relationship that one
of its members undertakes an "embarassment".
> >he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
> >himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
> >any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
>
> Some people just can't live this way. Why would you propose to limit
> their freedom? Why must gay men hide themselves for the comfort of
> others? Being tactful is one thing, being a closet-case is quite
> another.
>
> >Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
> >not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
> >variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
> >opinion is) ?
>
> You can befuddle yourself all you want. If you want to foster a
> negative self-image of yourself by thinking of yourself as mentally
> defective, go right ahead. It's your life.
>
> But any shrink with any shred of credibility will tell you that a
> negative self-image, regardless of HOW or WHY it is formed, can be
> detrimental to your psychological well-being if it's strong enough.
> Your choice to indulge your oh-I'm-so-pitiful-because-I'm-a-gay-man is
> going to bring about the same amount of happiness as a strong belief
> that no one would ever want you because you're ugly. You're
> performing nothing less than self-flagellation.
>
> Nobody can stop your from living your life in mental misery, Rob.
Allen, I can assure you that I am not in mental misery.
Actually, there are a number of str8 guys, brothers and friends with
whom I have discussed this matter at great length and they are
supportive
of the idea that yes, being homosexual may quite be a defective genetic
anomaly.
Yet, these str8 males do not love me any the less, and in fact,
are probably even more accepting of me since I dont go around acting
like a "Im-gay-you-now-must-accept-me-in-toto,-and-immediately-grant-me
-whatever-I-want" type attitude that you see so prominently today. In
general, they are impressed with my objective attitude to the whole
thing.
I dont make demands that we change legal definitions of relationships in
society due to the feelings that I have towards other males.
So, what am I supposed to do ? Can you not see that in any
case, acting conservative, with the general demeanour of a single,
bachelor male, additionally, trying to be as widely read as you can on a
very
complex and divisive topic can only be interpreted as an intelligent
thing to do, instead of becoming openly "gay" and asking for legal
recognition
of your relationship from everyone, and deriding a questioning and
skeptical
large section of the public as being "ignorant" and "bigoted" and "in
need
of psychological help" (LOL)
> You
> can only make that choice for yourself. But to attempt to force that
> world-view on others or extrapolate it to everyone you perceive as
> being gay is gross egotism on your part.
>
> The psychiatric and psychological fields long ago established that gay
> people can be and are well-rounded, mentally healthy individuals if
> they accept themselves.
So I accept myself as homosexual. Fine. I try to be as well-rounded
as I can. I have male companions with whom I am sufficiently
affectionate,
these guys are near and dear to me.
So where does becoming "gay" and spending the rest of my life
trying to (within 25 yrs, maybe) change all of US society so that
certainly legal re-definitions of marriage will occur to recognize
my "gay relationship" ?
> The genetics vs. choice controversy is
> irrelevant to being *happy* with yourself.
>
> > Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
> >to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
> >circumspect with his birth family.
>
> So are you going to force me to live by this creed? When I had a
> partner, he was accepted as a full member of the family and came to
> holiday celebrations with tons of extended family attending.
That is just your family. My family would view such acceptance as
immoral,
that all moral families should not do. They would say "We cannot
encourage
such behavior with the male adults, because the children would get a
possibly misinformed opinion of what constitutes a balanced human
marriage,
that of a man and wife".
"The man may truly be homosexual and want to have a dearly beloved
homosexual
companion. However, it is not on an equal plane with the relationship
between
a man and a woman, and will not be honored morally as such."
That's all it is.
> Everyone
> treated him wonderfully. Why on earth would I want to present the
> appearance that I was ashamed of having him there?
So whats the difference between you and a man of greater discretion
who only says "This is my closest male friend, not a homosexual lover,
although we are both homosexual" (irregardless of the physical
expression
that both men affectionately performed with one another)
Are not the men in the second group more circumspect about their
life circumstances, not requiring the acquiescence of general society
to change fundamental constructions of legal relationships that families
recognize, than the first homosexual male couple, (yours), who presents
themselves to society and thus demands such acquiescence ?
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> That is your opinion - however, since these are the only
> family I have, I am more solicitous than you, a stranger,
> of their opinion of how I should conduct myself
See how annoying it is for a stranger to judge YOUR family -- yet you are
trying to judge OTHER PEOPLE'S families by saying that all gay people,
even those with real loving and accepting families, behave in the same
pathetic and servile manner you are.
Now, go get me a glass of water and a napkin....and mind your manners, will ya?
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> At PFLAG, which supposedly is an organization in support of the
> homosexual
> male, you cannot hold the opinion that gay marriage is not a valid
> way for the homosexual male to life his life, just because it is immoral
> and is not a valid way to build families (due to an unquestioned belief
> in a Christian model for how societies should be structured) - it
> is very pro-gay-marriage and thus in conflict with the way certain
> families believe how homosexual men should comport themselves
Those people are free to start or join other groups.
> However, when it comes to changing the legal relationships recognized
> by society, since science seems not to have much agreement on such a
> complex
> topic, a portion of society is very leery of changing these legal
> definitions
Yes, this is why education is an important part of the political process.
> A lot of families, my own included, prefer the older definitions
And a lot prefer the new definitions. Why should your family get to veto
what my family wants?
We have to look towards a higher authority -- the Constitution.
> Allen, I can assure you that I am not in mental misery.
You have been all over the map in the past month or so. Your opinions, and
posting have swung wildly from one extreme to another. You got kicked out
of PFLAG. You apparently have been losing friends and respect in the Ohio
State and Columbus communities. You are seen as a "loose cannon"
You might not be in "mental misery" but you are certainly not a model of
stability or consistancy.
> So, what am I supposed to do ? Can you not see that in any
> case, acting conservative, with the general demeanour of a single,
> bachelor male, additionally, trying to be as widely read as you can on a
> very
> complex and divisive topic can only be interpreted as an intelligent
> thing to do, instead of becoming openly "gay" and asking for legal
> recognition
You wish to be acknowledged for your nobility. Instead you just look pathetic.
You also like to be seen as "widely read" and some kind of intellectual.
Well, you are not, any more than a monkey at a chess board moving pieces
around could be considered a master of the game.
(thanks ward!)
> > So are you going to force me to live by this creed? When I had a
> > partner, he was accepted as a full member of the family and came to
> > holiday celebrations with tons of extended family attending.
>
> That is just your family. My family would view such acceptance as
> immoral,
> that all moral families should not do. They would say "We cannot
> encourage
> such behavior with the male adults, because the children would get a
> possibly misinformed opinion of what constitutes a balanced human
> marriage,
> that of a man and wife".
This is because your family is made up of bigots who hate gay people. They
hate you! Your own family. Shocking!
> "The man may truly be homosexual and want to have a dearly beloved
> homosexual
> companion. However, it is not on an equal plane with the relationship
> between
> a man and a woman, and will not be honored morally as such."
>
> That's all it is.
>
> > Everyone
> > treated him wonderfully. Why on earth would I want to present the
> > appearance that I was ashamed of having him there?
>
> So whats the difference between you and a man of greater discretion
> who only says "This is my closest male friend, not a homosexual lover,
> although we are both homosexual" (irregardless of the physical
> expression
> that both men affectionately performed with one another)
The difference is that the second man is a liar.
Lying is immoral.
Ward Stewart
Salvio) wrote:
>In article <361248...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
>wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
>> As a homosexual male, I concur with most of the arguments for legal gay
>> marriage, it seems true to me that the pro-arguments are logical and
>> well-thought out.
>>
>> It seems genuinely fair to extend these legal protections for
>> homosexual couples and retract DOMA (which cannot stand anyway due
>> to conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment), so that homosexual couples
>> have all the rights that het couples do as a matter of course.
>>
>> However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
>> that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
>> towards guys. That is the heart of the matter,
I cannot suppress an angry reaction which tells me that your family is
ashamed of you -- instead or rejoicing because you are demonstrating
that your rearing was such that you are able to give and receive love
(surely THE paramount human virtue) they are concerned with what the
neighbors may think.
A possible answer might be that you will accede to their wishes if
they will accommodate you by attending PFLAG on some regular basis
We MUST NOT accept second-class status in our society or in our
families -- it is infamous and indecent --
ward
>> clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
>> of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
>> much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
>> as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
The use of the word "flaunting" is the ABSOLUTE give-away that you are
dealing with homophobia, plain and simple!
>>
>> So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
>> which support it.
>>
>> Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
>> towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
>> towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
>
>Yes.
>
>He can refrain from getting married. He can still cowtow to ignorant
>and/or bigoted parents. He can hang on to the apron strings.
>
>He can wallow in self-pity about his "plight."
>
>He can relegate his life to one without a loving mate not ashamed
>to love and be loved.
>
>But not at the expense of all those who want legally recognized
>same-se marriages.
>
>So your argument has no bearing whatsoever on the legal
>question at hand.
Actually, it has considerable bearing in that it reveals the depths to
which the victim of such homophobia is driven -- to deny love so that
'phobes may be more comfortable with their neighbors.
It is as if one had married a Black girl and, in order to keep the
neighbors happy, had forced her to bleach her skin. VILE!
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Steve Caldwell
-snip-
> But this is the crux of the matter - one family views open homosexuality
> as immoral, and they don't want "gay" relationships to be further
> accepted
> in society, certainly not in law. This is the Christian viewpoint, that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, to be precise, the above opinion is merely "a Christian
viewpoint." Christianity isn't monolithic in its response to
homosexuality. There are Christians who are open and tolerant and there
are Christians who view this openness and tolerance as misguided at best
and evil at worst.
Take care,
Steve
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steve Caldwell
srca...@iamerica.net http://cust.iamerica.net/srcaldwe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
--Blair Houghton
Allen James
you, even unto footing the electroshock bill, in order to save themselves
the possible 'embarrasment' of having a happy gay son?
And you actually consider them MORAL, and proponents of homosexual
marriage IMMORAL?!?
Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Letao
In article <361248...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
[. . . ]
> However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> (in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
> recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
> like two guys who are close friends]
[. . . ]
> Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
> towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
> towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
> that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality and that
> although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them, and he is
> actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
> [for psychological stability],
> he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
> himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
> any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
>
> Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
> not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
> variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
> opinion is) ? Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
> to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
> circumspect with his birth family.
It is your responsibility to educate your family. The coming out process
can often be similar to a grieving process, relinquishing dreams put in
place since childhood, and somehow struggling through to create meaning
for oneself once again.
It is not only you who comes out, but your family as well. They need to
move beyond acceptance to understanding. They need to understand who you
are, inclusive of your sexual orientation, because they will be confronted
with the issue among their friends and other family members. They need to
know how to respond, they need time to absorb the new reality they're
confronted with and make sense of it themselves.
Regardless of the origins of sexual orientation (of any type), your sexual
orientation exists and is an integral part of you. By acquiescing to the
closet, which is what "circumspect" means, you close your family off from
an integral part of your life. It is a part of your life through which
your derive joy, and are able to create joy in the world. Why should that
part of you remain hidden to your family? Each of your family members
will have some understanding of and experience with that joy, that part of
themselves through which they feel love. Through that experience, they
will be able to understand yours.
Good luck.
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
John De Salvio
> Allen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:04:33 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> > <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
> > >that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
> > >towards guys. That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
> > >(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
> > >for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
> > >recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
> > >like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
> > >portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
> > >support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
> > >clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
> > >of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
> > >much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
> > >as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
> >
> > Rob, this is a matter between you, your self-esteem, and your family.
> > Perhaps all of you need counseling.
>
> Why do I or any in my family need counseling since we hold possibly
> diverging opinions of which human relationships should be recognized in
> a
> moral society ?
Quite possibly because your family is ashamed of you and thinks you are sick?
Just because they do not come right out and say it, doesn't mean it is not so.
> > There are plenty of gays out
> > there who are accepted by their parents, and their sexual orientation
> > and partnered relationships don't cause them any embarrassment.
> >
> > To limit the rights of others based on whether or not a family will be
> > embarrassed in asinine because every family will react in its own way.
>
> But this is the crux of the matter - one family views open homosexuality
> as immoral, and they don't want "gay" relationships to be further
> accepted
> in society, certainly not in law.
What does YOUR morality say? Or do you not have two legs to stand on?
Do you not have the capability to think for yourself?
Do YOU think you are sick?
> This is the Christian viewpoint, that
> it should not be accepted in society because it will lead to further
> moral degradation if accepted legally - and harems of women for men
> may one day again be accepted, because we have diverged from the
> original definition.
It is one of the very archaic holdovers of pre-Christian knowledge of
homosexuality.
>
> So, what is wrong with a family being against that (legal recognition) ?
>
> Families may genuinely believe that it is immoral and we have to stop
> somewhere...
> why not at gay marriage ?
They can be agansyt it all they want. But they CANNOT legislate on basic
human rights. The US Supreme Court declared marriage to be a basic
human right, and said nothing to qualify as to the sex of the partner.
>
> > >So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
> > >which support it.
> >
> > How, exactly, does open relationships figure into this? You make it
> > sound as though that's all that gay people can expect to have.
>
> At PFLAG, which supposedly is an organization in support of the
> homosexual
> male, you cannot hold the opinion that gay marriage is not a valid
> way for the homosexual male to life his life, just because it is immoral
> and is not a valid way to build families (due to an unquestioned belief
> in a Christian model for how societies should be structured) -
The key to youyr problem is the phrase "unquestioned belief".
Stop being a stupid sheep. God gave you a brain and the admonition to
not hide your talents under a bushel.
Other people have seen the wonders of God's continuing creation
(including the possibility that He created homosexuals just so that
not EVERYONE procreated in a crowded planet}.
it
> is very pro-gay-marriage and thus in conflict with the way certain
> families believe how homosexual men should comport themselves
>
> So, they say that they support the homosexual male, yet they have a
> decided political agenda to pursue. It is not a unbiased, apolitical
> interest in the homosexual male.
>
> This is what I meant.
Having spoken erroneously about PFLAG in the past, you do not expect
us to agree with this, do you?
I would rather hear PFLAG's version.
>
> > >Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
> > >towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
> > >towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
> >
> > Only if he chooses, but that choice shouldn't be forced upon others
> > for whom it is not an adequate solution.
>
> OK - I see your point
>
> However, there are those that hold that *all* gay males should bend
> in acquiesence on this point, to encourage the continuance of stability
> in the definitions of legally-recognized relationships in society
Then THOSE people should not marry same-sex partners. If the stability
of heterosexual marriages is dependent upon whether or not two guys
get married, then marriage is a sham to begin with.
That whole believe is laughable in its face.
> > >that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality
> >
> > Why should I "apologize" to anyone for not "fully understanding" my
> > being gay?
>
> You dont have to apologize to anyone
>
> However, when it comes to changing the legal relationships recognized
> by society, since science seems not to have much agreement on such a
> complex
> topic, a portion of society is very leery of changing these legal
> definitions
Like a portion of society was very leery in allowing interracial marriages.
It was the EXACT same arguments.
>
> A lot of families, my own included, prefer the older definitions
Do they prefer horses to cars? Ice boxes to refrigerators?
Stage coaches to jet planes?
>
> > Do you fully understand the biological and mental processes that make
> > you a male? Does anyone? If anyone did, there would be no further
> > need to study it if the information could be distributed. So since we
> > don't, should we restrict rights based on gender? Should we be
> > apologizing to people for being men?
> >
> > >and that
> > >although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them,
> > >and he is
> > >actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
> > >[for psychological stability],
> >
> > Many gay romances are not clandestine. Why should we force all of
> > them to be? What if the family isn't embarrassed by it but actually
> > supportive of it?
>
> So, this is where one family is different than another family,
> about how it prefers its members to conduct themselves when in open
> society.
Right. Let one family determine who gets rights and who does not.
No way, Jose.
> Essentially, one family feels that it is more moral to have
> homosexual members that actively refrain from certain activities and
> definitions of their personal relationships for the good of the family,
> so that the family is not embarassed.
Translation: So that the neighbors don't know I have a sick pervert for a son,
and blame me for raising such a pathetic child.
Do you understand how shallow your family "values" are?
>
> Another family would not call a "gay" relationship that one
> of its members undertakes an "embarassment".
Fortunately, the trend is toward total acceptance. MOST parents want their
children to live happy, fulfilled lives. If it is as a gay person, MOST families
want them to find whatever happiness that life will bring. MOST families will
not dictate what their grown children do "for the sake of the neighbors.".
>
> > >he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
> > >himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
> > >any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
> >
> > Some people just can't live this way. Why would you propose to limit
> > their freedom? Why must gay men hide themselves for the comfort of
> > others? Being tactful is one thing, being a closet-case is quite
> > another.
> >
> > >Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
> > >not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
> > >variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
> > >opinion is) ?
> >
> > You can befuddle yourself all you want. If you want to foster a
> > negative self-image of yourself by thinking of yourself as mentally
> > defective, go right ahead. It's your life.
> >
> > But any shrink with any shred of credibility will tell you that a
> > negative self-image, regardless of HOW or WHY it is formed, can be
> > detrimental to your psychological well-being if it's strong enough.
> > Your choice to indulge your oh-I'm-so-pitiful-because-I'm-a-gay-man is
> > going to bring about the same amount of happiness as a strong belief
> > that no one would ever want you because you're ugly. You're
> > performing nothing less than self-flagellation.
> >
> > Nobody can stop your from living your life in mental misery, Rob.
>
> Allen, I can assure you that I am not in mental misery.
Sure coulda fooled me. But perhaps you are fooling yourself.
>
> Actually, there are a number of str8 guys, brothers and friends with
> whom I have discussed this matter at great length and they are
> supportive
> of the idea that yes, being homosexual may quite be a defective genetic
> anomaly.
You sure know how to pick your friends, pal.
It must give them a woodie when you agree with them.
>
> Yet, these str8 males do not love me any the less, and in fact,
> are probably even more accepting of me since I dont go around acting
> like a "Im-gay-you-now-must-accept-me-in-toto,-and-immediately-grant-me
> -whatever-I-want" type attitude that you see so prominently today. In
> general, they are impressed with my objective attitude to the whole
> thing.
You don't act like those "uppity niggahs" who don't know what's
good for them.
> I dont make demands that we change legal definitions of relationships in
> society due to the feelings that I have towards other males.
It looks like you don't make very many decisions on your own at all.
At leat none with any sense of conviction.
>
> So, what am I supposed to do ? Can you not see that in any
> case, acting conservative, with the general demeanour of a single,
> bachelor male, additionally, trying to be as widely read as you can on a
> very
> complex and divisive topic can only be interpreted as an intelligent
> thing to do, instead of becoming openly "gay" and asking for legal
> recognition
> of your relationship from everyone, and deriding a questioning and
> skeptical
> large section of the public as being "ignorant" and "bigoted" and "in
> need
> of psychological help" (LOL)
What are you calling "openly gay"? Most people who are "openly gay"
treat it as a matter-of-fact theng. There is no "prancing," or "demanding"
of anything but EQUAL TREATMENT.
Your family is using their religion as an excuse to hide behind.
And all you can say is "Yessuh Massah."
