Gay Day (GET A LIFE PEOPLE)

17 views
Skip to first unread message

IIDaRcYII

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

Seriously....WHO CARES????????????? I am so sick of homophobic people it makes
me want to puke. I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
from anyone else. So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!

Ariel

Zipadidoo

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

Thanks for your input, Ariel, but the situation DOES go a little deeper than
just homophobia.
Carli,
"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
imagine"-
Walt Disney, talking about Walt Disney World
TDC Zipadidoo, Keeper of the Geosphere

BigLug ®

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

IIDaRcYII wrote:

> Seriously....WHO CARES?????????????
> I am so sick of homophobic people it makes me want to puke.

Well, obviously, *you* care. Or it wouldn't make you retch...


> I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
> from anyone else.

Actually, they *are* different. Otherwise, some folks wouldn't
feel the need to treat them differently. Right?

Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...


> So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!

Thanks, I have a great one. :)

Have a nice day....


In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)

The Rev. Patrick J. Z. Kucera

unread,
May 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/19/98
to

> Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
> else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...

Don't be too alarmed when you find out that a lot of straight couples
participate in this activity as well.

The Rev. Patrick Kucera
Brooklyn, NY

TDC High Priest of the WDW Wedding Pavillion and Keeper of the Sacred
Relics Therein

IIDaRcYII

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

>Thanks for your input, Ariel, but the situation DOES go a little deeper than
>just homophobia.
>Carli,
>"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
>imagine"-

I dont mean to flame or be a b*tch but what's so 'deep' about it?

Ariel

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <356236...@netcene.com>, BigLug ® <mah...@netcene.com> wrote:

> In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
> term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)

Or we could discuss the intellectual vacuity of those that believe the the
suffix -phobe *only* means "scared of".

:)

Stew

Michael Kelleher

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

BigLug ® wrote in message <356236...@netcene.com>...


>IIDaRcYII wrote:
>
>> Seriously....WHO CARES?????????????
>> I am so sick of homophobic people it makes me want to puke.
>
>Well, obviously, *you* care. Or it wouldn't make you retch...
>
>
>> I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
>> from anyone else.
>
>Actually, they *are* different. Otherwise, some folks wouldn't
>feel the need to treat them differently. Right?
>

>Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
>else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...
>
>

>> So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!
>
>Thanks, I have a great one. :)
>
>Have a nice day....
>
>

>In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
>term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)

Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe
Pronunciation: -"fOb
Function: noun
Date: 1975
: a person characterized by homophobia

Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
Date: 1786
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular
object, class of objects, or situation

Main Entry: 1fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
intransitive senses : to be afraid or apprehensive

Entry Word: fear
Function: n
Text: 1 agitation or dismay in the anticipation of or in the presence of
danger <living in fear of what the future might hold>
Synonyms alarm, cold feet, consternation, dismay, dread, fright, horror,
panic, terror, trepidation, trepidity (gee any of these seem like SCARED???)

Mike

Michael Kelleher

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Stew Barnes wrote in message ...


>In article <356236...@netcene.com>, BigLug ® <mah...@netcene.com>
wrote:
>

>> In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
>> term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)
>

>Or we could discuss the intellectual vacuity of those that believe the the
>suffix -phobe *only* means "scared of".
>
>:)
>
>Stew

Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe

Zipadidoo

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

I didn't say it was deep, just that the issue goes deeper than just homophobia.
Read the posts; there are issues of crowded parks, special interest groups
being too powerful, etc. I'm not saying I agree with any of it, but you should
realize that homophobia is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Carli,
"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
imagine"-

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <6jtsf1$lr7$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:

Of course you could have saved yourself some work (and not have had to
repeat essentially the same post three times) by just looking up the
suffix -phobe; using your site (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) we
find a definition of:

Main Entry: -phobe
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: Greek -phobos fearing
: one fearing or averse to (something specified) <Francophobe>

Even if you wanted to go back to the root, "phobia", M-W lists it's use as
a suffix as:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing,
from phobos fear, flight, from
phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

S

Stew

IIDaRcYII

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

>I didn't say it was deep, just that the issue goes deeper than just
>homophobia.
>Read the posts; there are issues of crowded parks, special interest groups
>being too powerful, etc. I'm not saying I agree with any of it, but you
>should
>realize that homophobia is really just the tip of the iceberg.
>Carli,

Oh, Okay, Let's invite the KKK to WDW...huh??? talk about special intrest
groups at the park....