>
> > You
> > can only make that choice for yourself. But to attempt to force that
> > world-view on others or extrapolate it to everyone you perceive as
> > being gay is gross egotism on your part.
> >
> > The psychiatric and psychological fields long ago established that gay
> > people can be and are well-rounded, mentally healthy individuals if
> > they accept themselves.
>
> So I accept myself as homosexual.
Let me know when that happens.
> Fine. I try to be as well-rounded
> as I can. I have male companions with whom I am sufficiently
> affectionate,
> these guys are near and dear to me.
>
> So where does becoming "gay" and spending the rest of my life
> trying to (within 25 yrs, maybe) change all of US society so that
> certainly legal re-definitions of marriage will occur to recognize
> my "gay relationship" ?
You don't try to "change all of society". You stand for what is the
legal right of every citizen of the United States. As to the "legal
definition" of marriage, there is no one definition. Otherwise DOMA
would not have been passed. The problem in Hawaii was that they
were demanded to obey the EXISTING LAW. Not "change" anything.
>
> > The genetics vs. choice controversy is
> > irrelevant to being *happy* with yourself.
> >
> > > Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
> > >to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
> > >circumspect with his birth family.
> >
> > So are you going to force me to live by this creed? When I had a
> > partner, he was accepted as a full member of the family and came to
> > holiday celebrations with tons of extended family attending.
>
> That is just your family. My family would view such acceptance as
> immoral,
Then grow up and decide who is going to live your life for you.
What a sissy!
> that all moral families should not do. They would say "We cannot
> encourage
> such behavior with the male adults, because the children would get a
> possibly misinformed opinion of what constitutes a balanced human
> marriage,
> that of a man and wife".
They're getting a misinformed opinion right now. Look at you.
>
> "The man may truly be homosexual and want to have a dearly beloved
> homosexual
> companion. However, it is not on an equal plane with the relationship
> between
> a man and a woman, and will not be honored morally as such."
WHY? Explain that in detail. And we are talking about CIVIL marriage here.
> That's all it is.
Yeah right.
>
> > Everyone
> > treated him wonderfully. Why on earth would I want to present the
> > appearance that I was ashamed of having him there?
>
> So whats the difference between you and a man of greater discretion
> who only says "This is my closest male friend, not a homosexual lover,
> although we are both homosexual" (irregardless of the physical
> expression
> that both men affectionately performed with one another)
One gets admiration, the other gets snickers.
Or are you too blind to see that?
>
> Are not the men in the second group more circumspect about their
> life circumstances, not requiring the acquiescence of general society
> to change fundamental constructions of legal relationships that families
> recognize, than the first homosexual male couple, (yours), who presents
> themselves to society and thus demands such acquiescence ?
The only "demand" is equal treatment under the law.
What have you got against that, other than you are too chicken-shit to
live your own life?
Letao
> But this is the crux of the matter - one family views open homosexuality
> as immoral, and they don't want "gay" relationships to be further
> accepted
> in society, certainly not in law. This is the Christian viewpoint, that
> it should not be accepted in society because it will lead to further
> moral degradation if accepted legally - and harems of women for men
> may one day again be accepted, because we have diverged from the
> original definition.
>
> So, what is wrong with a family being against that (legal recognition) ?
That is their right, (as individuals), to believe what they believe.
However, it should be pointed out to them that by doing this, they are
denying the humanity of one of their own. They are hurting one of their
family members (you) by denying an integral part of him - that of deriving
joy from the world and contributing joy to it.
If that is considered moral by anyone's standards, then I want nothing to
do with their morality.
> Families may genuinely believe that it is immoral and we have to stop
> somewhere...
> why not at gay marriage ?
Why not go further back and stop at straight marriage? The slippery slope
they believe in needs to have started somewhere, why not with them? They
are the ones who inculcated their hopes and dreams of marriage and family
in you as you grew up, along with the values that contribute to whatever
goodness you possess as an adult. Now, as an adult, they will deny you
the choice to make the decision of whom you will marry? Sorry, Robert,
but that's just crap, and I don't buy it.
Letao
> That is just your family. My family would view such acceptance as
> immoral,
> that all moral families should not do. They would say "We cannot
> encourage
> such behavior with the male adults, because the children would get a
> possibly misinformed opinion of what constitutes a balanced human
> marriage,
> that of a man and wife".
>
> "The man may truly be homosexual and want to have a dearly beloved
> homosexual
> companion. However, it is not on an equal plane with the relationship
> between
> a man and a woman, and will not be honored morally as such."
>
> That's all it is.
To put it bluntly: And it's crap.
It is not moral to deny an essential and integral part of another person's
humanity, that of hir capacity to experience love and to create love
within the world.
To cloak such an act in the guise of morality is bullshit. Sorry, Robert,
but that's how I feel about "their issue".
Mike Silverman
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
[ referring to RAW ]
> Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
> the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
> blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
I just checked, and Columbus Ohio hosts an "Exodus" group. While I am
loathe to ever suggest that someone check one of these groups out, I think
it is safe to say they couldn't fuck Robert Ward up any more than he
already is.
Get thee to Exodus.
And out of here.
Allen James
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
> In article <shrapnel-300...@hezron-10.d.enteract.com>,
> shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
>
> [ referring to RAW ]
>
> > Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
> > the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
> > blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
>
> I just checked, and Columbus Ohio hosts an "Exodus" group. While I am
> loathe to ever suggest that someone check one of these groups out, I think
> it is safe to say they couldn't fuck Robert Ward up any more than he
> already is.
>
> Get thee to Exodus.
>
> And out of here.
>
Harsh of us? Not really, Mr. Ward. And, no, our harshness is not a
reaction to your 'questioning' of alleged homosexual 'dogma'. You are
obviously suffering as a result of your inability to insist that your
parents treat you with love and respect. If you really believe that their
'discomfort' with your orientation is more important than your mental
health and well-being, then by all means learn to subvert your feelings
for their sake. However, you may, upon further reflection, realize that
your parents DO NOT have the right to demand that you hide your own
existence in fear that the nieghbors might talk about them, nor do they
have the right, unless you grant it, to treat you like garbage.
Magenta
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> doth speak:
>As a homosexual male, I concur with most of the arguments for legal gay
>marriage, it seems true to me that the pro-arguments are logical and
>well-thought out.
>
>It seems genuinely fair to extend these legal protections for
>homosexual couples and retract DOMA (which cannot stand anyway due
>to conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment), so that homosexual couples
>have all the rights that het couples do as a matter of course.
>
>However, my family prefers that I keep my sexual life private and
>that I conduct myself discreetly when it comes to my private affections
>towards guys.
*Your family* prefers? Do you only do what your family prefers, or
what you prefer? Is your life dictated by others?
> That is the heart of the matter, should gay males
>(in particular) sublimate (to some degree) their personal affections
>for the desires of their birth families and not petition for legal
>recognition of their relationships [which to the outside world looks
>like two guys who are close friends] or, should they spend large
>portions of their lives and personal fortunes electing candidates that
>support legal gay marriage and recognition of their relationships when
>clearly many ppl, my parents included, would not want an open flaunting
>of homosexual relationships in open society, as our society has become
>much freer in discussion of this contentious topic. It would be seen
>as bringing an embarassment upon the family.
Robert, you have some serious internalized homophobia to deal with. I
did not read your previous rants, but I read what others wrote about
them. This post shows you are not yet healed. You really need to look
at what you just wrote and THINK about it.
>So, I have disagreements with the open-relationship crowd, and PFLAG,
>which support it.
>
>Cannot the gay male bend somewhat in acquiescence
>towards his birth family and enact some sort of discretion as a nod
>towards his family and a general conservative demeanour in general,
>that since he does not fully understand his homosexuality and that
>although he is not lying to women and not deceiving them, and he is
>actively pursuing a clandestine, affectionate affair with another guy
>[for psychological stability],
>he is discreet and somewhat laconic about the whole thing, presenting
>himself to society as a single, bachelor male in public, not making
>any public demonstration of his affections towards males.
Why? Your family is uncomfortable with your homosexuality because we
live in a society filled with homophobic attitudes and they, and you,
are a product of those attitudes. They will never get used to your
homosexuality until YOU get used to your homosexuality. When you can
have a relationship with someone openly, and discuss gay related
issues with your family openly, then they will open up to you.
Think about what you are asking, and if that is really a life that you
want for yourself. Do you feel embarrassed about who you are? I am not
asking about your family, but how YOU feel about yourself.
Do you think that there is something wrong with you because you are
gay- do you feel that you are sick or evil?
>Can the reader see that the guy himself may not really know whether or
>not male homosexuality is a true mental defect state or is a natural
>variance of the spread of human sexuality (regardless of what scientific
>opinion is) ? Thus, it makes sense for the guy to be more guarded as
>to how he presents himself in public and that he is certainly very
>circumspect with his birth family.
No, I cannot see this. Let's say that homosexuality IS a defect, not
just a variation. Should you be embarrassed about this defect? Is a
defect something you should be ashamed of and hide? For example,
dwarves and giants are "defective" aren't they? Should they live in
hiding and fear?
Let's say homosexuality is a normal part of human variation, like left
handedness. Should you live your life in fear, hiding, and self-hatred
just because of the bigotry of others? Wouldn't it be better to work
to diminish that bigotry, so future gay people won't have the problems
you are dealing with now?
The issue is not WHY you are gay, but the fact that BEING gay is not a
bad thing- it is just something that society views as a bad thing.
Being homosexual harms no one so it is nothing to be embarrassed
about.
>What would happen if one of my straight brothers suddenly decided to
>become polygamous and bring home three (3) wives?
Fine with me.
>Can the reader see
>the repercussions and strife that such an action would engender in
>a family?
Yes- can you see that your brother and those three women are adults
and have a right to live their own lives as they see fit? Can you see
that even with the strife that would arise in the family, if they
truly loved your brother they would get over it?
> What then is the difference between this and an expansion
>of the marriage laws for same-gendered couples ?
Nothing. I am all for legalizing polyandrous/polygamous marriages.
--
+----- Peace & Love, ----+------- Magenta77 (at) AOL (dot) com ------+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"There are more things in heaven and earth,|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| |...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|_________ _/ __________|_________________--[Hamlet Act I: Scene V]_|
RavensHeart
wrote:
>In article <shrapnel-300...@hezron-10.d.enteract.com>,
>shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
>
>[ referring to RAW ]
>
>> Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
>> the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
>> blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
>
>I just checked, and Columbus Ohio hosts an "Exodus" group. While I am
>loathe to ever suggest that someone check one of these groups out, I think
>it is safe to say they couldn't fuck Robert Ward up any more than he
>already is.
>
>Get thee to Exodus.
>
>And out of here.
>
on cmh.lesbigay, Robert wrote this very morning:
>. I am now going to cease posting to the USENET
>discussion groups for awhile, as it seems to just engender more
>seemingly endless discussion, without resolution one way or the
>other.
As you can see, there is no integrity in anything he writes.
ital...@hotmail.com
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> That is your opinion - however, since these are the only
> family I have, I am more solicitous than you, a stranger,
> of their opinion of how I should conduct myself
Although I can't put my finger on it, I get the impression this issue about
'family' means something deeper to you than what you're expressing here.
> I think that a man of kindness and compassion would be very
> solicitous of his parents and pay good attention to how they would
> prefer that he conduct himself in society, so as not to besmirch
> the good reputation of his family in general society.
To the extent that a gay person can function in society and achieve an optimum
degree of happiness, I agree. Otherwise you're selling your life short.
"Besmirch the good reputation" is oftentimes a code phrase to indicate
disapproval of your actions by your family. Be wary when actions receiving the
heterosexual nod of approval are disapproved for homosexuals, even if such
actions are carried out in basically the same context/setting.
> Society may know that the man is homosexual, however, in his expression
> of his affections towards his close companions, he is discreet and
> judicious in the public display of such affections.
Apply EXACTLY the same set of rules to heterosexuals and you have my blessing.
> His intelligent discretion is a worthy object of general admiration.
The keyword is 'intelligent'. It is neither worthy nor intelligent for anyone
to suppress those things that fulfill a life full of ambitions, dreams, and
goals. Ever notice how people tend to SHUN and JUDGE discernably unhappy
people? Use this as a clue to determine if the rules you've accepted are in
your best interest.
Check out your feelings on codewords and phrases before you accept any rules
your family (or society) dishes out. If these things interfere with your
happiness, it's time to take a look at WHY you accept them.
--
Steve Giammarco
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nicole Lasher
I think I've found a sort of balance with my family, but, unfortunately,
that relative peace means literal distance.
They know of my sexual orientation, but still don't quite "accept" it.
My parents are still blaming themselves, or factors in my childhood and
upbringing for it. No matter how much these two highly educated people
hear about sexual orientation, they still hold on to the archaic "devil
must be in it somewhere" idea. They are xians, and no matter what
anyone tells them, or how many homosexual people they work with, and
know, nothing can change their belief that homosexuality is a sin (that
should be punishable by death or reprogramming).
So I have a sort of tooth fairy way of talking to them...
They believe that their god is as he is depicted in the bible, and that
the doctrine they swallow is real, and though they are more progressive
than most xians, they are still not quite at the xianity as a
discipline, rather than a religion stage, so when I talk to them, I
humor their belief.
They know I have a different philosphy, but they don't mind as long as I
don't try to change them. They, of course, don't offer me the same
courtesy, so for that reason, I don't contact them alot, and have made a
point of living at least 100 miles away from them since I was 18, if it
was at all possible.
Sometimes, we sacrifice a little inner peace to maintain external
peace. I sort of resent the fact that we (as people of "alternative"
sexualities) have to parent many of our parents this way, but it is a
fact of life. I wish it weren't so.
~Niki
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <cubsfan-3009...@dv146s27.lawrence.ks.us>,
> cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
>
> > In article <shrapnel-300...@hezron-10.d.enteract.com>,
> > shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
> >
> > [ referring to RAW ]
> >
> > > Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
> > > the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
> > > blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
> >
> > I just checked, and Columbus Ohio hosts an "Exodus" group. While I am
> > loathe to ever suggest that someone check one of these groups out, I think
> > it is safe to say they couldn't fuck Robert Ward up any more than he
> > already is.
> >
> > Get thee to Exodus.
> >
> > And out of here.
Why Mike ? Can't I post here to aph just like you post ?
Why do you want me to join a discredited counseling organization ?
Can you explain that ? Don't you do any reading ?
And BTW Im an atheist, how is that organization going to help me out ?
Gee, you certainly are somewhat testy over something...
> Harsh of us? Not really, Mr. Ward. And, no, our harshness is not a
> reaction to your 'questioning' of alleged homosexual 'dogma'. You are
> obviously suffering as a result of your inability to insist that your
> parents treat you with love and respect. If you really believe that their
> 'discomfort' with your orientation is more important than your mental
> health and well-being, then by all means learn to subvert your feelings
> for their sake. However, you may, upon further reflection, realize that
> your parents DO NOT have the right to demand that you hide your own
> existence in fear that the nieghbors might talk about them, nor do they
> have the right, unless you grant it, to treat you like garbage.
>
> Allen James
Allen,
Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
But since I have more intelligently not brought any of my homo friends
home to meet the parents and have not paraded around any "gay lovers",
all the neighbors see (or anyone for that matter)
is a very healthy and successful bachelor engineer who is very
respectful
of his parents - and loves his parents so much as to allow them the
human dignity not to have to be interested in
my personal or private life
But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
They are all very decent guys, and my parents are highly intelligent
and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
had it thrown in their faces for years.
--
------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and
additionally those of any/all of the "FORTUNE(tm)
500" top-producing multinational corporations.
"Hm...lets lie down for 30 mins and then find
out if we still want to do that, OK?" -Rob Ward
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> > > Get thee to Exodus.
> > >
> > > And out of here.
>
> Why Mike ? Can't I post here to aph just like you post ?
Sure. Hope you have thick skin.
> And BTW Im an atheist, how is that organization going to help me out ?
Well, maybe you can get in contact with one of the "secular" psychiatrists
at NARTH. You obviously do not want to be gay -- why don't your try as
hard as you can to change?
> Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
How shameful for your loving family.
> But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
> to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
> nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
> regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
Why the word "tortured?"
Most gays peoples' parents, such as my own and many of the posters here
are not "tortured" at all -- rather they are happy for their kids and
fully accept their life partners as part of the family.
Just because you are self-hating and a loser with crappy parents doesn't
mean we all are!
> Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
> They are all very decent guys, and my parents are highly intelligent
> and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
> had it thrown in their faces for years.
Obviously they are NOT very intelligent if their understanding of
homosexuality is so poor. You might as well have told us that they are
members of the Flat Earth Society.
Mike Silverman
(RavensHeart) wrote:
[ refering to RAW ]
> As you can see, there is no integrity in anything he writes.
I don't believe he himself has any integrity.
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <cubsfan-3009...@dv146s27.lawrence.ks.us>,
> cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
>
> > In article <shrapnel-300...@hezron-10.d.enteract.com>,
> > shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) wrote:
> >
> > [ referring to RAW ]
> >
> > > Perhaps you should go ask for the 'therapy' funding, and save your parents
> > > the potential 'embarrasment' of your eventual realisation of their
> > > blatantly unloving, immoral treatment of you.
> >
> > I just checked, and Columbus Ohio hosts an "Exodus" group. While I am
> > loathe to ever suggest that someone check one of these groups out, I think
> > it is safe to say they couldn't fuck Robert Ward up any more than he
> > already is.
> >
> >
> > And out of here.
Why Mike ? Can't I post here to aph just like you post ?
Do you seem to have problems with my postings ?
Are they not to your liking ? What, specifically is WRONG with my
postings, huh ? Mike, please be VERY specific, OK ?
Why do you want me to join a discredited counseling organization ?
Can you explain that ? Don't you do any reading ?
And BTW Im an atheist, how is that organization going to help me out ?
Gee, you certainly are somewhat testy over something...I wonder what it
is !!
Mike, honestly, you seem to have problems with...logical thinking !
> Harsh of us? Not really, Mr. Ward. And, no, our harshness is not a
> reaction to your 'questioning' of alleged homosexual 'dogma'. You are
> obviously suffering as a result of your inability to insist that your
> parents treat you with love and respect.
But this is blatantly false.
All they have ask me is to take the homosexual affections privately.
That's it ! Im not cut out of the will, and they still love me with a
good degree of excellent affection (you know what ? they love me enough
NOT to take ANY interest in my life and allow me a great deal of free
scope...its a blast)
I cannot agree with what you write - its nonsensical.
They are very well read ppl - and they are not all religious.
Most of my family members are atheists.
They just say
"Yeah, Rob, all that 'gay' ranting and raving may
be interesting to you, but its not interesting to us, so just
keep a lid on it. Just use condoms, get the pecs & sex, and keep
it discreet. The smart man is always intelligently discreet, society
will see that and accord that guy great status, since he is genuinely
concerned about not necessarily having ppl stomach whatever particular
philosophy or viewpoint he holds. Thats the way the world is.
Also, dont bother us with it, we're not interested."
But I also am not interested in their lives and their AARP mtgs they
attend, all the elderhostel trips they take, etc. Look, do they ask
me to attend AARP meetings and listen to long lectures on their
personal philosohpies ? No - its all boring as heck. So, I have
my interests (incl homosexual affection with guys, discreetly) and
they have theirs.
They do what they want
and I do what I want and then we see each other 3 months later
and compare notes.
> If you really believe that their
> 'discomfort' with your orientation is more important than your mental
> health and well-being, then by all means learn to subvert your feelings
> for their sake.
I am not subverting my feelings when in their company. I just curtail
them temporarily and when back in my own environment I have great guys
that I workout with at my favorite bathhouse (oops! lets not use that
word
in polite "gay" company...I'll replace it with "private health club for
gay males")
that I am very affectionate with (and it is all not just sex, its lots
of
massaging and hugging, kissing, etc) with, done discreetly and wisely
not
forcing it upon everyone I come across...
> However, you may, upon further reflection, realize that
> your parents DO NOT have the right to demand that you hide your own
> existence in fear that the nieghbors might talk about them, nor do they
> have the right, unless you grant it, to treat you like garbage.
>
> Allen James
Allen,
Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
But since I have more intelligently not brought any of my homo friends
home to meet the parents and have not paraded around any "gay lovers"
for
all the neighbors to see (or anyone for that matter)
I remain, for all intents and purpose, with respect to general society,
a very healthy and successful bachelor engineer who is very respectful
of his parents - and loves his parents so much as to allow them the
human dignity not to *have* to be interested in my personal or private
life,
just as much as they do what they want to, and I am not involved in
their
personal predilections either.
But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda to
continue to have a good family relationship.
Look, I brought all this up with the PFLAG parents at a board mtg
and then it totally dawned on me how crappily gay men treat their
parents - these were parents who were cowed in acceptance by their
homosexual sons - you either accept me and my "peculiarities" or else !
Also, the PFLAG Columbus parents could not understand why I had no
interest in "educating" (what a pathetic laugh!) my parents to accept
my "gay" personality. Geez, why torture my parents with all that junk!
And that's really all it is, just a personal philosophy. So, I left
PFLAG
because it is a politically motivated organization and you cannot
disagree
with their heavily leftist philosophies - its like most of the idiocies
in the
"gay" (what a sad moniker) world - you have to listen to the political
rants,
etc to get some degree of acceptance. I just have never done this to my
very functional family and they have not done this to me. In fact, they
are
mostly QUITE ADMIROUS of my discretion-like tactics with this topic,
since it
shows a greater modicum of male intelligence that just forcing it down
their
throats, as a less-intelligent male would do
So, look, I've got a lil' bit of brains and I say, since my
family is so FUNCTIONAL ... (its totally great having other family
members who let you live your life the way you see fit and TAKE NO
INTEREST
in whatever you believe nor with your personal peculiarities, just as
long
as its legal and you dont do it in the street to scare the horses - and
essentially
get together 3 or 4 months later to merely compare notes with one
another)...
why mess all this great stuff up with FORCING ppl to listen to your
rants and
raves about whatever your personal predilections are ? Geez life is too
short.
--
Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
They are all very decent ppl, and my parents are highly intelligent
and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
had it thrown in their faces for years.
All they say is this:
"Look Rob, we know that you are a homosexual. Maybe it is alright, maybe
not - who really knows about it ? But since we were raised
conservatively
and it can be seen that the wisest course usually is a more conservative
one,
we prefer that we, as a family, want to present ourselves to general
society
in the most judicious and best light possible, so that the untutored
observer
looking at our family would see, in general, adults that, although they
may
have private affections, are, in general, conservative in their formal,
general
relationships with society. So, look, if you want to blabber on about
the "wonderful
gay world (tm)" ... (LOL) ... just do it on your time and BTW, since you
are up
could you get us some more onion dip from the fridge, right, that's a
good
Ward, eh what ?"
Look, gentle reader... this is real life !
Why TORTURE ppl with your own weird philosophies or personal
predilections ?
They DONT CARE - all they want in general (in a nicely metaphorical
sense, too)
is that you SHUT UP, dont pester them about your personal perks and
jollies and
be a "good Joe" and get them the onion dip during the commercial breaks
of
television sporting events and televised HBO movies
Who cares ? Why do gay men (acting as they do like .... women ?!? )
seem to want others to take interests in their "relationships" ? Who
cares ?
Why ? What is the purpose ? Why cannot they just take it to the
bathhouse
and be a bit more INTELLIGENTLY DISCREET in general society ? Why not ?
What is wrong with acting like your general, garden-variety
standard-issue
"average-Joe"-type American male when in general society ? What is wrong
with that ?
Why do I, a homosexual male, have to be expected to change society
and accept a variety of political beliefs about "gay" people ? -Rob
--
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Are they not to your liking ? What, specifically is WRONG with my
> postings, huh ? Mike, please be VERY specific, OK ?
They are full of self-loathing and ignorant shit, but other than that,
they are A-OK.
> I am not subverting my feelings when in their company. I just curtail
> them temporarily and when back in my own environment I have great guys
> that I workout with at my favorite bathhouse (oops! lets not use that
> word
> in polite "gay" company...I'll replace it with "private health club for
> gay males")
I thought you were against those kind of things. Sounds like you are a
hypocrite.
> So, look, I've got a lil' bit of brains
This is the most accurate statement you've posted.
> Why TORTURE ppl with your own weird philosophies or personal
> predilections ?
There's that word "torture" again -- there's a psychological term for this
-- it's called "projection"
> Who cares ? Why do gay men (acting as they do like .... women ?!? )
And we know what you think of women....
> seem to want others to take interests in their "relationships" ?
Why is "relationship" in quotes -- you don't seem to think gay people are
even capable of having steady and committed relationships -- because you
yourself are incapable of such relationships.
The whole world must be just like you.
Projection.
You are hardly a "successful bachelor engineer"
From what other people who know you in Columbus have said about you, here
and in private e-mail, you are a lonely and confused person. You have
manged to alienate most of your friends and colleagues, and you push away
anyone who shows any concern. Self-immolation might be your schtick, but
it isn't very becoming.
> Why do I, a homosexual male, have to be expected to change society
> and accept a variety of political beliefs about "gay" people
You don't. As the saying goes, lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Seems like the third option might be best for you.
Feel free to leave the political organizing and change to us and to groups
like PFLAG. You'll still benefit regardless.
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <361391...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
> wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > And out of here.
> >
> > Why Mike ? Can't I post here to aph just like you post ?
>
Why ? Why do I need a thick skin, Mike ?
To endure all the rants and raving that "gay" males will throw
at me when I disagree with their less-intelligent ravings ?
>
> > And BTW Im an atheist, how is that organization going to help me out ?
>
> Well, maybe you can get in contact with one of the "secular" psychiatrists
> at NARTH. You obviously do not want to be gay -- why don't your try as
> hard as you can to change?
>
Why do I want to change ? I am rather comfortable as a discreet
homosexual,
who is not "gay" and has no political philosophies to push on others.
Clearly it is shown that NARTH-type organizations are generally
ineffective.
Why do I want to change ?
You know, Mike, you really dont make any sense in your posts.
Much of what you write does not follow.
> > Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
>
> How shameful for your loving family.
>
> > But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
> > to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
> > nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
> > regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
>
> Why the word "tortured?"
> Most gays peoples' parents, such as my own and many of the posters here
> are not "tortured" at all -- rather they are happy for their kids and
> fully accept their life partners as part of the family.
>
> Just because you are self-hating and a loser with crappy parents doesn't
> mean we all are!
But that is not true ! My parents are very happy and taking a lot
of elderhostel trips without a care in the world ! Not a thing you
have written is true ! And I am not self-hating ! I have a great time
with a number of guys I know as friends and as affectionate comrades
both psychologically and physically, both het and homo
> > Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
> > They are all very decent guys, and my parents are highly intelligent
> > and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
> > had it thrown in their faces for years.
>
> Obviously they are NOT very intelligent if their understanding of
> homosexuality is so poor. You might as well have told us that they are
> members of the Flat Earth Society.
But you really lose it on this one.
They dont need to understand male homosexuality - I am the male
homosexual.
They are hets. They live their lives and I live mine. What you are
asking them
is to swallow a political philosophy that they would prefer not too,
just
exactly as if one of my three str8 brothers brought home three
girlfriends
and said, "Mom and Dad, I think I would want to start a harem with these
three women who illogically are cat-fighting over me. Will you guys
please go
down to the nearest politically-motivated "Parents and Friends of
Harem-Keepers"
and join their organization and thus nervously espouse a political
redefinition
of society, such that, in legislative committees, we can laboriously
change society
so that heterosexual harems are now recognized as valid legal structures
in society
simply because I have personal predilections for having harems"
Mike, you really have to have a hole in your head to believe that your
parents are accepting you and your partner as heterosexual equals. They
are just AFRAID that you will turn into a moron temper-tantrum throwing
queer male and "ACT-UP" personally on them if they dont cave into your
personal beliefs.
I respect my parents much more than that.
Besides you cant have people love you on your terms. Love and respect
from others is engendered when you act conservative, be discreet with
your personal predilections and preferences and in general, just keep
it out of sight so no one can make disparaging comments on your family
or its members
The only thing you can say about the Wards of Northern VA is that they
are a group of highly intelligent males who SERIOUSLY love their
parents,
to the point where they DO NOT FORCE their parents to take ANY interest
in
ANYTHING they do. And likewise for the parents. Result = happiness !
> --
> Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> http://www.turnleft.com/personal
--
------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and
additionally those of any/all of the "FORTUNE(tm)
500" top-producing multinational corporations.
"Hm...lets lie down for 30 mins and then find
out if we still want to do that, OK?" -Rob Ward
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <36139F...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
> wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> > Are they not to your liking ? What, specifically is WRONG with my
> > postings, huh ? Mike, please be VERY specific, OK ?
>
> they are A-OK.
>
> > them temporarily and when back in my own environment I have great guys
> > that I workout with at my favorite bathhouse (oops! lets not use that
> > word
> > in polite "gay" company...I'll replace it with "private health club for
> > gay males")
>
> hypocrite.
So, can you tell me why you are against working out, getting a nice
steam-bath/sauna back, shoulder,leg & foot massage from a guy,
doing a good bit of kissing, nuzzling, cuddling, holding and affection ?
I mean I am a primate human animal and love doing that stuff.
As long as it is safe, no fluids are exchanged and no cavities are
penetrated,
and that the guys mutually respect one another such that they do not
endanger
themselves in any way, what is your problem ? What a total prude !
What is wrong with any of this Mike ? I mean, I am a homosexual male
and I am not endangering anyone with any of those behaviors. And the
handsome guys I give foot and back massages to DEFINITELY appreciate it
VERY much ... geez they have a hard day at work and they have someone
to care for them after their workout. And it is all done in an
intelligent,
caring and lovingly discreet way.
And it also is discreet ! Mike ! Guess what ! I dont have to change
the thinking patterns of the Civil and Commercial Law Committee in the
Ohio House of Representatives to enjoy myself and get validation for
myself
>
> > So, look, I've got a lil' bit of brains
>
> This is the most accurate statement you've posted.
>
> > Why TORTURE ppl with your own weird philosophies or personal
> > predilections ?
>
> There's that word "torture" again -- there's a psychological term for this
> -- it's called "projection"
Again this is not true. Mike, can you get it through your smallish
pre-frontal cerebral cortical area that: PPL ARE NOT I N T E R E S T E D
IN GAY ISSUES ?
What is wrong with just honoring that and keeping yer yap shut ? What is
wrong
with giving ppl the space NOT to be interested in your relationships ?
What is wrong
with that ? Geez I genuinely do not care what my now divorced str8 twin
bro does
with his wife ? Why does anything that he does make any difference in my
life,
or what political philosophies that he holds ?
> > Who cares ? Why do gay men (acting as they do like .... women ?!? )
>
> And we know what you think of women....
>
> > seem to want others to take interests in their "relationships" ?
>
> Why is "relationship" in quotes -- you don't seem to think gay people are
> even capable of having steady and committed relationships -- because you
> yourself are incapable of such relationships.
>
> The whole world must be just like you.
>
> Projection.
>
Mike, again your arguments are simplistic and non-sequitur.
Look all I say is lets be discreet as we run after male butt.
And, no, lets not change the American marriage laws just
because I am somewhat more physically demonstrative of my
affections towards other guys. What is the difference between
me and your average het male in that I (do not hate) do not
enjoy the company of women and am just more physically affectionate
towards male. I love touching and holding them and massaging them
into a good rest. I love other guys in other ways not too different
than the het male. I am a homosexual male, but not another "gay"
subspecies of male. Thats all.
The rest of what you have written is nonsensical psychobabble
> You are hardly a "successful bachelor engineer"
> From what other people who know you in Columbus have said about you, here
> and in private e-mail, you are a lonely and confused person.
None of this is true, I live in a rooming house with seven other ppl
(str8 and gay guys) who will immediately vouch for my mental and phyical
stability.
That you have absolute no idea that Columbus OH has a new gay bathhouse
speaks to the fact that you know nothing about Columbus nor about
your knowledge of Ohio State, nor much of anything else
> You have
> manged to alienate most of your friends and colleagues,
Mike, who are these people ? Name them.
> and you push away
> anyone who shows any concern. Self-immolation might be your schtick, but
> it isn't very becoming.
Who am I alienating ? Not all the homosexual guys that I give
massages to (discreetly of course) at the gay health club I frequent
They would just look at you and totally laugh - and these are guys
who live in southeastern Ohio and by NECESSITY have to be discreet
about being homosexual. There is no way these more intelligent
guys are going to risk losing a good job in an impoverished rural
over the mere fact that they like being physically affectionate with
males from time to time
> > Why do I, a homosexual male, have to be expected to change society
> > and accept a variety of political beliefs about "gay" people
>
> You don't. As the saying goes, lead, follow, or get out of the way.
> Seems like the third option might be best for you.
>
> Feel free to leave the political organizing and change to us and to groups
> like PFLAG. You'll still benefit regardless.
Mike, I seriously laugh at you - you have NEVER even been a member of
PFLAG
Not only that, you have no idea of any of the work I've done
for PFLAG, that I am justly proud of
Rob Arch Ward
Rob Arch Ward wrote:
>
> Mike Silverman wrote:
> >
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> So, can you tell me why you are against working out, getting a nice
> steam-bath/sauna back, shoulder,leg & foot massage from a guy,
> doing a good bit of kissing, nuzzling, cuddling, holding and affection ?
Not at all, but condiering in a previous series of posts you were aghast
at the mere idea of a bath house, I am shocked that you are patronizing
such an establishment and engaging in casual affection with strangers
therein?
> Again this is not true. Mike, can you get it through your smallish
> pre-frontal cerebral cortical area that: PPL ARE NOT I N T E R E S T E D
> IN GAY ISSUES ?
People are not interested in black issues either, but somehow black people
persevered and got civil rights passed. Imagine that!
> What is wrong with just honoring that and keeping yer yap shut ? What is
> wrong
> with giving ppl the space NOT to be interested in your relationships ?
The problem is hypocricy. Unless you are prepared to demand that straight
folks do the same, you have no right to demand that gay people be held to
a higher (lower?) standard.
> And, no, lets not change the American marriage laws just
> because I am somewhat more physically demonstrative of my
> affections towards other guys.
Instead, lets change them so that all citizens can enjoy equality under the law.
> None of this is true, I live in a rooming house with seven other ppl
> (str8 and gay guys) who will immediately vouch for my mental and phyical
> stability.
Why should we believe this? You have misled us about a lot of other stuff
in the past, such as the extent and details of your involvement in PFLAG.
> That you have absolute no idea that Columbus OH has a new gay bathhouse
> speaks to the fact that you know nothing about Columbus nor about
> your knowledge of Ohio State.
I personally know nothing of Columbus. Never been there. I would assume
Columbus PFLAG folks and your colleagues do, however.
> Not only that, you have no idea of any of the work I've done
> for PFLAG, that I am justly proud of
Well, you tried to sabotage them and run them into the ground. Of this you
are proud?
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Why do I want to change ? I am rather comfortable as a discreet
> homosexual
Your behavior here indicates otherwise. You are louder and more "in your
face" than an entire Act Up chapter. If you were truly "discrete" and
conservative, you would quietly live your life without posting here and
stirring up trouble.
We'll leave you alone if you go away.
> What you are
> asking them
> is to swallow a political philosophy that they would prefer not too
So, you've swallowed *their* political philosophy instead. Neat.
> Mike, you really have to have a hole in your head to believe that your
> parents are accepting you and your partner as heterosexual equals. They
> are just AFRAID that you will turn into a moron temper-tantrum throwing
> queer male and "ACT-UP" personally on them if they dont cave into your
> personal beliefs.
Nope, sorry. Thanks for playing.
> Besides you cant have people love you on your terms. Love and respect
> from others is engendered when you act conservative, be discreet with
> your personal predilections and preferences and in general, just keep
> it out of sight so no one can make disparaging comments on your family
> or its members
Your lack of understanding in how the world works in breathtaking.
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <36128F...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
> wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> > That is your opinion - however, since these are the only
> > family I have, I am more solicitous than you, a stranger,
> > of their opinion of how I should conduct myself
>
> Although I can't put my finger on it, I get the impression this issue about
> 'family' means something deeper to you than what you're expressing here.
I have a very functional family. They are a family where each can hold
his/her own opinion and not be forced to accept other opinions, or more
importantly, not be forced to take ANY interest in another family
member's life
But when it comes to interacting with general society, you are discreet
and conservative in general. Acting as a proud, independent and
intelligent male.
> > I think that a man of kindness and compassion would be very
> > solicitous of his parents and pay good attention to how they would
> > prefer that he conduct himself in society, so as not to besmirch
> > the good reputation of his family in general society.
>
> To the extent that a gay person can function in society and achieve an optimum
> degree of happiness, I agree. Otherwise you're selling your life short.
Migosh, a posting on aph which ACTUALLY agrees with this !
Sir, let me shake your hand, for you are quite a rarity amongst
all these "gay" activists
> "Besmirch the good reputation" is oftentimes a code phrase to indicate
> disapproval of your actions by your family. Be wary when actions receiving the
> heterosexual nod of approval are disapproved for homosexuals, even if such
> actions are carried out in basically the same context/setting.
>
> > Society may know that the man is homosexual, however, in his expression
> > of his affections towards his close companions, he is discreet and
> > judicious in the public display of such affections.
>
> Apply EXACTLY the same set of rules to heterosexuals and you have my blessing.
Well, look, my str8 twin bro got divorced last month after a 15 yr
marriage with a kid and my parents sure were not happy with that. But
they
lived with it because they didn't want to raise his ire and divorce is
rather
well accepted now. But the REALLY would have prefered that he didnt do
it.
So, I have never added more gasoline to the fire with all the "gay"
stuff
Are you bent out of shape because you cannot be publically affectionate
with
males at your discretion ? But why would ANY intelligent male want to do
any
of that even with women ? It is always seen, in general, in intelligent
company
it is considered to be boorish and rude to make overt displays of
affection
to your current squeeze no matter whether they are male or female
Is that what has gotten your goat ?