Ariel.....

Dennis Metcalfe

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

On 20 May 1998 16:23:55 GMT, iida...@aol.com (IIDaRcYII) wrote:

<snip>


>Oh, Okay, Let's invite the KKK to WDW...huh??? talk about special intrest
>groups at the park....

Disney did not do the inviting.... a group of people with similar
interests said "Let's get together on such and such day at such and
such place" ... apparently it worked.

Darn near nobody invites the KKK anywhere but if they follow the
rules, they have the same rights as any other group, as distasteful as
they may be to you or me .... at Disney or even on your city streets.

Dennis Metcalfe

Zipadidoo

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

What are you talking about? I try to clarify the argument for you and you go
off on a kkk tangent?

IIDaRcYII

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

>What are you talking about? I try to clarify the argument for you and you go
>off on a kkk tangent?
>Carli,

Sorry...I'm just really touchy on this subject. It's like a bunch of
Christian's decide to go to the park one day. All I'm saying is WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE???? It's no worse than watching teenage or even adult couples grope
and make out at the park...now THAT'S revolting!!! I mean...get a room people.
:)

Ariel (still putting in her $.02)

Zipadidoo

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

And I wasn't giving my OPINION- I was just telling you what people were arguing
about.

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:

> Of course I also could have consulted my Psychology text which also states a
> phobia as "an unrealistic fear of a specific situation, activity or thing.
> Then goes on to state that "Some phobias are extremely common such as a fear
> of heights (acrophobia); fear of closed spaces (claustrophobia); fear of
> dirt and germs dirt and germs (mysophobia); and fear of animals, especially
> snakes, dogs, insects and mice (zoophobia). Others are rarer such as fear of
> purple (porphyrophobia), fear of the number 13 (triskaidekaphobia) and a
> fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)." from Psychology Wade
> and Tavris Fifth edition. But I was trying to avoid all that typing.

As well you should, since it doesn't bolster you original point.
Homphobia certainly includes a fear of interacting with homosexuals. It
is a sub-set of the entire definition.

Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
being intellectualy vapid? Do you still contend that homophobia only
refers to a fear of homosexuals?

Stew

Holyamos

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

> All I'm saying is WHAT'S THE
>DIFFERENCE???? It's no worse than watching teenage or even adult couples
>grope
>and make out at the park...now THAT'S revolting!!! I mean...get a room
>people.

I agree that any excessive displays of public affection are rude and
inconsiderate. However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity. (although if you look to the
animal kingdom, the "born gay" argument is very weak, most acts of what would
be considered gay activity, is really an intricate way of comunicating
hostility, fear, and social status) Do I fear Homosexuals? No. Do I choose
not to support their lifestyle or want my children exposed to their lifestyle?
No. If this makes me a homophobe, so be it.

Mark Johnson

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it? Well the same goes for being a
homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
to other people.
-Mark

Stew Barnes wrote in message ...

>In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Mark Johnson"
<Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
> a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
> yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
> reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
> which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
> corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
> doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it?

Yes, of course it does. It's the very definition of the word. You don't
like them. Neither do I. I'm an arachnophobe too. Whether you want to
view that fact as good, bad or indifferent is up to you.

>Well the same goes for being a
> homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
> them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
> to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
> Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
> reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
> world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
> to other people.

No, words have very set meanings. That's what a dictionary is for.
Whether or not a label is derogatory is subjective.

Stew

Robert

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Who made you god and let you decide what "normal" is? Anyone who thinks
they can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else has a major
problem. I think you need to cool your egotistical head before it explodes.

Robert

DCm63

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

>However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
>normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
>"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity.