> > His intelligent discretion is a worthy object of general admiration.
>
> The keyword is 'intelligent'. It is neither worthy nor intelligent for anyone
> to suppress those things that fulfill a life full of ambitions, dreams, and
> goals. Ever notice how people tend to SHUN and JUDGE discernably unhappy
> people?
Pard, if I want, I can walk down High St here in Columbus OH with the
hand of another male within mine. I can emplace my arm around his
shoulder
as we walk throughout Gooddale Park in the new-and-improved remodeled
area
of the Short North. This is not different than the way many Turkish and
Middle
Eastern men act affectionately towards the guys that they love.
However, as I have taken guys down there that I love, I have not been so
physically
affectionate, as I might have been, simply because I was raised more
politely
and conservatively. So, both me and the guy I was with acted like
intelligent,
well-dressed and well-comported, college-educated males. And we just
walked
along together just like other males around us.
> Use this as a clue to determine if the rules you've accepted are in
> your best interest.
>
> Check out your feelings on codewords and phrases before you accept any rules
> your family (or society) dishes out. If these things interfere with your
> happiness, it's time to take a look at WHY you accept them.
Steve, it just a simple agreement that my brothers and parents have.
They know about all of it and prefer I keep it discreet. I do to.
They are totally great ppl and I have had an excellent upbringing
and continue to have a good relationship with them.
Keeping something discreet does not mean that it is any worse
than anything else. Its just discretion and acting conservative,
having a more intelligent, guarded demeanour. No one really cares
who you squeeze. And geez I certainly take no interest in my brother's
love lives and they dont take any interest in mine.
--
------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and
additionally those of any/all of the "FORTUNE(tm)
500" top-producing multinational corporations.
"Hm...lets lie down for 30 mins and then find
out if we still want to do that, OK?" -Rob Ward
ital...@hotmail.com
> Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
Probably? Did you tell them? Could they discern your sexual orientation from
anything about you? Or is that nosy 'never-been-married-so-he-must-be-a-fag'
stereotype they bought into?
> But since I have more intelligently not brought any of my homo friends
> home to meet the parents and have not paraded around any "gay lovers",
> all the neighbors see (or anyone for that matter) is a very healthy and
> successful bachelor engineer who is very respectful of his parents - and
> loves his parents so much as to allow them the human dignity not to have
> to be interested in my personal or private life.
I question the intelligence of anyone who is incapable of introducing a
friend, date, or any other person they love and respect, to their family.
I question the intelligence of anyone who equates hiding their personal life
as an act of 'human dignity' or 'love'.
> But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents
Tortured??? You mean your family couldn't be enlightened or delighted by your
acquaintances?
> with having to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have
> to nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in regards
> to my misunderstood sexuality.
>
> Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
> They are all very decent guys, and my parents are highly intelligent
> and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
> had it thrown in their faces for years.
If the above is an accurate portrayal of your family, then your rationale for
not bringing your gay acquaintances home rings false. I suspect your family
wouldn't be anywhere as nervous or cautious as you fear *if* they're as you
say.
So... Perhaps your portrayal of your family is totally off the mark. Or maybe
you know the quality of the relationships you make is so poor, you avoid
bringing them home for fear of being embarrassed!
Considering the self-hating diatribe I've read from you, I suspect the latter
is true. Who would want you for a friend but another self-hating queer?
So come clean, Ward. Give us the REAL reason you can't share your life with
your family!!!
Letao
> > But since I have more intelligently not brought any of my homo friends
> > home to meet the parents and have not paraded around any "gay lovers",
> > all the neighbors see (or anyone for that matter) is a very healthy and
> > successful bachelor engineer who is very respectful of his parents - and
> > loves his parents so much as to allow them the human dignity not to have
> > to be interested in my personal or private life.
>
> I question the intelligence of anyone who is incapable of introducing a
> friend, date, or any other person they love and respect, to their family.
>
> I question the intelligence of anyone who equates hiding their personal life
> as an act of 'human dignity' or 'love'.
My reading of Robert's posts is that he doesn't experience love. He
experiences sexual desire, or general horniness, for other guys. Not
love. It's not surprising really, if one considers that the most
admirable demonstration of love is when he and his family are ignoring
each other's lives. He's been taught to avoid intimacy, not embrace it.
The saddest part is that he finds it all perfectly normal and healthy.
Sad, really; pitiful almost.
James Doemer
Rob Arch Ward wrote in message <3613B3...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>...
>>
>> The only thing you can say about the Wards of Northern VA is that they
>> are a group of highly intelligent males who SERIOUSLY love their
>> parents, to the point where they DO NOT FORCE their parents to take
>> ANY interest in ANYTHING they do. And likewise for the parents.
>> Result = happiness !
Yes, ignorance is often bliss... Look, what the hell is the problem here??
If you're
happy with the relationship you have with your family & friends, fine....
Is it your contention
that everyone should be as you are?? Are you afraid that others might
find happiness &
contentment in other ways?? Just what the hell do you want anyways??
dbra...@pop.service.ohio-state
Rob: That you have to keep your gayness "discreet" is testimony that
it is "wrong" or "bad." Being gay is more than sex, it's about who
you love, who you would want to spend your life with. And in our
society, if Rob wants to love Steve, it's shameful. But if Rob wants to
love Tina, that's cool. That's what it seems like you've bought into.
And that is sad.
Dale
Scruffy van Piebles
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
>to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
>nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
>regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
>
Would you rather have my parents? My mom insists upon meeting every
new boyfriend; -and then smothering him with warm fuzzies. Dad always
finds a way to maneuver the poor guy into the study for his
traditional "What are your intentions toward my son, and how much do
you make?" inquisition. My sister vets his political credentials, and
my brother talks his ear off about sports. In my family, it's the
lovers who are tortured. Maybe your family should join PFLAG.
Scruffy
L. Michael Roberts
<snip>
> Actually, there are a number of str8 guys, brothers and friends with
> whom I have discussed this matter at great length and they are
> supportive
> of the idea that yes, being homosexual may quite be a defective genetic
> anomaly.
Get down off the cross gurlfriend... We need the wood!
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Mike, you really have to have a hole in your head to believe that your
>parents are accepting you and your partner as heterosexual equals. They
>are just AFRAID that you will turn into a moron temper-tantrum throwing
>queer male and "ACT-UP" personally on them if they dont cave into your
>personal beliefs.
>
>I respect my parents much more than that.
>
Nah....you're a wus.
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
>to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
>nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda to
>continue to have a good family relationship.
How pathetic. Stop projecting.
>
>Look, I brought all this up with the PFLAG parents at a board mtg
>and then it totally dawned on me how crappily gay men treat their
>parents - these were parents who were cowed in acceptance by their
>homosexual sons - you either accept me and my "peculiarities" or else !
>
>Also, the PFLAG Columbus parents could not understand why I had no
>interest in "educating" (what a pathetic laugh!) my parents to accept
>my "gay" personality. Geez, why torture my parents with all that junk!
>And that's really all it is, just a personal philosophy. So, I left
>PFLAG
>because it is a politically motivated organization and you cannot
>disagree
>with their heavily leftist philosophies - its like most of the idiocies
>in the
>"gay" (what a sad moniker) world - you have to listen to the political
>rants,
>etc to get some degree of acceptance.
You left PFLAG because you had no choice. You left PFLAG because all
the crap you posted on this newsgroup was forwarded by me to the heads
of the national, regional and local chapters. You left because I
exposed you as the homophobic, misogynist you are. So don't try to
claim the high-road now.
> I just have never done this to my
>very functional family and they have not done this to me. In fact, they
>are
>mostly QUITE ADMIROUS of my discretion-like tactics with this topic,
>since it
>shows a greater modicum of male intelligence that just forcing it down
>their
>throats, as a less-intelligent male would do
Of course they're quite admirous of their good little boy who remains
the family secret... the family embarassment....so long as he never
discusses who or what he is.
You really consider yourself more intelligent? Delusional.
>
>So, look, I've got a lil' bit of brains and I say, since my
>family is so FUNCTIONAL ... (its totally great having other family
>members who let you live your life the way you see fit and TAKE NO
>INTEREST
>in whatever you believe nor with your personal peculiarities, just as
>long
>as its legal and you dont do it in the street to scare the horses - and
>essentially
>get together 3 or 4 months later to merely compare notes with one
>another)...
What crap.
>
>why mess all this great stuff up with FORCING ppl to listen to your
>rants and
>raves about whatever your personal predilections are ? Geez life is too
>short.
>
How very southern of you. Perhaps you should have stayed in Virginia.
>--
>
>Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
>They are all very decent ppl, and my parents are highly intelligent
>and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
>had it thrown in their faces for years.
Oh really. I thought you never discussed it with them.
>
>All they say is this:
>
>"Look Rob, we know that you are a homosexual. Maybe it is alright, maybe
>not - who really knows about it ? But since we were raised
>conservatively
>and it can be seen that the wisest course usually is a more conservative
>one,
>we prefer that we, as a family, want to present ourselves to general
>society
>in the most judicious and best light possible, so that the untutored
>observer
>looking at our family would see, in general, adults that, although they
>may
>have private affections, are, in general, conservative in their formal,
>general
>relationships with society.
Pathetic.
>So, look, if you want to blabber on about
>the "wonderful
>gay world (tm)" ... (LOL) ... just do it on your time and BTW, since you
>are up
>could you get us some more onion dip from the fridge, right, that's a
>good
>Ward, eh what ?"
They like Ward to be "good" and "proper" and "in his place", eh what?
>
>Look, gentle reader... this is real life !
>
>Why TORTURE ppl with your own weird philosophies or personal
>predilections ?
Torture? You really do have a very warped mind and a perverse outlook
on gay people.
Weird philosphies? Where do you get this shit?
>
>They DONT CARE - all they want in general (in a nicely metaphorical
>sense, too)
>is that you SHUT UP, dont pester them about your personal perks and
>jollies and
>be a "good Joe" and get them the onion dip during the commercial breaks
>of
>television sporting events and televised HBO movies
>
Is that how your parents talked to you? Did they tell you to SHUT UP
a lot?
>Who cares ? Why do gay men (acting as they do like .... women ?!? )
Fucking mysogynist....and too stupid to see you are one.
>seem to want others to take interests in their "relationships" ? Who
>cares ?
>Why ? What is the purpose ? Why cannot they just take it to the
>bathhouse
>and be a bit more INTELLIGENTLY DISCREET in general society ? Why not ?
What an asshole. In other words, Why can't we all just be closet
cases. Why can't we turn the clock back to the fifties.
>
>What is wrong with acting like your general, garden-variety
>standard-issue
>"average-Joe"-type American male when in general society ? What is wrong
>with that ?
>
>Why do I, a homosexual male, have to be expected to change society
>and accept a variety of political beliefs about "gay" people ? -Rob
YOU are not expected to have to do anything. YOU are a closet case.
YOU are a relic of the past.
Now SHUT UP and get me some onion dip.
That's a good Ward.
RavensHeart
wrote:
>In article <3613A9...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
>wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
>> Why do I want to change ? I am rather comfortable as a discreet
>> homosexual
>
>Your behavior here indicates otherwise. You are louder and more "in your
>face" than an entire Act Up chapter. If you were truly "discrete" and
>conservative, you would quietly live your life without posting here and
>stirring up trouble.
>We'll leave you alone if you go away.
>
>> What you are
>> asking them
>> is to swallow a political philosophy that they would prefer not too
>
>So, you've swallowed *their* political philosophy instead. Neat.
>
>> Mike, you really have to have a hole in your head to believe that your
>> parents are accepting you and your partner as heterosexual equals. They
>> are just AFRAID that you will turn into a moron temper-tantrum throwing
>> queer male and "ACT-UP" personally on them if they dont cave into your
>> personal beliefs.
>
>Nope, sorry. Thanks for playing.
>
>> Besides you cant have people love you on your terms. Love and respect
>> from others is engendered when you act conservative, be discreet with
>> your personal predilections and preferences and in general, just keep
>> it out of sight so no one can make disparaging comments on your family
>> or its members
>
>Your lack of understanding in how the world works in breathtaking.
>
Must be all those years of onion dip and being told to SHUT UP by his
find southern parents.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <3613A9...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
>wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
>> Why do I want to change ? I am rather comfortable as a discreet
>> homosexual
Are you the same Robert Arch Ward who went all to pieces with PFLAG
and some sort of paranoid delusions?
If it is you -- you gave us to understand that you regretted the
shit-storm you generated and were going to go away and seek some sort
of soothing guidance.
CLEARLY you are still in great need and CLEARLY you have not sought
therapeutic comfort.
The sudden rising, phoenix like. from the debacle of your last
disaster makes me to wonder if "bi-polar": enters your diagnostic
work-up?
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>Look, I brought all this up with the PFLAG parents at a board mtg
>and then it totally dawned on me how crappily gay men treat their
>parents - these were parents who were cowed in acceptance by their
>homosexual sons - you either accept me and my "peculiarities" or else !
>
>Also, the PFLAG Columbus parents could not understand why I had no
>interest in "educating" (what a pathetic laugh!) my parents to accept
>my "gay" personality. Geez, why torture my parents with all that junk!
>And that's really all it is, just a personal philosophy. So, I left
>PFLAG
>because it is a politically motivated organization and you cannot
>disagree
>with their heavily leftist philosophies - its like most of the idiocies
>in the
>"gay" (what a sad moniker) world - you have to listen to the political
>rants,
>etc to get some degree of acceptance.
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 9:18 AM
To: she...@europa.com
Cc: rw...@smtpgw.arms.ohio-state.edu; wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu;
amw5...@aol.com; phil2...@aol.com
Subject: Concerns regarding a PFLAG board member
Dear Steven,
Thank you so much for forwarding your concerns regarding Robert Arch
Ward's
comments to your newsgroup. I apologize for the delay in replying, I
was
out of the office from 9/9 until 9/21, so it was only on 9/22 that I
finally read your messages.
The national organization of PFLAG is deeply disturbed and regretful
of the
comments made by Robert Arch Ward. Please make it known to your
newsgroup
participants that his comments IN NO WAY REFLECT THOSE OF PFLAG AS AN
ORGANIZATION, whose mission, ENDS and goals are antithetical to the
kinds
of views espoused by Mr. Ward.
We will be following up on this matter internally. Again, we are
deeply
regretful if the ideas of Mr. Ward were misrepresented as views of
PFLAG. They are not. We would greatly appreciate your distributing
this
message to anyone who may have been privy to Mr. Ward's comments.
Should you have further concerns or questions, please do not hesitate
to
contact me. Thank you again for alerting us to this very unfortunate
incident.
Sincerely,
Melisa Casumbal
Central Field Associate,
PFLAG
*****************************
Melisa S. L. Casumbal
Central Field Associate
Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
1101 14th St., NW Suite 1030
Washington, D. C. 20005
(V) 202-638-4200 x227
(F) 202-638-0243
mcas...@pflag.org
http://www.pflag.org
Rob Arch Ward
>
> Rob: That you have to keep your gayness "discreet" is testimony that
> it is "wrong" or "bad."
This is again incorrect.
It still is not presently known what male homosexuality is ...
Is it
1) a genetically-induced mental defect state
(due to non-defeminization of a males' brain in certain stages of
gestation) ?
OR
2) a true variation of the patterns of human sexuality ?
So, at the close of the 20th century, I, a homosexual male, honestly
do not know.
So, because I DO NOT KNOW WHAT MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS,
thus it is more a sign of higher intelligence to become more
conservative in demeanour and outlook when presenting myself to
society, and present my affections towards other males in a
more discreet manner. Who knows what male homosexuality is ?
Honestly ? I am not making a judgement on it one way or the other.
> Being gay
Being "gay" now is a political stance, with broad ranging
changes to fundamental legal definitions of family relationships
> is more than sex, it's about who
> you love, who you would want to spend your life with.
Hey, Dale, Im right NOW spending my life with a mix of gay and
str8 guys (on a daily basis, getting my needs for companionship and
male friendship met on a day-to-day basis) and I love them.
Do I need to go to the Civil and Commercial Law committee of the
Ohio House of Reps to change legal definitions of marriage laws
because of this ?
> And in our
> society, if Rob wants to love Steve, it's shameful.
You are not talking about love - we are all free to love whomever
we want, you are talking about changing the nature of legal contracts.
> But if Rob wants to
> love Tina, that's cool. That's what it seems like you've bought into.
> And that is sad.
>
> Dale
Dale, as a homosexual male, like you, now having left PFLAG and now
speaking my mind, and having read a lot of the voluminous literature
on male homosexuality and wondering how is it that I should lead my
life, how to act like a decent guy, I have SERIOUS problems with the
introduction of legalized male homosexual relationships, now continuing
to read further into the complexities of the subject.
Can you understand that ? It is a seriously complex subject.
I have grave misgivings that this is way a society, solicitous and
guarded as to how young males (het or homo) should live their lives,
even though they may want to. Look, I am always going to love and
have strong sexual feelings towards guys.
But why does it follow that my desire to have a "marriage-like"
relationship with another male, given that males are almost by
nature designed for promiscuity, should be recognized in law and
should be encouraged for any male that has these strong desires ?
Is this really in the best interest of society ?
What about some of the guys who cannot correctly protect themselves
(by inhibiting the more deleterious and immune-system compromising
actions of homosexual behavior) from more unscrupulous homosexual guys ?
Look, I saw two guys DIE of AIDS (at age 29 & age 46) in the mid 1980s,
their
lives thrown away by their unhygenic sexual practices and their
seeming inability (at least for one of them) to control their
sexuality - cant you see that now I have serious misgivings
about all this ?
Is it true that society is truly served by such a redefinition ? Dale,
is it ?
Look, Dale - after speaking with str8 guys who seriously love me
and after a HELL of a lot of reading on male homosexuality in the
library, it is a damn complex topic. Can you see that I have a
lot of serious misgivings about all this ?
--
------------------------------------------
Rob Arch Ward
>
> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 10:26:35 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
> >to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
> >regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
> >
>
> Would you rather have my parents? My mom insists upon meeting every
> new boyfriend; -and then smothering him with warm fuzzies. Dad always
> finds a way to maneuver the poor guy into the study for his
> traditional "What are your intentions toward my son, and how much do
> you make?" inquisition. My sister vets his political credentials, and
> my brother talks his ear off about sports. In my family, it's the
> lovers who are tortured. Maybe your family should join PFLAG.
>
> Scruffy
Essentially, my position is that since I do not know what male
homosexuality is, whether a genetically-induced mental defect state
or a true variation of human sexuality, so my public and professional
demeanour of this topic, as I continue to try and understand it,
should be one of discretion and a skeptical and unbiased scietific
outlook, as I continue to read and study it.
That's all I am saying. I cannot go the full-throttle, lets-
spend-the-next-25-yrs-of-our-lives-trying-to-change-legislative-bodies
to-accept-legal-contracts-based-on-male-homosexual-relationships
attitude
of gay rights advocates today. Look, I just dont know what it is, so I
adopt the more discretionary and cautious attitude that is the hallmark
of the intelligent scientist. Also, my family would prefer that I do
this.
Since I deeply love my family and my parents, I provide acquiescence.
Also, since my family have not expressed any interest in discussing
it, for whatever reason, I, solicitous of their happiness and mine,
do not bring it up and discreetly indulge my affections without their
seeming knowledge or interest.
Look, the more religious family members of my family do not
constantly press me with pamphlets of their religious beliefs,
so why should I keep pressing them to listen to my personal
politics or should go to a PFLAG meeting. Look, even the bewildered
parents at a PFLAG Columbus board meeting, looking at me in rather
curious astonishment, were not able to answer this question.
Why should I force my family to attend a meeting in concurrance
with my political beliefs when I would prefer that they not
do the same to me ?
--
------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and
additionally those of any/all of the "FORTUNE(tm)
500" top-producing multinational corporations.
"Hm...lets lie down for 30 mins and then find
out if we still want to do that, OK?" -Rob Ward
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> So, at the close of the 20th century, I, a homosexual male, honestly
> do not know.
So what? This has nothing to do with civil rights laws.
> Being "gay" now is a political stance, with broad ranging
> changes to fundamental legal definitions of family relationships
No change -- just a granting of the same basic Constitutional rights that
most people take for granted.
> You are not talking about love - we are all free to love whomever
> we want, you are talking about changing the nature of legal contracts.
Actually, it wouldn't change the nature of the legal contract at all.
Nothing about the marriage contract or law would have to be changed.
> Dale, as a homosexual male, like you, now having left PFLAG and now
> speaking my mind, and having read a lot of the voluminous literature
> on male homosexuality and wondering how is it that I should lead my
> life, how to act like a decent guy, I have SERIOUS problems with the
> introduction of legalized male homosexual relationships, now continuing
> to read further into the complexities of the subject.
>
> Can you understand that ? It is a seriously complex subject.
Actually it is a very simple concept. Equality. In mathematics, the
equality symbol is very basic. A 5-year old learning to add knows what
"equal" means.
Same goes for recognitions of relationships.
Equal.
> Is this really in the best interest of society ?
Respecting Constitutionl rights is *always* in the best interests of
American society.
> Look, Dale - after speaking with str8 guys who seriously love me
> and after a HELL of a lot of reading on male homosexuality in the
> library, it is a damn complex topic. Can you see that I have a
> lot of serious misgivings about all this ?
Yes.
Now why should your personal misgivings trump my Constitutional rights?
Answer that.
Rob Arch Ward
Steve, really, you cannot now call me a 'closet case' since
having now been speaking my mind on this topic for all USENET
readers to see, how is it possible for me to now ever return to
a closet ? It is now impossible. Why do you think I can go back and hide
?
How is that possible ?
Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
logically ?)
fails because if male homosexuality is proven one day to truly be a
genetically-induced mental defect state, then it would behoove the
homosexual
male, living in less-enlightened times of the age preceding this
determination,
to act discreet and conservatively, because then it IS true that his
mental
defect state IS not necesarily an embarassment, but that they are
intelligently
saying to him :
"Guy, we seriously love you a lot, but honestly, this male
homosexuality and the strong sexual feelings that you feel for other
males
are hard to understand. So, guy, just go easy on it and try to reign it
in,
the best you can, within reason.
Certainly, we do not want you to possibly espouse a personal lifestyle
that
would encourage a general acceptance of not-well-understood male-male
relationships
that have complex and difficult to correct implications in the wider
society
at large. So, look, just be discreet about it and arrange your personal
life
so that needs for companionship and human affection are met in ways that
will not affect the reputation of our family and your personal rep
unduly.
Hopefully, they will be an enlightened family and not throw the homo
male out on the
street in his unelightened age - but it is reasonable, since the data is
not
yet in, to expect him to present himself to society merely as a bachelor
male,
since the data is not all in. Allow him to conduct himself just like any
other bachelor str8 guy. That will work. Look, he is always going to
love guys.
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Also, since my family have not expressed any interest in discussing
> it, for whatever reason, I, solicitous of their happiness and mine,
> do not bring it up and discreetly indulge my affections without their
> seeming knowledge or interest.
Descrete. Polite. Ashamed. Circumspect. Servile.
"Sir, I hope you don't judge the entire Negro race based on those
agitators you hear about on the radio. They don't respect tradition or
what's best for society. I know my place and I am gracious that you allow
me to serve you to the best of my ability. May I get you a brandy, sir?"
Rob Arch Ward
>
> In article <3614EE...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
> wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> > So, at the close of the 20th century, I, a homosexual male, honestly
> > do not know.
> Answer that.
We are thus both citizens. I say, don't change the structure of
our society's laws until this is further studied and it is determined
as to what male homosexuality really is.
So, until then, as a citizen like you, I obey my family,
act intelligently and decently and agree with their intelligent
forbearance. Essentially, our families are at odds and when the
time comes to petition the legislative committees of interest
we both will do so.
You have a vote and so do I, at this point in time they
will probably cancel one another on this highly contentious
point.
Mike, you have every right to love and be physically affection
with whatever homosexual male that you want, in whatever serially
monogamous fashion you want to.
However, at this time, we thus
both disagree (and our families both thus disagree) about how
legal contracts governing homosexual humans in our society
should be changed to accomodate each person's independent decisions.
--
------------------------------------------
Mike Silverman
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
Here's the Reader's Digest translation:
"You and me disagree. Our families disagree. We cancel each other out"
And my Readers' Digest answer:
We *are* on opposite sides. I support equal rights and dignity for gays,
and you do not. I will continue to work for equality in society, by
lobbying, voting, and changing minds one at a time. I believe that my
side, the side of right, will eventually win.
Finis.
James Doemer
Rob Arch Ward wrote in message <361501...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>...
>Mike Silverman wrote:
>>
>> In article <3614EE...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>,
>> wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>>
>> > So, at the close of the 20th century, I, a homosexual male, honestly
>> > do not know.
>[...]
>> Now why should your personal misgivings trump my Constitutional rights?
>> Answer that.
>
>We are thus both citizens. I say, don't change the structure of
>our society's laws until this is further studied and it is determined
>as to what male homosexuality really is.
So until something is an exact science, rights shouldn't be granted? How
absurd! What is religion?? Religion means different things to
different
people. Can you pigeonhole Religion? What about race? Seems straight
forward enough I suppose, black, white, oriental, native americans...
Err... Well,
except where black, white, and native american exists in the same person...
Not
as exact as first believed I guess.. So what tests does people of
religion, and
people, as a race have to pass for their civil rights? Well, you have to
be a
citizen of the USA... That's pretty much it!! So why do gays need to
pass
more tests than that? The truth of the matter is that it matters not one
whit
what homosexuality is, that question is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the
political question. Test: Are gays citizens of the United States??
Yes!
Then they are entitled to equal protections, and equal rights before the
law.
Case closed.
>
>So, until then, as a citizen like you, I obey my family,
>act intelligently and decently and agree with their intelligent
>forbearance. Essentially, our families are at odds and when the
>time comes to petition the legislative committees of interest
>we both will do so.
>
>You have a vote and so do I, at this point in time they
>will probably cancel one another on this highly contentious
>point.
Civil Rights are not subject to the whim of the majority. This issue
will most likely be decided by the SCOTUS.
>
>Mike, you have every right to love and be physically affection
>with whatever homosexual male that you want, in whatever serially
>monogamous fashion you want to.
>
>However, at this time, we thus
>both disagree (and our families both thus disagree) about how
>legal contracts governing homosexual humans in our society
>should be changed to accomodate each person's independent decisions.
Inclusion of gays in the Constitutional contract is not change, but
inclusion
into an existing frame work. I read nothing in the Constitution about
everyone has equal rights, except gays.
zoe wilfong
> Allen,
(excuse me for jumping in, but...)
>
> Look...the neighbors have known for years probably that Im queer.
>
> But since I have more intelligently not brought any of my homo friends
> home to meet the parents
Why shouldn't you? If you were straight wouldn't you bring home your
girlfriend to meet your parents? Are you ashamed of being gay, or just
trying to coddle your parents' prejudice?
and have not paraded around any "gay lovers",
> all the neighbors see (or anyone for that matter)
Well if there has been a 'parade' of lovers, either gay or straight,
that probably is nothing to be proud of.
> is a very healthy and successful bachelor engineer who is very
> respectful
> of his parents
And shouldn't they be respectful of you? Do they pretend they're 'just
friends' when you're around, so you won't be offended by their
heterosexuality?
- and loves his parents so much as to allow them the
> human dignity not to have to be interested in
> my personal or private life
Ignorance and prejudice are not dignified; neither is it dignified for
you to have to pretend that you have no personal life, for fear that
people may be offended and disgusted by the gender of your partner.
>
> But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
> to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs,
Is it okay for them to torture and demean you by making you feel ashamed
of who you are? Would they be nervous if you introduced them to a
girlfriend? Why legitimize their prejudice by keeping your personal
life any more secret than you would if you were stright?
and have to
> nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
> regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
Hey, if they disagree with it, they are free to say so. Frankly, I
*want* to know what people really think about gay rights, because if you
don't, you don't know who your friends are.
>
> Look, my dad and bros are all atheists, mom is a churchgoer.
> They are all very decent guys, and my parents are highly intelligent
> and very well-read ppl. They know all about the "gay" agenda and have
> had it thrown in their faces for years.
'Thrown in their faces??!!!' Yeah, it must be tough for them to put up
with all the homosexual perverts claiming to be just as good as straight
people, when they know it's not true. I can see where they're coming
from. (not).
zoe
John De Salvio
> dbra...@pop.service.ohio-state, dale brashers wrote:
> >
> > Rob: That you have to keep your gayness "discreet" is testimony that
> > it is "wrong" or "bad."
>
> This is again incorrect.
>
> It still is not presently known what male homosexuality is ...
>
> Is it
>
> 1) a genetically-induced mental defect state
> (due to non-defeminization of a males' brain in certain stages of
> gestation) ?
No. (Is this idiot for real?)
>
> OR
>
> 2) a true variation of the patterns of human sexuality ?
Yes. (All the major professions who study it agree).
>
> So, at the close of the 20th century, I, a homosexual male, honestly
> do not know.
That's YOUR problem. It's NOT the problem of the rest of us who know.
Get over it.
>
> So, because I DO NOT KNOW WHAT MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS,
...You thus demand that until YOU know what the hell life is all about,
no one else can advance through it as equals.
> thus it is more a sign of higher intelligence
Pardon me while I get up and walk around.
That joke put a stitch in my side.
> to become more
> conservative in demeanour and outlook when presenting myself to
> society, and present my affections towards other males in a
> more discreet manner. Who knows what male homosexuality is ?
We do, you don't. End of discussion.
'Bye.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
John De Salvio
> Scruffy van Piebles wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 10:26:35 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> > <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
> > >to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
> > >nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
> > >regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
> > >
> >
> > Would you rather have my parents? My mom insists upon meeting every
> > new boyfriend; -and then smothering him with warm fuzzies. Dad always
> > finds a way to maneuver the poor guy into the study for his
> > traditional "What are your intentions toward my son, and how much do
> > you make?" inquisition. My sister vets his political credentials, and
> > my brother talks his ear off about sports. In my family, it's the
> > lovers who are tortured. Maybe your family should join PFLAG.
> >
> > Scruffy
>
> Essentially, my position is that since I do not know what male
> homosexuality is, whether a genetically-induced mental defect state
> or a true variation of human sexuality, so my public and professional
> demeanour of this topic, as I continue to try and understand it,
> should be one of discretion and a skeptical and unbiased scietific
> outlook, as I continue to read and study it.
>
> That's all I am saying. I cannot go the full-throttle, lets-
> spend-the-next-25-yrs-of-our-lives-trying-to-change-legislative-bodies
> to-accept-legal-contracts-based-on-male-homosexual-relationships
> attitude
> of gay rights advocates today. Look, I just dont know what it is, so I
> adopt the more discretionary and cautious attitude that is the hallmark
> of the intelligent scientist. Also, my family would prefer that I do
> this.
> Since I deeply love my family and my parents, I provide acquiescence.
>
> Also, since my family have not expressed any interest in discussing
> it, for whatever reason, I, solicitous of their happiness and mine,
> do not bring it up and discreetly indulge my affections without their
> seeming knowledge or interest.
>
> Look, the more religious family members of my family do not
> constantly press me with pamphlets of their religious beliefs,
> so why should I keep pressing them to listen to my personal
> politics or should go to a PFLAG meeting. Look, even the bewildered
> parents at a PFLAG Columbus board meeting, looking at me in rather
> curious astonishment, were not able to answer this question.
>
> Why should I force my family to attend a meeting in concurrance
> with my political beliefs when I would prefer that they not
> do the same to me ?
However, you want OUR progress to come to a screeching halt
so that you can catch up at your own snail's pace to where we were 25 years ago.
Do you know how asinine you read?
John De Salvio
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Steve, really, you cannot now call me a 'closet case' since
> having now been speaking my mind on this topic for all USENET
> readers to see, how is it possible for me to now ever return to
> a closet ? It is now impossible. Why do you think I can go back and hide
> ?
> How is that possible ?
A computer dialogue is hardly being "out of the closet."
You're afraid of your own gay shadow!
>
> Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> logically ?)
No, but you sure as hell do!
> fails because if male homosexuality is proven one day to truly be a
> genetically-induced mental defect state,
It sure looks like you hope it is determined to be so.
Pathetic.
tyler hower
Rob Arch Ward wrote:
> Steve, really, you cannot now call me a 'closet case' since
> having now been speaking my mind on this topic for all USENET
> readers to see, how is it possible for me to now ever return to
> a closet ? It is now impossible. Why do you think I can go back and hide
> ?
> How is that possible ?
>
> Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> logically ?)
Rob, I don't agree with most of your opinions (well, not really any of them), but maybe
because when I 'tortured' my mother by introducing her to my partner she was pretty
much ecstatic. (But then again, in my family, we take interest in one another's lives
rather than indifference to be some indication of love.) I don't really want to get
into a discussion with you as to the value of your opinions, however. What I would
like to ask, though, is that you stop accusing others of failing to act logically. As
one who has taken a fair number of logic courses as well as assisted in teaching them
(at your own OSU--amazing that I should be able to as a mere gay man), I can assure you
that the canons of logicality are not coextensive with your opinions. That is, just
because someone disagrees with you or fails to see the progression of your reasoning
(if such progression there be), it does not make her or him illogical. If you want to
accuse others of logical mistakes, then it would be better if they actually committed
such mistakes. Otherwise simply note that you disagree and avoid the ad hominem (after
all, such argumental form is just a logical fallacy).
Thanks,
Tyler Hower.
Allen James
wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Look all I say is lets be discreet as we run after male butt.
Sorry, but there's way more to MY existence than "runnung after male butt".
Lawd, you're bizarre. You REALLY believe the stuff you spout, and you
REALLY believe that anyone who points out the great, gaping holes in your
logic is a "raving ACT-UP queenie lunatic with a 'pseudo-female' and
therefore 'inferior' brain".
Uh-HUH. Keep going, Mr. Ward. You're doing an AWESOME job of making your
life look pathetically small, and making your parents look like nightmares
made flesh.
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Society
>
>take you very seriosly, given your past behavior here. And for
>someone who values logic as much as you say you do, your postings
>are rarely logical. For example:
>
>> Look, I saw two guys DIE of AIDS (at age 29 & age 46) in the mid 1980s,
>> their
>> lives thrown away by their unhygenic sexual practices and their
>> seeming inability (at least for one of them) to control their
>> about all this ?
>
>I've seen guys die of AIDS.
>I've seen women die of AIDS.
>I've seen babies die of AIDS.
>(I also know of babies dying from sudden infant death
>syndrome, babies dying from household accidents, and
>I've seen people die of cancer and heart disease.)
I've read Randy Shilts' book _The Band Played On_ and also I had a ring-side
seat watching the shenanigans and denials of self-styled homosexual
activists as AIDS became the first politically protected disease. I remember
the politics that became enmeshed in the public health effort to close the
bathhouses in San Francisco. And I'm not fooled by those who drag other
medical problems, e.g. SIDS, accidental deaths, cancer, and heart disease;
to distract from the very real issues surrounding AIDS.
I think you're trying to avoid wardn's real issues. It's logical and
sensible for someone to have "misgivings" about someone whose sexual
appetites are so great and promiscuous that they're self-destructive.
>"Being gay" does not equal "having AIDS."
In the literal sense, yes. Operationally according to what the homosexual
community DOES wrt AIDS, they behave as though it is. The slogan "being
gay..." is just an attempt to demand that reasonable people ignore what the
homosexual community is doing and shout down folks who object to the
homosexual politicization of the AIDS issue. These tactics may be cute in
the short run, but in the long run they cause reasonable people to distance
themselves from the homosexual community.
>Heterosexual AIDS accounts for most of the AIDS cases in the world.
>
>(IMPORTANT QUESTION: Shouldn't that give you misgivings about
>heterosexuality?? Maybe it's those heterosexuals who should be
>discreet in public!)
What is now called AIDS wasn't originally named GRID by US physicians for
nothing. Heterosexual transmission of AIDS largely occurs in the general
population outside the US, notably in Africa. (IMPORTANT QUESTION: Are you
posting from Africa?) Within the US, heterosexual transmission of AIDS
primarily occurs among folks in high-risk groups --including drug users and
practitioners of various "unhygenic sexual practices" which for reasons of
ideology you're trying to pretend don't exist.
>HIV/AIDS is a tragic disease that has happened to many gay men in
>the US, but education, prevention, and treatment (rather than blaming
>a "mental defect") are the answer.
I hear you on the "mental defect" score. I also hear the frustration of
others who notice that proper public health measures successful with other
venereal diseases (the new PC term is STDs) have been blocked for political
reasons --with a shameless public-be-damned attitude! It's understandable
that the public at large would come to resent such a high-handed attitude on
the part of elements of the homosexual community. And some of us noticed how
it became un-PC to suggest that research effort go into a vaccine for AIDS.
It was really ironic to see Clinton speechify for a vaccine when it was a
part of his own political constituency (and donor base) who blocked those
efforts for nearly a decade. Yeah, one might begin to suspect that this kind
of nonsense is promoted by mental defectives!
>> Look, Dale - after speaking with str8 guys who seriously love me
>> and after a HELL of a lot of reading on male homosexuality in the
>> library, it is a damn complex topic. Can you see that I have a
>> lot of serious misgivings about all this ?
>
>Your "misgivings" come across as attacks and self-loathing.
>Your claims that women and gay men are "mentally defective"
>are groundless. Maybe you need to brush up on your communication
>and argumentation skills.
Ok, so whoever introduced the "mentally defective" characterization into the
discussion was outta line. Clinging to that phrase (for extra victimhood
points?) and throwing it back just to cloud up the issue is also outta line.
As for who should brush up on "communication and argumentation skills" I'd
just say that blanking out issues because they aren't PC communicates
nothing. Pooh-poohing somebody's "misgivings" that have a genuine basis is
not an argument.
Allen
>But why does it follow that my desire to have a "marriage-like"
>relationship with another male, given that males are almost by
>nature designed for promiscuity, should be recognized in law and
>should be encouraged for any male that has these strong desires ?