By your logic, then, are deaf people not normal? They are a minority due to
environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did you know that many of them
don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong for them to try to start a
"Deaf Day?"

>Do I fear Homosexuals? No. Do I choose
>not to support their lifestyle or want my children exposed to their
>lifestyle?
>No.

Could you please explain what the homosexual lifestyle is? And what is the
heterosexual lifestyle? Which one do bisexuals live?

Rende

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

"Robert" <sk...@deltanet.com> wrote:

>"Who made you god and let you decide what "normal" is? Anyone who thinks they
can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else has a major problem. I
think you need to cool your egotistical head before it explodes."

Normal is not some abstract concept that is not quantifyible. Things that fall
within the norm are normal. Simple statistics speak for themselves. If there
is a tendency to become a heterosexual in adult life, guess what...that's the
norm. Skirting the issue by stating someone is egostical or believe they are
god-like is not going to change the facts, nor is some condescending comment
about who-decides-what-for-whom.

Rende

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

dc...@aol.com (DCm63) wrote:

>"By your logic, then, are deaf people not normal?"

That would be a logical conclusion. And let's be clear...we are talking about
one characteristic of a person, and not the person as a whole. There are
normal and abnormal behaviors. There are normal and abnormal physical
characteristics. Everyone has normal and abnormal traits about them. I
personally would not get a bunch of people together to celebrate "People Who
Sweat Excessively Day", but that's just me.

>"They are a minority due to environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did
you know that many of them don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong
for them to try to start a "Deaf Day?"

There can be any number of "Days" as there are people in the world...but some
people would like to avoid some "Days" that do not agree with their moral or
religious (or any other) belief. If there were ever a white supremicist day, I
certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions). If there is
to be respect for the gay community, there must be respect for those who do not
agree with their lifestyle...otherwise the whole issue is one big hypocracy.

Rende

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

dc...@aol.com (DCm63) wrote:

>"Could you please explain what the homosexual lifestyle is? And what is the
heterosexual lifestyle? Which one do bisexuals live?"

At the risk of answering what I would expect would be a rhetorical and obvious
question, I will reply this way:

The homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in which a person (or persons) partake
in sexual relations with members of the same sex; the heterosexual lifestyle is
a lifestyle in which a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with
members of the opposite sex; and the bisexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in which
a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with either the same or
opposite sex.

Now that I have stated the obvious, what more clarification is necessary?
Perhaps you are challenging the previous poster's comments about not exposing
his or her children to the homosexual lifestyle. It would be presumptuous to
question a parents' decisions, their right to decide, or to imply that this
sort of avoidance is not proper or normal.

jam...@peganet.com

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

People against "mixed" or bi-racial marriages are considered "racist".
Since you are "against" homosexuality", and you don't *like* the term
homophobe (even though it fits you to a *t*), I hereby coin a new term
of "homosexualist: one who is against homosexuality".

Perhaps I should get "lude" with you and wait for you to "aversity" me.

Also Mr. Johnson, can you explain the difference between "orientation" and
"preference"? (I'd use another dictionary - your Funk and Wagnall's appears
to be defective). And could you explain to us exactly what a "gay lifestyle"
is? You keep using this term, but I cannot figure it out.

Todd - The Unintelligent, Stupid, Town Drunk

In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Johnson" <Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
> a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
> yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
> reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
> which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
> corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that

> doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it? Well the same goes for being a


> homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
> them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
> to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
> Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
> reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
> world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
> to other people.

> -Mark
>
> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
> >In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid? Do you still contend that homophobia only
> >refers to a fear of homosexuals?
> >
> >Stew
>
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Michael Kelleher

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"

><kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course I also could have consulted my Psychology text which also
states a
>> phobia as "an unrealistic fear of a specific situation, activity or
thing.
>> Then goes on to state that "Some phobias are extremely common such as a
fear
>> of heights (acrophobia); fear of closed spaces (claustrophobia); fear of
>> dirt and germs dirt and germs (mysophobia); and fear of animals,
especially
>> snakes, dogs, insects and mice (zoophobia). Others are rarer such as fear
of
>> purple (porphyrophobia), fear of the number 13 (triskaidekaphobia) and a
>> fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)." from Psychology Wade
>> and Tavris Fifth edition. But I was trying to avoid all that typing.
>
>As well you should, since it doesn't bolster you original point.
>Homphobia certainly includes a fear of interacting with homosexuals. It
>is a sub-set of the entire definition.
>

>Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
>being intellectualy vapid?