Taking your observation, why then should men even get married to
women? And if you're worried about procreation, you don't need
marriage for that.
Rob, while you desperately grope for ALL THE ANSWERS IN NEAT
DEFINITIONS before you can proceed with your life, many of us are out
there living it and doing damn fine jobs in the process.
So you haven't got all the answers, boo hoo. No one does. But if
everyone waited around for the answer to every single question about
themselves before they made their choices about how to conduct their
lives or decide the best course of action, there would be no progress
and billions of wasted lives.
I know you are an atheist, but even atheists acknowledge the virtue of
having faith in *themselves.*
Allen
---------------------------
afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com
Address fudged to foil spam-bots. Take out the HATESPAM for correct address.
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Steve, really, you cannot now call me a 'closet case' since
>having now been speaking my mind on this topic for all USENET
>readers to see, how is it possible for me to now ever return to
>a closet ? It is now impossible. Why do you think I can go back and hide
>?
>How is that possible ?
It is NOT possible...and that's what irks you the most.
>
>Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
>logically ?)
>fails because if male homosexuality is proven one day to truly be a
THIS is what you call logic????
Pure unadulterated bullshit. Are you sure your mom's name isn't
Phyllis???
>
>Hopefully, they will be an enlightened family and not throw the homo
>male out on the
>street in his unelightened age -
Is that what you were threatened with???
Get off your mother's teat.
> but it is reasonable, since the data is
>not
>yet in, to expect him to present himself to society merely as a bachelor
>male,
>since the data is not all in. Allow him to conduct himself just like any
>other bachelor str8 guy. That will work. Look, he is always going to
>love guys.
>
You could have done just that, Robert, had you not begun spouting such
pathetic crap about women and gay men on the net.
But it's too late for that, Robert.
To put it bluntly: you fucked up.
Have a nice life.
<KILLFILE ON>
agay...@my-dejanews.com
> --
> Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
> http://www.turnleft.com/personal
>
UHHHH What the hell is some one who doesnt live in Columbus Ohio doing in a
Columbus Ohio NG?
from,
agaypunk
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
agay...@my-dejanews.com
times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
seems like I was not needed and my attempts at helping out were totally
ignored. from former PFLAG fag member David Ryan
Eric Bohlman
: PFLAG has pissed me off also as I have called thier phone line at least three
: times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
: trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
: but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
: action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
Keep in mind that while PFLAG has multiple missions, it was originally set
up as a support group, and that remains one of its most important
missions. The very nature of a support group is to have lots of meetings
which mostly amount to different people hashing out that same issues as
the previous people did. It's not a function that lends itself to notions
of "making progress" over time as a group.
If your primary concern is activism and large-scale social change, a
support group is going to look like a bunch of plodders and dabblers to
you. But such groups are necessary to (though not sufficient for)
achieving social change, even though they aren't the prime movers. Their
role isn't so much making change happen as it is making sure that people
can cope with the change.
I understand there is a fair amount of debate within PFLAG over the
relative priorities it should give to support, activism and public education.
John De Salvio
> PFLAG has pissed me off also as I have called thier phone line at least three
> times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
> trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
> but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
> action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
> seems like I was not needed and my attempts at helping out were totally
> ignored. from former PFLAG fag member David Ryan
You tell us nothing about WHY they have this attitude.
But I can see in your post a hint.
HINT:
It has to do with your personaility and attitude.
What do you think they might say if we spoke to them directly?
There ARE at least two sides to every story.
Conrad Sabatier
>homosexuality is, whether a genetically-induced mental defect state
>or a true variation of human sexuality, so my public and professional
>demeanour of this topic, as I continue to try and understand it,
>should be one of discretion and a skeptical and unbiased scietific
>outlook, as I continue to read and study it.
Unbiased? "Mental defect"?
Get thee to a therapist, child!
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
>logically ?)
Perhaps you prefer the "logic" of your new buddy, Cinque. Like when
he wrote:
>> Look, I know Ward's
>>descriptions must devastate your little mind but the truth is sometimes
>>like that-- and it's important that it hit you like a wall too! As Ward
>>points out, gay rhetoric has been the cause of countless unnecessary
>>deaths and untold personal misery. When gays like yourself blithely tell
>>our young anal sex is good and healthy your misinformation must be
>>counted with the cold hard truth and this is all that Ward is doing.
Sounds so good to you, huh....now, continuing your arguement:
No. That's not at all what is being said, Robert. Your new buddy,
Cinque is an exellent example of what is really being said by the
people who support you:
>>Homosexuality isn't right. Homosexuality isn't healthy. Homosexuality
>>has no place in our laws, schools, churches or even National
>>consciousness. Period.
>>Tough being gay, isn't it-- what with gay bashers lurking behind every
>>corner and folks denying you your right to connubial bliss it's a wonder
>>there's still one gay left in America. Who knows, maybe one day there
>>won't be.
How does it feel to know that your support comes from someone who
thinks like that?
Where do you think the problem is here, Robert??
Mike Silverman
> PFLAG has pissed me off also as I have called thier phone line at least three
> times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
> trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
> but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
> action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
> seems like I was not needed and my attempts at helping out were totally
> ignored. from former PFLAG fag member David Ryan
It's impolite to not return phonecalls regardless of who an organization
servers, but the primary mission of PFLAG is to provide support for
parents and a channel for social advocacy for parents and friends.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>agay...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: PFLAG has pissed me off also as I have called thier phone line at least three
>: times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
>: trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
>: but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
>: action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
>
>Keep in mind that while PFLAG has multiple missions, it was originally set
>up as a support group, and that remains one of its most important
>missions. The very nature of a support group is to have lots of meetings
>which mostly amount to different people hashing out that same issues as
>the previous people did. It's not a function that lends itself to notions
>of "making progress" over time as a group.
>
>If your primary concern is activism and large-scale social change, a
>support group is going to look like a bunch of plodders and dabblers to
>you. But such groups are necessary to (though not sufficient for)
>achieving social change, even though they aren't the prime movers. Their
>role isn't so much making change happen as it is making sure that people
>can cope with the change.
>
>I understand there is a fair amount of debate within PFLAG over the
>relative priorities it should give to support, activism and public education.
ALSO -- It must be noted that the maintenance of an effective
telephone response team requires money and volunteer time in
considerable amounts.
One must ask "agaypunk" how much of either HE has donated to PFLAG!
ward
***********************************************************
"I am constantly mystified by this notion of "disagreeing"
with homosexuality -- not unlike disagreeing with Tuesday --
like it or not, every seven days, there it is -- TUESDAY.
uncle ward
***********************************************************
Allen
>I hear you on the "mental defect" score. I also hear the frustration of
>others who notice that proper public health measures successful with other
>venereal diseases (the new PC term is STDs) have been blocked for political
>reasons --with a shameless public-be-damned attitude! It's understandable
>that the public at large would come to resent such a high-handed attitude on
>the part of elements of the homosexual community. And some of us noticed how
>it became un-PC to suggest that research effort go into a vaccine for AIDS.
>It was really ironic to see Clinton speechify for a vaccine when it was a
>part of his own political constituency (and donor base) who blocked those
>efforts for nearly a decade. Yeah, one might begin to suspect that this kind
>of nonsense is promoted by mental defectives!
Wait a second, you are saying the gay community and left-leaning
politicals are *against* the development of an AIDS vaccine?
I would LOVE to see the cites on this tidbit. And even if you could
produce them I would LOVE to see how they can be extrapolated to cover
the majority opinion of your so-labeled "PC" crowd.
>>Your "misgivings" come across as attacks and self-loathing.
>>Your claims that women and gay men are "mentally defective"
>>are groundless. Maybe you need to brush up on your communication
>>and argumentation skills.
>
>
>Ok, so whoever introduced the "mentally defective" characterization into the
>discussion was outta line.
Rob.
>Clinging to that phrase (for extra victimhood
>points?) and throwing it back just to cloud up the issue is also outta line.
Again, Rob.
>As for who should brush up on "communication and argumentation skills" I'd
>just say that blanking out issues because they aren't PC communicates
>nothing.
I have a hard time with the use of the phrase "PC." Usually its just
a code word for the liberal viewpoint. But there is also conservative
"PC" which is no less biased in its viewpoints.
>Pooh-poohing somebody's "misgivings" that have a genuine basis is
>not an argument.
Pooh-poohing someone's self-loathing (Rob's) that is extrapolated to
stereotype and attack the mental and social status of all gay men is
what is happening here. I have plenty of misgivings about the wisdom
of the "70s sexual-revolution" holdouts who claim to speak for the
gay community. I don't use those misgivings to claim that all gay men
or even a majority have that holdout attitude.
Allen
P.S. -- You are not "society."
John De Salvio
[huge post of half-truths and distortions about gays and AIDS>
Who are you, and why sould we bother with your anonymous rant?
Robert Arch Ward
> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:10 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> >Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> >logically ?)
>
> Perhaps you prefer the "logic" of your new buddy, Cinque. Like when
> he wrote:
>
> >> Look, I know Ward's
> >>descriptions must devastate your little mind but the truth is sometimes
> >>like that-- and it's important that it hit you like a wall too! As Ward
> >>points out, gay rhetoric has been the cause of countless unnecessary
> >>deaths and untold personal misery.
But Cinque is right on the money. I can go read in the homosexual lit
of the early 1970s (say, 1972 - do you want me to post the meaningless
homosexual drivel of that age here on the net ? It is available from Ohio
State)
about male homosexuals bringing dildos to local gay community meetings about
homosexual practices and discussing ways to better amplify and extend the
sexual sensations that they receive from the rectal/perineal area when they
perform anally-penetrative actions with them on themselves
Obviously, the rectal region was not designed for any of that stuff
Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
!
It is all so totally brainless and stupid, to believe that one of the most
sensitive
regions of the human body can take such callous and ignorant disregard
for its obvious structure and function, and that certain foolish homosexual
males
do it upon themselves even.
I am almost incredulous at the simplistic stupidity and gross ignorance of
homosexual males
of that era.
Honestly, Steve, it is as if the male homosexual did not know what to do with
a male body,
in my honest opinion. One makes a generally unbiased and intelligent reading
of
the literature (medical, sociological, psychological and the gay rants of the
age)
and this is what one notices - the homosexual male seems very
ill-fitted to the business of treating his beautiful male body correctly and
take good and reasonable care of it. It honestly seems as if his
pseudo-female
brain possibly may think a vagina is part of the duct-work down there, since
he has strong homosexual male desires to be "penetrated" by other males.
Geez the literature of that idiotic period (having unprotected anal
intercourse
with any "gay" guy you meet = shaking hands and introducing yourself) was
extremely damaging to the young homosexual males that immediately came
of age of that period. And, so, many homosexual males were infected and
died [of course, plodding through an 8-12 year painful convalescence].
Steve, why dont you take one of your nights and spend
it at a medical school library, and go to the proctology/urology volumes
and take one down and open it up to "Male Homosexual Pathologies"
and look at all the horrible pictures and technical articles of the suffering
& now dead homosexual humans - why dont you turn the pages until your
eyes almost fill with tears at the gross stupidity of your "gay" male
"brothers"
And please don't tell me that homosexual males DID NOT do this to themselves
Look, we're not mentally ill, right ? Isn't that right ? Now, in the 1990s,
unlike 1972, we are not supposed to stick cucumbers up our ass. Do you
not believe me that these articles exist ?
Do you want me to post to the USENET all the idiotic drivel of that age
(early 1970s) ?
> When gays like yourself blithely tell
> >>our young anal sex is good and healthy your misinformation must be
> >>counted with the cold hard truth and this is all that Ward is doing.
> Sounds so good to you, huh....now, continuing your arguement:
But Cinque is totally correct.
Look, Steve, pard, you dont have to change my mind.
I, personally, will probably support some form of limited domestic
partnership in Ohio,
but I will not call it marriage.
But, friend, mine is not the mind to change
You try honing your arguments on the very conservative, Christian-oriented
Ohio Republicans in the Civil and Commercial Law committee of the Ohio House
if you really want to change society, pard
Cinque is going to be a HELL of a lot easier to proabably persuade
than these very conservative legislators in my state, Ohio.
So what are you going to do to them when they slam doors in your
face ? Killfile them too ? Are you really interested in changing
society ? Dont you see that you have to compromise with a guy like Cinque ?
And believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of much more conservative
guys than him - he will at least talk to you. The rest of them will say :
"Steve, you have a close male friend that you dearly love. Well, that is
really
very nice, but I don't see why we should change fundamental legal structures
in society to accomodate you. Can you give us possibly stronger reasons other
than your "strong feelings for males" to support your legal redefinitions ?"
Is that too hard on you ? Why not just drop it all and blabber on
about your favorite obtrusively masculine actor down at your favorite
video bar then ? Are you really interested in changing society ? Are you ?
Then why dont you respond to Cinque intelligently instead of all the
stupid bleating I read on here all the time
OK, Steve -
Try now to convince Cinque that young homosexual males will now
stop all dangerous forms of oral and anal penetrative intercourse as they try
to form quasi-connubial unions that will be recognized by people who are
FAR more conservative than him. Please tell him that homosexual males
can control their very strong sexual drives to the point where enough of
them can protect themselves (meaning their immune-system functioning
and integrity) over the long term such that "gay marriage" will work for them
Babe, its your argument and it will be a damn hard one when you
read the medical literature.
> >>Tough being gay, isn't it-- what with gay bashers lurking behind every
> >>corner and folks denying you your right to connubial bliss it's a wonder
> >>there's still one gay left in America. Who knows, maybe one day there
> >>won't be.
>
> How does it feel to know that your support comes from someone who thinks
> like that?
>
> Where do you think the problem is here, Robert??
Steven, there is no problem with me, now a discreet and intelligent
"homosexual but not 'gay' " male,
like Mr. John Schafly. Steve, it is all your baby and I wish you the best of
luck as you now
spend the next twenty (20) years having doors slammed in your face at the
Ohio House
of Reps Civil and Commercial Law Committee. Babe, the Christians are
seriously armed and
it is "you" that have to compromise with "them"
I now agree, to some extent, now with Cinque
that it is true that many young homosexual males are not psychologically
stable/mature
and self-defensive enough to intellectually/emotionally fend themselves
off from very agressive, stronger homosexual males who are out looking for
very youngish
anally-receptive (even with condom protection) homosexual males who will
yield themselves and let them perform these highly damaging acts and thus
have their bodies irreparably damaged. So, these guys will contract diseases
(prob Hep B & C
from the fellatio that they have substituted for anal sex) and have their
lives burdened
with immuno-compromised immune systems. So, maybe that Adler book will come
in very handy.
Where do you think the problem is here, Steven ? Maybe it is true that
homosexual males,
although technically not insane, are very ill-fitted to the business of being
a male ?
Cinque, your opinions on this, please.
--
[ work] rw...@smtpgw.arms.ohio-state.edu
[other] wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu
Rev. Billy
>Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
>!
We're ashamed you are too.....
Mouse
Letao
> That's all I am saying. I cannot go the full-throttle, lets-
> spend-the-next-25-yrs-of-our-lives-trying-to-change-legislative-bodies
> to-accept-legal-contracts-based-on-male-homosexual-relationships
> attitude
> of gay rights advocates today. Look, I just dont know what it is, so I
> adopt the more discretionary and cautious attitude that is the hallmark
> of the intelligent scientist.
You are talking about *yourself* as if you were detached from your own
body, your own perceptions, your own experiences and feelings. You are
not an *it*, Robert; you are a human being. If you no longer want to
consider yourself an "it", you have to start validating your being.
You may not be an "activist" in the larger political sense of the word,
but you are you. Start validating the life you live, instead of examining
it from a detached state of objectification. Intelligence is only one
part of you, and is probably a characteristic that you identify when
defining yourself, but you are more than your intelligence. You are a
complex, cultural being. Start experiencing the other parts of yourself.
You are not only the scientist, but an active participant in your own
life.
> Also, my family would prefer that I do this.
> Since I deeply love my family and my parents, I provide acquiescence.
The more you keep saying that your family wishes not to discuss your life,
the more I come to dislike your family. But I can't decide if you've
actually had an intimate, in-depth discussion with them about this, or if
you're simply projecting an uncaring attitude on them because of remarks
they may have made from time to time.
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
Robert Arch Ward
Society - thanks for the supporting argument !
Actually, "gay marriage" is going to have a hell of a hard
sell because of all of this - and the arguments against it are legion
Main one: "Homos may not be mentally ill, but they almost clearly
have a damn hard time controlling their pseudo-sexuality. Also,
there is little disciplining or policing that goes on in the "gay" (LOL, sadly)
world - it is essentially a chaotic, structure-less sexual free-for-all"
>
> >"Being gay" does not equal "having AIDS."
>
> In the literal sense, yes. Operationally according to what the homosexual
> community DOES wrt AIDS, they behave as though it is.
Thanks !
> The slogan "being
> gay..." is just an attempt to demand that reasonable people ignore what the
> homosexual community is doing and shout down folks who object to the
> homosexual politicization of the AIDS issue.
Thanks again ! And this is so very rarely heard anywhere - certainly
not in the unbreathable PC-forums of PFLAG meetings with parents
in tears, wondering if their newly-out son is going to be dead by his mid-30s,
and the father who refuse to attend.
> These tactics may be cute in
> the short run, but in the long run they cause reasonable people to distance
> themselves from the homosexual community.
>
Hets distance themselves from the "gay" community because they dont
understand it in general - it is too bizzare, seeing guys walk down major
thoroughfares in "gay" pride parades in assless chaps, the entire S&M world
and now dozens of bare-breasted lez "wimmin" showing it all off. It is like a
small, weird circus where, when looking at the structureless, childish
stupidity
and lack of self-respect of it all, you think : "Geez what a bunch of freaks"
Also, hets think - "geez if I did any of that stuff I'd never be able to show
my face around town"
>
> >Heterosexual AIDS accounts for most of the AIDS cases in the world.
> >
> >(IMPORTANT QUESTION: Shouldn't that give you misgivings about
> >heterosexuality?? Maybe it's those heterosexuals who should be
> >discreet in public!)
>
> What is now called AIDS wasn't originally named GRID by US physicians for
> nothing. Heterosexual transmission of AIDS largely occurs in the general
> population outside the US, notably in Africa. (IMPORTANT QUESTION: Are you
> posting from Africa?) Within the US, heterosexual transmission of AIDS
> primarily occurs among folks in high-risk groups --including drug users and
> practitioners of various "unhygenic sexual practices" which for reasons of
> ideology you're trying to pretend don't exist.
>
(And a lot of the members of these groups are young black and latino homosexual
males)
Thanks ! And the pro-anal-sex advocates on this idiotic newsgroup (aph),
standing on the cremated ashes of hundreds of thousands of dead homosexual
males would want us to continue to believe that we can just use condoms and
the medical pathologies associated with it will "magically" vanish.
Rather simplistic thinking, don't you think ? The thinking is pollyannish
in a sense too - reminiscent of a simple, feelings-oriented mind
>
> >HIV/AIDS is a tragic disease that has happened to many gay men in
> >the US, but education, prevention, and treatment (rather than blaming
> >a "mental defect") are the answer.