I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.

>Do you still contend that homophobia only
>refers to a fear of homosexuals?


I have proven it as such.

Do you still not know how to read?


>>a fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)."

Are you saying than that porphyrophobia should also be used to refer to
people who just don't like the color purple? That claustrophobia also
applies to people who just want to protect their personal space? It is
obvious from the way the sentence is structured, and the other terms defined
therein, that the text is stating that "a fear of interaction with
homosexuals" is THE definition of homophobia. A phobia is a very serious
condition, one which can cause a person to cease simple normal day
activities just to avoid the thing that causes the phobia. It is obvious
that if Mr. Johnson frequents the Disney and has gay friends (as he has
stated, though I am sure some question the validity of the statement) than
he does not suffer from a PHOBIA. Either that or he has a damn good shrink.


Mike

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:

> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...

> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid?
>
> I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.

No, you have gone to great lengths to choose your sources, but you can't
contradict the basic meaning of -phobe :fear or aversion. Heck, you were
even kind enough to look up the word at F&W web site; you conveniently
left out the actual definition in order to further your goal. Instead,
you chose to present


> >Do you still contend that homophobia only
> >refers to a fear of homosexuals?
>
> I have proven it as such.

By selective editing of your sources you certainly have attempted to do so.

>
> Do you still not know how to read?
> >>a fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)."
>
> Are you saying than that porphyrophobia should also be used to refer to
> people who just don't like the color purple? That claustrophobia also
> applies to people who just want to protect their personal space? It is
> obvious from the way the sentence is structured, and the other terms defined
> therein, that the text is stating that "a fear of interaction with
> homosexuals" is THE definition of homophobia. A phobia is a very serious
> condition, one which can cause a person to cease simple normal day
> activities just to avoid the thing that causes the phobia.

Really? I guess everyone with claustrophobia has a very serious condition?

You are confusing a medical diagnosis with a common English term.

>It is obvious
> that if Mr. Johnson frequents the Disney and has gay friends (as he has
> stated, though I am sure some question the validity of the statement) than
> he does not suffer from a PHOBIA. Either that or he has a damn good shrink.

No, he does not suffer from a medical condition. He does of course meet
the definition of a homophobe: someone with an aversion to gay folks.

Stew

Stew Barnes

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:

> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid?
>
> I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.

No, you have gone to great lengths to choose your sources, but you can't

contradict the basic meaning of -phobe :fear or aversion. Heck, though you were
kind enough to look up the word at a web site you conveniently


left out the actual definition in order to further your goal. Instead,

you chose to present definitions of the root rather than usage of the
actual suffix. That you conveniently didn't present.

K...@nospam.com

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

On 22 May 1998 01:49:09 GMT, re...@aol.com (Rende) wrote:


>certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
>strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
>rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions).

How is anyone trampling your rights by merely going to Disney? No one
said you can't go. No one said you had to go.

Rende

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

I wrote:

>"certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions)."

K...@nospam.com wrote:

>"How is anyone trampling your rights by merely going to Disney? No one said
you can't go. No one said you had to go."

The rights in question (in my case) is not whether or not I have the right to
go to the Disney parks, but whether I have the right to object to behaviors
based upon my moral or religious beliefs. It is hypocritical to say that the
gay community has the right to believe whatever they want but I am not allowed
to believe that their behavior is unacceptible based upon my moral or religious
beliefs.

Holyamos

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

>>However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
>>normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
>>"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity.
>
>By your logic, then, are deaf people not normal? They are a minority due to

>environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did you know that many of them
>don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong for them to try to start a
>"Deaf Day?"

I would really like to meet a deaf person who does not want to hear. I think I
could safely say that all deaf people would like hear. While your argument is
correct that deaf people are not normal, most would gladly like to hear, if
there was a cure....I could but will not, follow that logic to Homosexuals. I
responded to this thread simply to point out my opinion and not nessisarily to
bash gays.

K...@nospam.com

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

On 22 May 1998 15:50:56 GMT, re...@aol.com (Rende) wrote:


>The rights in question (in my case) is not whether or not I have the right to
>go to the Disney parks, but whether I have the right to object to behaviors
>based upon my moral or religious beliefs.

Who's stopping you? Are there some gay folk at your house who stick a
cattle prod in your ribs everytime you think a bad thought? You can
object with anything you want, you just can't make other people suffer
for your personal beliefs. Your rights stop where other's begin.
Still, what's this have to do with a bunch of gay people in the park?
From someone who is there every day, gay day is not the ONLY time
there are gay people in the park. What do you want, for Disney
security to stop any potential gays before they come in? The park
won't run too well with less than half of it's cast members plus I'd
love to see the "test" to prove that you are straight.

kodo...@nyx.net

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

In article <barnesw-2105...@barnes-mac5.rockefeller.edu>,

bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) wrote:
>
> In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Mark Johnson"
> <Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> > simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody
has
> > a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's
like
> > yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt
to
> > reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario,
in
> > which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at
every
> > corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
> > doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it?
>
> Yes, of course it does. It's the very definition of the word. You don't
> like them. Neither do I. I'm an arachnophobe too. Whether you want to
> view that fact as good, bad or indifferent is up to you.
>

I'm not getting into the middle of this argument. I'm just going to explain
what was meant by the poster's analogy. The poster doesn't care for spiders.
They don't want them in their house. That does not make them an arachnophobe.
To be an arachnophobe, you have to be a person like me. I'm terrified of
spiders. I don't simply have a dislike for them, they make me truly
afraid. My memory blanks whenever i see them. Whoever is with me has to
describe my actions to me after the incident. Mostly they involve a lot of
screaming in utter fear, flinging objects at the spider, etc. That is fear of
spiders, which fits the literal translation of the word aracnophobia. The
"arachno" part of the word is derived from the Greek "arachne" meaning spider.
The "phobia" part of the word is from the Greek term, "phobos" meaning fear.
I'm not saying that everyone who has arachnophobia has severe reactions like
mine, but its a bit more than a dislike for those nasty beedy-eyed 8-legged
creatures. *yuck*

The poster is using this analogy to express the view that Homophobia is a fear
of homosexuals (not that people with this fear black out and fling objects at
them or anything, but they would have a genuine fear of them). Personally, I
think the term has more political meaning than that and another term for the
phenomenon should be found in order to adequately express its intended
meaning. Just thought I'd put my two cents in. I wouldn't want a bunch of
people classifying anyone as an arachnophobe when they simply have a dislike
for spiders....same goes for any other fear....