>
> I hear you on the "mental defect" score.
Science is still out on what male homosexuality is: a genetically-induced
mental lack of testorsterone-mediated development of a developing male
embryonic brain or a true variation of human male sexuality
Thats all I am saying
> I also hear the frustration of
> others who notice that proper public health measures successful with other
> venereal diseases (the new PC term is STDs) have been blocked for political
> reasons --with a shameless public-be-damned attitude! It's understandable
> that the public at large would come to resent such a high-handed attitude on
> the part of elements of the homosexual community. And some of us noticed how
> it became un-PC to suggest that research effort go into a vaccine for AIDS.
> It was really ironic to see Clinton speechify for a vaccine when it was a
> part of his own political constituency (and donor base) who blocked those
> efforts for nearly a decade. Yeah, one might begin to suspect that this kind
> of nonsense is promoted by mental defectives!
>
> >> Look, Dale - after speaking with str8 guys who seriously love me
> >> and after a HELL of a lot of reading on male homosexuality in the
> >> library, it is a damn complex topic. Can you see that I have a
> >> lot of serious misgivings about all this ?
> >
> >Your "misgivings" come across as attacks and self-loathing.
> >Your claims that women and gay men are "mentally defective"
> >are groundless. Maybe you need to brush up on your communication
> >and argumentation skills.
>
> Ok, so whoever introduced the "mentally defective" characterization into the
> discussion was outta line.
Bullshit. It is not out of line. It may be seriously true that *some*
homosexual males
have a damn hard time of keeping their sexuality in check and refraining from
very degrading and damaging anal sex. Geez, friggin go to a med school library
and
read the lit - almost all the proctology/urology literature is NOT KEEN on
males
sticking things up into a very sensitive and totally unrepairable area -
but yet this very damaging activity continues with young black and latino homo
males,
even after all these years of AIDS "safer-sex" education
And yet you see postings by sexually-obsessed "pleasure and sex-positive"
gay activists that pretend that (again pollyannishly) "everything with queer
males is A-OK and we can hopefully all train them to maybe divert their sex
drives
> Clinging to that phrase (for extra victimhood
> points?)
Some homosexual males truly may need help - they are now abandoned by
the PC psychobabble of their age
> and throwing it back just to cloud up the issue is also outta line.
> As for who should brush up on "communication and argumentation skills" I'd
> just say that blanking out issues because they aren't PC communicates
> nothing. Pooh-poohing somebody's "misgivings" that have a genuine basis is
> not an argument.
Hear hear ! And believe me, if you think convincing a man like Cinque
is hard - babe, in the legislature, grappling with the conservatives, you
aint seen nothing yet
Look, Im a homosexual male. I give up on all this "gay rights" business
It is a waste of my life - I will try and be discreet with a 'close male bud'
(or more correctly a serially monogamous string of them, why lie ? Geez
it is an obvious point that males are almost built by nature to be promiscuous)
but will not try and elevate that relationship to a "marriage-like" status
However, I will probably support a domestic partnership-type document
for estate transfers between individuals
Letao
> Certainly, we do not want you to possibly espouse a personal lifestyle
> that
> would encourage a general acceptance of not-well-understood male-male
> relationships
> that have complex and difficult to correct implications in the wider
> society
> at large. So, look, just be discreet about it and arrange your personal
> life
> so that needs for companionship and human affection are met in ways that
> will not affect the reputation of our family and your personal rep
> unduly.
You need to move to a gay ghetto. Just immerse yourself for a while. It
may be a simplistic solution, but it will dispel you of the "difficulties"
you seem to have affirming your own homosexuality.
Mike Silverman
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Babe, the Christians are
> seriously armed and
> it is "you" that have to compromise with "them"
Sorry, Uncle Tom. Feel free to walk with bowed head into the gas
chamber...just don't expect anyone to follow you.
Mike Silverman
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Actually, "gay marriage" is going to have a hell of a hard
> sell because of all of this - and the arguments against it are legion
Actually, I know of only one good argument against it: bigotry
And one good argument for it: equality
Letao
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Science is still out on what male homosexuality is: a genetically-induced
> mental lack of testorsterone-mediated development of a developing male
> embryonic brain or a true variation of human male sexuality
>
> Thats all I am saying
Why does it matter? Why do you have this overwhelming need to find a
"cause" for being who you are? Homosexuality exists. It is an integral
part of who you are, but not your totality. You need know nothing more
than that to live your life.
John De Salvio
> Cinque has NEVER been correct about any statement he made on this
> subject.. PERIOD
Neither has Robert Arch Ward, his straight (yes, straight) sidekick.
John De Salvio
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> RavensHeart wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:10 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> > <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> > >logically ?)
> >
> > Perhaps you prefer the "logic" of your new buddy, Cinque. Like when
> > he wrote:
> >
> > >> Look, I know Ward's
> > >>descriptions must devastate your little mind but the truth is sometimes
> > >>like that-- and it's important that it hit you like a wall too! As Ward
> > >>points out, gay rhetoric has been the cause of countless unnecessary
> > >>deaths and untold personal misery.
>
> But Cinque is right on the money. I can go read in the homosexual lit
> of the early 1970s (say, 1972 - do you want me to post the meaningless
> homosexual drivel of that age here on the net ? It is available from Ohio
> State)
> about male homosexuals bringing dildos to local gay community meetings about
> homosexual practices and discussing ways to better amplify and extend the
> sexual sensations that they receive from the rectal/perineal area when they
> perform anally-penetrative actions with them on themselves
>
> Obviously, the rectal region was not designed for any of that stuff
>
> Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
The answer is quite simple:
You are NOT a male homosexual, you are a fraudulent heterosexual troll.
John De Salvio
(Rev. Billy) wrote:
> Robert Arch Ward <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
> >!
>
> We're ashamed you are too.....
But he isn't. He's a straight troll.
Nicole Lasher
sex with self-mutilation>
People who go to extremes and damage their internal organs are
pathological. This includes heterosexual identified people. Being into
BDSM, I've seen a great deal of injury and self-injury done in the name
of sexual pleasure. I don't do those sorts of things.
There are many bi and gay men that I have known, who don't mutilate
themselves either...In fact, I'd assume that most don't.
I got the run-down on anal sex safety from a gay man before I tried it
on my own, and I must say, his advice prevented a great deal of injury,
and opened my sex life up to something I never thought of as a turn-on
before.
From my experience, and from friends in the medical field, I know there
are plenty of horror stories about gay men and the damage they do to
each other and themselves, but I've heard equally shocking things about
heterosexuals...Like the time a woman got a coke bottle stuck in her
vagina because it created a vacuum against her cervix...her male partner
did that to her...about genital piercings being "accidentally" pulled
out by people partners (usually a hetero female being injured by a
hetero male).
Gay men have absolutely no monopoly on sexual pathology. Being gay in
and of itself does not make a person prone to harmful behaviors. Anal
sex is not a harmful behavior unless it is done improperly.
~Niki
RavensHeart
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>RavensHeart wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:10 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
>> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>But Cinque is right on the money.
You are even more pathetically stupid than I thought
> I can go read in the homosexual lit
>of the early 1970s (say, 1972 - do you want me to post the meaningless
>homosexual drivel of that age here on the net ? It is available from Ohio
>State)
>about male homosexuals bringing dildos to local gay community meetings about
>homosexual practices and discussing ways to better amplify and extend the
>sexual sensations that they receive from the rectal/perineal area when they
>perform anally-penetrative actions with them on themselves
Has anyone broken the news to you that this is 1998?
>
>Obviously, the rectal region was not designed for any of that stuff
>
Desgned? Was the mouth designed for more than one purpose? Was the
vagina? How do you know what they were "designed" for? Are you the
architect? No? Then shut up and go get me some more onion dip.
>Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
>!
Not half as ashamed as I am that you are!
>
>It is all so totally brainless and stupid, to believe that one of the most
>sensitive
>regions of the human body can take such callous and ignorant disregard
>for its obvious structure and function, and that certain foolish homosexual
>males
>do it upon themselves even.
I remember sliding a finger up my last partner's ass. lt was done
carefully and gently and the gentle massaging of his prostrate greatly
intensified his orgasm. Now... can you tell me how that was "callous"
treatment? As it gave him pleasure, and we are meant to enjoy the
pleasures life offers us (even sex, Rob!) can you tell me how this was
an act of ignorance?
>
>I am almost incredulous at the simplistic stupidity and gross ignorance of
>homosexual males
>of that era.
How old are you Rob? Did you live in that "era". If so, how old were
you at the time? Where did you live at the time?
>
>Honestly, Steve, it is as if the male homosexual did not know what to do with
>a male body,
>in my honest opinion. One makes a generally unbiased and intelligent reading
>of
>the literature (medical, sociological, psychological and the gay rants of the
>age)
>and this is what one notices - the homosexual male seems very
>ill-fitted to the business of treating his beautiful male body correctly and
>take good and reasonable care of it. It honestly seems as if his
>pseudo-female brain
There you go again...being a misogynist.... and the sad thing is
really that you are too ignorant to even realize it.
>possibly may think a vagina is part of the duct-work down there, since
>he has strong homosexual male desires to be "penetrated" by other males.
That's funny. I've been gay for as long as I can remember. I am
forty seven. If you are referring to anal intercourse, I have never
had a desire to be "penetrated" by anyone. If you are referring to
oral intercourse, I don't consider it "penetration". I am not
"penetrated" as much as my paramour is "devoured". But that could
simply be the chef in me.
Looks like you're generalizing again, Rob. Could it be that YOU have
a desire to be "penetrated" by other males? Well that's OK. We won't
think any the less of you for it. Just remember to have your partner
use a condom and insist on lubricant. I'm sure you can find someone
to explain to you how to do it right so that there is no injury to
yourself.
>
>Geez the literature of that idiotic period (having unprotected anal
>intercourse
>with any "gay" guy you meet = shaking hands and introducing yourself) was
>extremely damaging to the young homosexual males that immediately came
>of age of that period.
Yes....and it's thirty years later. What's your point??
>And, so, many homosexual males were infected and
>died [of course, plodding through an 8-12 year painful convalescence].
Yes....and so did Africans and Haitians and IV drug users and on and
on and on. Neither YOU nor I nor ANYONE can go back and change
that. NO ONE KNEW. Do you understand that???
Can you possibly understand that there was NOTHING NEW about sexual
behavior. What WAS new was a VIRUS that NO ONE KNEW EXISTED. Do you
get it? Do you understand that now we KNOW and so we act
accordingly??
>
>Steve, why dont you take one of your nights and spend
>it at a medical school library, and go to the proctology/urology volumes
>and take one down and open it up to "Male Homosexual Pathologies"
>and look at all the horrible pictures and technical articles of the suffering
>& now dead homosexual humans - why dont you turn the pages until your
>eyes almost fill with tears at the gross stupidity of your "gay" male
>"brothers"
Because it serves no purpose. Because I have held the dying hand of
enough friends in my lifetime and have seen enough suffering and have
cried enough tears.
Does that mean that I stop living my life? Does that mean I decide
that I must not act upon my natural sexual desires? Does that mean
that I become like you? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!!!!
It means that I life my life with the knowledge and experience
available to anyone else living in 1998.
>
>And please don't tell me that homosexual males DID NOT do this to themselves
>
>Look, we're not mentally ill, right ? Isn't that right ? Now, in the 1990s,
>unlike 1972, we are not supposed to stick cucumbers up our ass. Do you
>not believe me that these articles exist ?
Yes. I also believe that I can find pictures on the internet of men
and women having sex with animals if I look for it. Does that mean
that this is what I do with MY free time. NO. I will lay odds that
what you are doing with YOUR free time is compulsive. Obsessively
compulsive. I will lay odds that you have trouble passing by a car
accident without stopping to look....and look until you see blood.
>
>Do you want me to post to the USENET all the idiotic drivel of that age
>(early 1970s) ?
I lived through the 70's, I don't need YOU to try to lecture ME on
them. What fucking arrogance.
Again...how OLD are you?????????
>
>But Cinque is totally correct.
You have gotten in bed with the devil...and you don't even care.
Cinque would prefer to see you dead...and you don't even care.
>
>Look, Steve, pard, you dont have to change my mind.
>I, personally, will probably support some form of limited domestic
>partnership in Ohio,
>but I will not call it marriage.
If you were standing in front of me right now, at the word "pard", I
would have punched your lights out.
>
>But, friend,
I am NOT your "friend". Never think of me as anything less than your
enemy. I consider you a traitor and a disgrace to gay men and women
everywhere.
> mine is not the mind to change
>You try honing your arguments on the very conservative, Christian-oriented
>Ohio Republicans in the Civil and Commercial Law committee of the Ohio House
>if you really want to change society, pard
1. another virtual punch in the face for calling me "pard" again.
2. I am too busy dealing with dealing with Civil Rights legislation
in the State of Oregon. I have fought the Oregon Citiznes
Alliance on the streets and in the voting booths for the three years I
have lived here. They are no longer a threat. I remain vigilant.
I have worked for Civil Rights my entire life, so don't you try to
preach to me you piss ant momma's boy.
>
>Cinque is going to be a HELL of a lot easier to proabably persuade
>than these very conservative legislators in my state, Ohio.
Well then, get to work.
>
>So what are you going to do to them when they slam doors in your
>face ? Killfile them too ? Are you really interested in changing
>society ?
Please see above.
> Dont you see that you have to compromise with a guy like Cinque ?
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
You are an idiot.
>And believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of much more conservative
>guys than him - he will at least talk to you. The rest of them will say :
>
>"Steve, you have a close male friend that you dearly love. Well, that is
>really
>very nice, but I don't see why we should change fundamental legal structures
>in society to accomodate you. Can you give us possibly stronger reasons other
>than your "strong feelings for males" to support your legal redefinitions ?"
Because I am a citizen of this country and therefore need to be
according complete equal rights. Not special you idiot, equal.
>
>Is that too hard on you ? Why not just drop it all and blabber on
>about your favorite obtrusively masculine actor down at your favorite
>video bar then ? Are you really interested in changing society ? Are you ?
What a moron. Again...see above.
>Then why dont you respond to Cinque intelligently instead of all the
>stupid bleating I read on here all the time
Because I'm the grenade thrower around here, jerk. If you don't like
what's written here, fuck off.
As far as the rest of your ranting goes, I have already spent more
time on you than you deserve.
You and Cinque belong together: Two Cheeks, One Butt
>
>
>
Rasmus Neikes
Robert Arch Ward <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
This is just soooo cute! Why don't you two invite cinque over and then you
could keep agreeing to yourselfes and repeat your arguments over and over
again...
That was not an argument, it was a general statement, but never mind...
>
> Actually, "gay marriage" is going to have a hell of a hard
> sell because of all of this - and the arguments against it are legion
All of what...??? Are you trying to sugggest that 'wrong and right' has a
determinig factor that includes the easiness of the issue...??? In that case I
take it Einstein was wrong?
>
> Main one: "Homos may not be mentally ill, but they almost clearly
> have a damn hard time controlling their pseudo-sexuality. Also,
> there is little disciplining or policing that goes on in the "gay" (LOL,
sadly)
> world - it is essentially a chaotic, structure-less sexual free-for-all"
Plese explain how you would cntrol 'sexuality'?
>
> >
> > >"Being gay" does not equal "having AIDS."
> >
> > In the literal sense, yes. Operationally according to what the homosexual
> > community DOES wrt AIDS, they behave as though it is.
>
> Thanks !
>
> > The slogan "being
> > gay..." is just an attempt to demand that reasonable people ignore what the
> > homosexual community is doing and shout down folks who object to the
> > homosexual politicization of the AIDS issue.
>
> Thanks again ! And this is so very rarely heard anywhere - certainly
> not in the unbreathable PC-forums of PFLAG meetings with parents
> in tears, wondering if their newly-out son is going to be dead by his mid-30s,
> and the father who refuse to attend.
Could you also explain what your statement has to do with the former one, and
where you think eiter of them makes sense...???
>
> > These tactics may be cute in
> > the short run, but in the long run they cause reasonable people to distance
> > themselves from the homosexual community.
> >
>
> Hets distance themselves from the "gay" community because they dont
> understand it in general -
You are aware of the fact that this is so,ethnig negative about hets rather
than anything about gays?
it is too bizzare, seeing guys walk down major
> thoroughfares in "gay" pride parades in assless chaps, the entire S&M world
> and now dozens of bare-breasted lez "wimmin" showing it all off. It is like a
> small, weird circus where, when looking at the structureless, childish
> stupidity
> and lack of self-respect of it all, you think : "Geez what a bunch of freaks"
http://www.snafu.de/~pbc/loveparade/gal1.htm
http://www.snafu.de/~pbc/loveparade/gal2.htm
http://www.snafu.de/~pbc/loveparade/gal3.htm
http://www.snafu.de/~pbc/loveparade/gal4.htm
http://www.snafu.de/~pbc/loveparade/gal5.htm
Just a few pictures from the 'Love Parade' in Berlin, Germany... pretty much
what you've been talking about, only that it has got nothing to do with
gays... (some of the galeries might not be available according to the site)
>
> Also, hets think - "geez if I did any of that stuff I'd never be able to show
> my face around town"
See above... I don't know about your place, but it's pretty big in the news
here, and peolpe don't seem to be having problems with it...
>
> >
> > >Heterosexual AIDS accounts for most of the AIDS cases in the world.
> > >
> > >(IMPORTANT QUESTION: Shouldn't that give you misgivings about
> > >heterosexuality?? Maybe it's those heterosexuals who should be
> > >discreet in public!)
> >
> > What is now called AIDS wasn't originally named GRID by US physicians for
> > nothing. Heterosexual transmission of AIDS largely occurs in the general
> > population outside the US, notably in Africa. (IMPORTANT QUESTION: Are you
> > posting from Africa?) Within the US, heterosexual transmission of AIDS
> > primarily occurs among folks in high-risk groups --including drug users and
> > practitioners of various "unhygenic sexual practices" which for reasons of
> > ideology you're trying to pretend don't exist.
> >
>
> (And a lot of the members of these groups are young black and latino
homosexual
> males)
And your data for this was taken from where? It strikes me as slightly
improbable that gays are not numerous enough to be of importance, yet still
account for such high percanteges of other sub-groups of the population...
>
> Thanks ! And the pro-anal-sex advocates on this idiotic newsgroup (aph),
> standing on the cremated ashes of hundreds of thousands of dead homosexual
> males would want us to continue to believe that we can just use condoms and
> the medical pathologies associated with it will "magically" vanish.
See...???
>
> Rather simplistic thinking, don't you think ? The thinking is pollyannish
> in a sense too - reminiscent of a simple, feelings-oriented mind
>
> >
> > >HIV/AIDS is a tragic disease that has happened to many gay men in
> > >the US, but education, prevention, and treatment (rather than blaming
> > >a "mental defect") are the answer.
> >
> > I hear you on the "mental defect" score.