Mark Johnson

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

First of all, Stew, your posting shows you are a little paranoid and
suspicious of somebody editing it to make it sound like it's to their
benefit (the definition). You're wrong, and Mike is not going to waste his
time making definitions up just for this agrument, I doubt anybody will.
Second of all, you don't seem to understand that an aversion is when you
can't stand to be by something, not a hatred. I don't fit the quliafications
of a homophobe. How hard is that to get to your thick head? A homophobe is
one who doesn't like to go near gays due to their extreme fear of aversion
to them. I'm not scared of being by them, and I don't have an aversion to
being by them. I just don't agree with the lifestyle, and I don't agree that
any group should hold a day in a public place where tens of thousands of
people go each day to promote and force their views on everybody else. Say
what you want, but when you wear a shirt or a sign showing what religion you
are, what sexuality especially when it's a large group, you are forcing the
rest of the population to hear what you are saying and see your shirts. Some
might say it's not forceful.. but it is. If it were a gathering that you
went by choice, such as a political rally at a college auditorium, or any
auditorium, you go there by choice because you agree with this person's
views. It's not like they are holding it at the mall where everybody who
goes is subjected to hear and see what this person's views. The same should
be done here, especially for large groups at a public place who represent a
very contrversial issue nowdays. They should hold it at a convention center,
or a park that they can rent out for the day for themselves. Then there's
the argument about the gay agenda.. and it does exist in some extent. The
gay day website's has this agenda that by going to Disney World they will be
fighting bigotry and making the world better. How are they going to do that?
Are they going to threaten everybody that those who oppose will be
anihilated like some futuristic movie or like the Nazis did? I mean those
who don't agree won't change their views. This day has gone way further than
just a gathering of gay people enjoying the park.. it's now a political way
they can force people to listen to them to follow through with their hopless
agenda. People will never agree to homosexuality this way, if these pride
groups keep doing this. The current status will always be the same. You have
to learn that people don't listen when they're being shouted at... you have
to talk to be heard in reasonable terms, at least that's they way I and most
of the population feels or else homosexuality would be more widely accepted.
-Mark


Stew Barnes wrote in message ...

>In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"

Rende

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

K...@nospam.com wrote:

>"Who's stopping you? Are there some gay folk at your house who stick a cattle
prod in your ribs everytime you think a bad thought? You can object with
anything you want, you just can't make other people suffer for your personal
beliefs. Your rights stop where other's begin. Still, what's this have to do
with a bunch of gay people in the park? From someone who is there every day,
gay day is not the ONLY time there are gay people in the park. What do you
want, for Disney security to stop any potential gays before they come in? The
park won't run too well with less than half of it's cast members plus I'd love
to see the "test" to prove that you are straight."

Overexaggeration is not necessary. Besides, I am attempting to take a neutral
position in this argument. My reasoning should apply to either side of the
discussion.

This discussion came about because so many people have stated that homosexual
behavior should be accepted and/or ignored, and that it is improper for anyone
to actually stand up and object to it. I have not stated my opinion on the
homosexual issue one way or the other...I have simply stated that just as gays
have the right to speak their mind, so does the other side...without being
branded as prejudiced, homophobic, or promoting hate (although we cannot rule
these out completely).

People's behavior does not occur in a vacuum, and it affects people around
them...like it or not. Whether we are talking about loud people in movies,
aggressive drivers, religious zealots, etc...other people have to react to
behavior (good or bad) and make decisions about how they will act themselves.
If someone says that displays of affection by same sex couples causes stress,
anxiety, confusion, etc. within their family, isn't that causing the suffering
that you are referring to?

Okay...a thought to ponder. What happens when a same sex couple kisses in
public? They have made their statement that they are not going to follow
society's views about what is appropriate for public behavior. Now, can
someone go over to them and tell them that their behavior contradicts their
moral and/or religious beliefs? If you say no, then there is the stoppage you
suggest. If you say yes, then you are acknowledging that it is okay to express
themselves, which may cause a conflict with the other side.

You can't have things both ways. If people behave overly affectionate or
sexually in public (whether straight or gay), we have the right (and possibly
the obligation) to alert them to their conflict with accepted behavior, right?
If not, then the only ones with free speech are the ones that have perpetrated
the act in the first place.

Michael Kelleher

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>

>Really? I guess everyone with claustrophobia has a very serious condition?


True claustrophobia, yes they do!

>You are confusing a medical diagnosis with a common English term.


It seems to me as if people have taken a medical diagnosis and applied it to
whatever they feel like. I would imagine that the medical diagnosis of
homophobia has been around longer than the people who claim anyone who
disagrees with something is a homophobe.

Mike

DCm63

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

>I would really like to meet a deaf person who does not want to hear. I think
>I
>could safely say that all deaf people would like hear.

You can find many of them at Gallaudet University (it's a college geared to the
deaf).

DCm63

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

>The homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in which a person (or persons)
>partake
>in sexual relations with members of the same sex; the heterosexual lifestyle
>is
>a lifestyle in which a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with
>members of the opposite sex; and the bisexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in
>which
>a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with either the same or
>opposite sex.