>
> Science is still out on what male homosexuality is: a genetically-induced
> mental lack of testorsterone-mediated development of a developing male
> embryonic brain or a true variation of human male sexuality
>
> Thats all I am saying
And you don't have a clue what you're talking about... 'Science' is pretty
sure what it is, whether you want to belive it or not and also regardless
whether you want to blame it on a 'pc crowd' or not... oh, and what do you
think would be a 'false variation' of well... anything...
So? That would suggest that *some* homosexuals were not acting smart, however
that provides no reason to conclude that homosexuality was a mental defect.
>
> And yet you see postings by sexually-obsessed "pleasure and sex-positive"
> gay activists that pretend that (again pollyannishly) "everything with queer
> males is A-OK and we can hopefully all train them to maybe divert their sex
> drives
>
> > Clinging to that phrase (for extra victimhood
> > points?)
>
> Some homosexual males truly may need help - they are now abandoned by
> the PC psychobabble of their age
Again : *some* and *may* ... so what does it have to do with heterosexuality
in general?
>
> > and throwing it back just to cloud up the issue is also outta line.
> > As for who should brush up on "communication and argumentation skills" I'd
> > just say that blanking out issues because they aren't PC communicates
> > nothing. Pooh-poohing somebody's "misgivings" that have a genuine basis is
> > not an argument.
>
> Hear hear ! And believe me, if you think convincing a man like Cinque
> is hard - babe, in the legislature, grappling with the conservatives, you
> aint seen nothing yet
You're not actually using him as a postive example, are you...???
>
> Look, Im a homosexual male. I give up on all this "gay rights" business
>
> It is a waste of my life - I will try and be discreet with a 'close male bud'
> (or more correctly a serially monogamous string of them, why lie ? Geez
> it is an obvious point that males are almost built by nature to be
promiscuous)
>
> but will not try and elevate that relationship to a "marriage-like" status
Only because you have no interest in persuing your rights does nort mean that
they don't exist!
>
> However, I will probably support a domestic partnership-type document
> for estate transfers between individuals
Rasmus.
-- There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
agay...@my-dejanews.com
How the hell do you volunteer when you cant get a damn phone call
returned?...not once but three seperate occasions!.Look I dont mean to trash
PFLAG but just stating my experience..and it sucked.
And yes ward I have donated my money and FUCK YOU!
agay...@my-dejanews.com
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
> In article <6v4b5g$keb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agay...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > PFLAG has pissed me off also as I have called thier phone line at least three
> > times for help and got no answer!So I have gave up on them and have gave up
> > trying to help them..they are a bunch of very sweet and well meaning people
> > but just another organization that has too many meetings and not enough
> > action. I will still refer Parents or friends but not gay folk to them...it
> > ignored. from former PFLAG fag member David Ryan
>
> It's impolite to not return phonecalls regardless of who an organization
> servers, but the primary mission of PFLAG is to provide support for
> parents and a channel for social advocacy for parents and friends.
>
I can dig ...see I was getting email asking for information from parents of
gay kids and they were asking on more info on PFLAG...but never got one call
back....three different people three different times...so I have gave up on
the Cols chapter.
Mike Silverman
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
> In article <36168A6E...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>, Robert Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > RavensHeart wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:10 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> > > <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> > > >logically ?)
> > >
> > > Perhaps you prefer the "logic" of your new buddy, Cinque. Like when
> > > he wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Look, I know Ward's
> > > >>descriptions must devastate your little mind but the truth is sometimes
> > > >>like that-- and it's important that it hit you like a wall too! As Ward
> > > >>points out, gay rhetoric has been the cause of countless unnecessary
> > > >>deaths and untold personal misery.
> >
> > But Cinque is right on the money. I can go read in the homosexual lit
> > of the early 1970s (say, 1972 - do you want me to post the meaningless
> > homosexual drivel of that age here on the net ? It is available from Ohio
> > State)
> > about male homosexuals bringing dildos to local gay community meetings about
> > homosexual practices and discussing ways to better amplify and extend the
> > sexual sensations that they receive from the rectal/perineal area when they
> > perform anally-penetrative actions with them on themselves
> >
> > Obviously, the rectal region was not designed for any of that stuff
> >
> > Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male
homosexual
>
>
> The answer is quite simple:
>
> You are NOT a male homosexual, you are a fraudulent heterosexual troll.
I wonder if he is even a real engineer.
Mike Silverman
> In article <36189672...@news.slip.net>, speed...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Cinque has NEVER been correct about any statement he made on this
> > subject.. PERIOD
>
> Neither has Robert Arch Ward, his straight (yes, straight) sidekick.
>
Robert Arch Ward is Clyde Tolson to Cinque's J Edgar Hoover.
Nicole Lasher
> You are NOT a male homosexual, you are a fraudulent heterosexual troll.
>
I'm more inclined to believe that he is a heterosexual who performs
homosexual behaviors because of his disdain for women. It is common, in
misogynistic cultures and people for males to "prefer" one another
because they have been taught that females are somehow inferior ir
inadequate. If one is conditioned to only be capable of having any sort
of admiration for males, this could pervade their sexuality too.
I think this is the reason some people believe homosexuality is a
choice, and is brought on by nurture.
I, personally, don't believe it matters whether anyone was born gay or
not. My point is that there are a few for whom it is nurture, who have
rather destructive causative factors involved.
For instance, a simple admiration of men that leads to homosexual
behaviors is fine. Perhaps the person is not gay in the classic sense
of the word, but they are capable of loving someone without sexual
discrimination. I can't, for the life of me, see this as a bad thing.
However, if that person expresses homosexual behaviors because of a
fear/hate of women, and only have sex with other men because it is an
alternative to the vagina that they fear, this can be a bad thing, and
lead to alot of emotional suffering of such a person's partner.
Like, if the partner express any behaviors at all that could be
construed as "feminine", they would meet with rejection from the
misogynist.
Before this gets to be *too* long a post, I'll sum it up.
John, I agree with the "straight" part, but disagree with the troll
part. I do believe that he really believes the things he's saying, and
is trying to debate. However sad, it does raise some interesting
issues...Any help for the psych student on this? Has anyone else met
"straight" men who express homosexual behaviors? Know the reasons why
these particular individuals keep coming back? Bigger question:
If a person who is heterosexual, initially, gets hurt (or comes to
believe women inferior), and turns to men, really gay?
~Niki
Scott Taylor
Mike Silverman wrote:
Except J. Edgar Hoover looked better in a dress.
Allen
(RavensHeart) wrote:
>>I am almost incredulous at the simplistic stupidity and gross ignorance of
>>homosexual males
>>of that era.
>
>How old are you Rob? Did you live in that "era". If so, how old were
>you at the time? Where did you live at the time?
>>Geez the literature of that idiotic period (having unprotected anal
>>intercourse
>>with any "gay" guy you meet = shaking hands and introducing yourself) was
>>extremely damaging to the young homosexual males that immediately came
>>of age of that period.
>
>Yes....and it's thirty years later. What's your point??
>>And please don't tell me that homosexual males DID NOT do this to themselves
>>
>>Look, we're not mentally ill, right ? Isn't that right ? Now, in the 1990s,
>>unlike 1972, we are not supposed to stick cucumbers up our ass. Do you
>>not believe me that these articles exist ?
>
>Yes. I also believe that I can find pictures on the internet of men
>and women having sex with animals if I look for it. Does that mean
>that this is what I do with MY free time. NO. I will lay odds that
>what you are doing with YOUR free time is compulsive. Obsessively
>compulsive. I will lay odds that you have trouble passing by a car
>accident without stopping to look....and look until you see blood.
>>
>>Do you want me to post to the USENET all the idiotic drivel of that age
>>(early 1970s) ?
>
>I lived through the 70's, I don't need YOU to try to lecture ME on
>them. What fucking arrogance.
>
>Again...how OLD are you?????????
What is this constant obsession of his with the sexual practices of
the 1970s?
Should we base judgement of heterosexuals today on their sexual
practices from 25-30 years ago?
I'd hate to see RAW become a television critic. He'd probably base a
substantial amount of his review of the new fall TV season with
extensive quotes from "All in the Family", "The Mod Squad", and the
celebrity panel on "Match Game - '73."
Allen
Scruffy van Piebles
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Scruffy van Piebles wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 10:26:35 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
>> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >But unlike all you guys I have not tortured my parents with having
>> >to nervously be introduced to homosexual lovers and bfs, and have to
>> >nervously and cautiously swallow all the "gay" political agenda in
>> >regards to my misunderstood sexuality.
>> >
>>
>> Would you rather have my parents? My mom insists upon meeting every
>> new boyfriend; -and then smothering him with warm fuzzies. Dad always
>> finds a way to maneuver the poor guy into the study for his
>> traditional "What are your intentions toward my son, and how much do
>> you make?" inquisition. My sister vets his political credentials, and
>> my brother talks his ear off about sports. In my family, it's the
>> lovers who are tortured. Maybe your family should join PFLAG.
>>
>
>Essentially, my position is that since I do not know what male
>homosexuality is, whether a genetically-induced mental defect state
>or a true variation of human sexuality, so my public and professional
>demeanour of this topic, as I continue to try and understand it,
>should be one of discretion and a skeptical and unbiased scietific
>outlook, as I continue to read and study it.
>
What do you mean you "do not know what male homosexuality is"? If
you're beyond adolescence and hang out in locker rooms, giving other
guys foot massages, you KNOW what it is! Even people who haven't done
it know what it is. Even if genetically induced, it is still a
variation of human sexuality. The only mental defect is skulking
about in shameful secret, and is of your own construction. The notion
that homosexuals are some sort of third gender, which is implied by
your juxtaposition of "mental defect state" and "true variation of
human sexuality", was abandoned by unbiased scientists a century ago.
What you don't know, what I don't know, what nobody really knows, is
what being homosexual means because it's different for everyone.
Think of all the shades of red from Chinese Restaurant to Desert Rose.
Think of all the different names for each minor variation of hue.
Sexual orientation is like that. Its expression is infinite, its
definition bounded only by our experience. Stop trying to conform to
someone else's expectation of your own life!
>
>That's all I am saying. I cannot go the full-throttle, lets-
>spend-the-next-25-yrs-of-our-lives-trying-to-change-legislative-bodies
>to-accept-legal-contracts-based-on-male-homosexual-relationships
>attitude of gay rights advocates today.
>
Then don't. But note that heterosexuals who don't wish to marry
seldom stand in the way of those who do.
>
> Look, I just dont know what it is, so I
>adopt the more discretionary and cautious attitude that is the hallmark
>of the intelligent scientist.
>
Discretion and caution are the hallmarks of anyone who wants to live
past thirty. Science and family have nothing to do with it.
>
> Also, my family would prefer that I do
>this.
>Since I deeply love my family and my parents, I provide acquiescence.
>
Your "acquiescence" rings hollow. One acquiesces to the terms of an
odious and lopsided contract. What outrage did you commit as a child
that your parents will not let you live down? The acquiescence you
"provide" is a wall separating you from your family. How can you
"deeply love" them from the other side? What are you getting in
return for smiling at them through a wall of ice?
>
>Also, since my family have not expressed any interest in discussing
>it, for whatever reason, I, solicitous of their happiness and mine,
>do not bring it up and discreetly indulge my affections without their
>seeming knowledge or interest.
>
To sum up, everybody pretends you're straight. The self loathing you
have displayed in your posts suggests that happiness isn't the result
of all this pretending. Just as you can't be straight by pretending
to be straight, you can't be happy by pretending to be happy.
>
>Look, the more religious family members of my family do not
>constantly press me with pamphlets of their religious beliefs,
>so why should I keep pressing them to listen to my personal
>politics or should go to a PFLAG meeting. Look, even the bewildered
>parents at a PFLAG Columbus board meeting, looking at me in rather
>curious astonishment, were not able to answer this question.
>
>Why should I force my family to attend a meeting in concurrance
>with my political beliefs when I would prefer that they not
>do the same to me ?
>
Who said anything about "politics"? We're talking about people here.
Real flesh and blood people; -your flesh and blood. You've tied up a
big pile of emotions and relationships into an ugly little package
called "politics" and then turned your back on it all because your own
family has an unresolved conflict with your sexual orientation. Far
from making you happy, this arrangement with your family has made you
bitter and cynical. The things you've said about women in general
suggest a pointed anger with your mother. Are your parents of like
mind in this situation?
If your parents can no longer embrace you as their child then it is
time for them to let you go and accept you as an equal adult. If they
can't then so be it. People grow up, move out and move on. What is
their hold over you and your life? Do they truly want you to be this
miserable? Do you?
Scruffy
Allen James
> In article <3616AABA...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>, Robert Arch Ward
> <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
You really need to stop crossposting your bizarre, juvenile ranting to
newsgroups that have nothing to do, even remotely, with the 'subject' of
your misinformed rants, Mr. Ward.
Fight (and lose) your battles yourself, and stop attempting to start
crossposting pisswars. It's childish.
That said, Mr. Ward, let's address some of the 'points' you attempt to
make in said rants.
First off, I and others can do as we wish with our anuses and genitalia.
Provided we do not do it in public, or force other people to do it with us
against their will, our anuses and genitalia and the things we may or may
not do with them are none of anyone's damn business.
Secondly, if you do not wish to do anything with your anus but excrete
wastes, so be it. Do try not to demonize those of us who may use our
anuses for other, more interesting things. And, before you cite a single
source of 'information' as the be-all-and-end-all of information on a
given subject, you may want to investigate other, more non-biased sources.
To do otherwise does nothing but portray you as a brainless, sheeplike
'believer', intent on following and promoting your 'faith' regardless of
evidence contrary to the tenents of said 'faith'.
Thirdly, nobody said you had to be a 'follower' of the alleged homosexual
'lifestyle' in order to champion equal rights for homosexuals. I myself
hardly fit the 'gay' mold. I do not go to gay bars, I do not go to pride
parades, I do not go to Fire Island, I've never been to a bathhouse
(unlike you, Mr. Ward), I think I watched "ellen" exactly one half of one
episode, I despise "Hi-NRG" dance music, I do not like musical theatre, I
don't go to Circuit Parties, I don't lisp or simper, I don't refer to my
fellow homosexuals as 'she' or 'girlfriend' ........
I vote, I pay my taxes, I don't try to duck out of Jury Duty, I don't
litter, I don't take illegal drugs, I give up my seat on the bus to
elderly folks, I help out my neighbors when they need it, I'm a member of
the NRA........
In short, about all I have in common with the "stereotypically gay
screaming queen" boogeyman you attempt to identify your critics as is that
I'm a carbon-based life form. But, I do believe that both I and the most
stereotypically gay man in America are deserving of equal rights, and that
those rights which have been unjustly witheld from both him and me should
be granted us. I doubt that I'd be likely to invite said stereotypically
'gay' man to my wedding, and I doubt I'd be invited to his, but I do not
think he is less deserving of equal rights just because his life is
different from mine.
Fourthly, it's about EQUAL RIGHTS, not so-called 'special' rights, Mr.
Ward. Homosexuals deviate from the 'typical American lifestyle' about as
much as, say, Hasidic Jews do. Nobody in this day and age refuses them
equal rights........
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
PHILIP LEWIS
have dedicated NG's that cater for your you - I suggest you stick to them.
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
DRS
PHILIP LEWIS wrote in message <6v9iai$huo$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
:Please will you stop crossposting Gay topics and squabbles in soc.men - you
:have dedicated NG's that cater for your you - I suggest you stick to them.
Are you suggesting that gays aren't 'real men'?
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
tyler hower
Robert Arch Ward wrote:
> RavensHeart wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:10 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> > <wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Additionally, Steve, your logic (do you have a problem thinking
> > >logically ?)
> >
> > Perhaps you prefer the "logic" of your new buddy, Cinque. Like when
> > he wrote:
> >
> > >> Look, I know Ward's
> > >>descriptions must devastate your little mind but the truth is sometimes
> > >>like that-- and it's important that it hit you like a wall too! As Ward
> > >>points out, gay rhetoric has been the cause of countless unnecessary
> > >>deaths and untold personal misery.
>
> But Cinque is right on the money. I can go read in the homosexual lit
> of the early 1970s (say, 1972 - do you want me to post the meaningless
> homosexual drivel of that age here on the net ? It is available from Ohio
> State)
> about male homosexuals bringing dildos to local gay community meetings about
> homosexual practices and discussing ways to better amplify and extend the
> sexual sensations that they receive from the rectal/perineal area when they
> perform anally-penetrative actions with them on themselves
>
> Obviously, the rectal region was not designed for any of that stuff
As an atheist, what conception of the design of any part of the anatomy do you
have? And, before you go all evolution-biological on me, it's pretty clear that
evolution, if it is even appropriate to speak of it as designing anything, didn't
design us for walking upright, witness lower back pain, a direct result of the
fact that the vertebrae weren't 'designed' to be vertical. Are you ashamed to
walk upright? Are you convinced that it is unnatural?
>
>
> Geez, it is so totally stupid it makes me ashamed that I am a male homosexual
> !
>
> It is all so totally brainless and stupid, to believe that one of the most
> sensitive
> regions of the human body can take such callous and ignorant disregard
> for its obvious structure and function, and that certain foolish homosexual
> males
> do it upon themselves even.
Please enlighten us as to any part of the body's obvious structure and function.
I certainly hope you never have kissed anyone in your life since I doubt that it
is part of the function--in your way of thinking--of the mouth to kiss. And
don't tell us that this appears in (extra-human) nature and so it's okay, since
anal sex does too, but you're against that.
>
>
> I am almost incredulous at the simplistic stupidity and gross ignorance of
> homosexual males
> of that era.
>
> Honestly, Steve, it is as if the male homosexual did not know what to do with
> a male body,
> in my honest opinion. One makes a generally unbiased and intelligent reading
> of
> the literature (medical, sociological, psychological and the gay rants of the
> age)
> and this is what one notices - the homosexual male seems very
> ill-fitted to the business of treating his beautiful male body correctly
Please enlighten as to your canons of notmativity.
> and
> take good and reasonable care of it. It honestly seems as if his
> pseudo-female
> brain possibly may think a vagina is part of the duct-work down there, since
> he has strong homosexual male desires to be "penetrated" by other males.
>
> Geez the literature of that idiotic period (having unprotected anal
> intercourse
> with any "gay" guy you meet = shaking hands and introducing yourself) was
> extremely damaging to the young homosexual males that immediately came
> of age of that period. And, so, many homosexual males were infected and
> died [of course, plodding through an 8-12 year painful convalescence].
>
> Steve, why dont you take one of your nights and spend
> it at a medical school library, and go to the proctology/urology volumes
> and take one down and open it up to "Male Homosexual Pathologies"
> and look at all the horrible pictures and technical articles of the suffering
>
> & now dead homosexual humans - why dont you turn the pages until your
> eyes almost fill with tears at the gross stupidity of your "gay" male
> "brothers"
>
> And please don't tell me that homosexual males DID NOT do this to themselves
>
> Look, we're not mentally ill, right ? Isn't that right ? Now, in the 1990s,
> unlike 1972, we are not supposed to stick cucumbers up our ass. Do you
> not believe me that these articles exist ?
You're so fond of talking about non sequitirs and here you give the group
numerous examples.
Tyler