You stated simply what it means to be straight, gay, or bi. Why do you use the
word "lifestyle?" You are not explaining any style in which someone goes about
their day to day existance. Unless, of course, you have sex 24 hours a day.
Gosh, if you do, you must be exhausted.

Rende

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

dc...@aol.com (DCm63) wrote:

>"You stated simply what it means to be straight, gay, or bi. Why do you use
the word "lifestyle?" You are not explaining any style in which someone goes
about their day to day existance. Unless, of course, you have sex 24 hours a
day. Gosh, if you do, you must be exhausted."

So to use your reasoning, if a person does not partake in sex 24 hours a day
they have no lifestyle? Okay...we are arguing semantics and people can have
many lifestyles. I was simply responding to the previous poster who asked for
a definition of the various life styles.

kodo...@nyx.net

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

*sigh* Ok. As far as I know, Websters is still considered to be one of the
best references used to define terms. According to Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary Copyright 1985 (a bit old I know, but its the only thing I have
handy at this point), phobia is defined as the following: "an exaggerated
usu. inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object or class of
objects". If the person in question has an illogical, exaggerated, and
inexplicable fear of homosexuals, then, yes, he can be classified as a true
homophobic. Otherwise, I can see no reason to classify him as such. Unless,
you want to write a letter of complaint to G and C Merriam Co. in Springfield,
MA, the company who published this particular edition of Websters.

Also, just as a point of interest because I have not been conversing with
people in a news group format for very long (about 3 or 4 days), could you
please tell me where the definition of the word, "homophobia", you are using
came from? I mean this as no point of controversy and I am by no means trying
to refute your source, I was just curious as to where the definition came
from.

Oh...and just for curiosity's sake, in my last post I pointed out the meaning
for the earliest form of the word, "phobia"...It comes from the Greek "phobos"
meaning fear or flight. There is no mention of aversion. However, I can see
where you are coming from. The current usage of the term due to the political
nature of the times is the usage you described. I'm not saying that it is
right to describe someone who may have an aversion (no matter how slight) with
a word that has such a clinical nature to it. I'm just pointing out that the
current usage of the word, for better or for worse, is as such.

Respectfully,
Kelley


In article <barnesw-2205...@erskine1-092.cybernex.net>,


bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) wrote:
>
> In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"

> <kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
>
> > Stew Barnes wrote in message ...

> Really? I guess everyone with claustrophobia has a very serious condition?
>

> You are confusing a medical diagnosis with a common English term.
>

> >It is obvious
> > that if Mr. Johnson frequents the Disney and has gay friends (as he has
> > stated, though I am sure some question the validity of the statement) than
> > he does not suffer from a PHOBIA. Either that or he has a damn good
shrink.
>

> No, he does not suffer from a medical condition. He does of course meet
> the definition of a homophobe: someone with an aversion to gay folks.
>
> Stew
>

jam...@peganet.com

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

It is not really arguing semantics at all, if you think about it.
Plenty of gay/straight/bi folks are in committed relationships and do not
have sex. When someone uses the term "gay lifestyle", they are implying
that ALL gay people live their lives in the exact same fashion. You will
agree that this is not true. Your answer would have been correct if the
question had been: What is the difference between gay/straight/bi
"orientations". And if you had read Dcm's response carefully, you would have
noted that Dcm said: " You are not explaining any style in which someone

goes about their day to day existance."

I'm not nitpicking you per say, but can anyone tell me how a gay person lives
their life any different than a straight or bi person - MINUS the sex
differential?

Doug Swallow

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

As the person who is responsible for starting and organizing Gay Day at
Disney, I thought it might be time to put to rest some of the misconceptions
which are being thrown about concerning the origins, intents and purposes
behind Gay Day at Disney.

In 1991, I and a small group of friends conceived of meeting at The Magic
Kingdom one day "in the near future" as a social gathering. Much like many
groups of 15 to 20 people might conceive of going to Disney together. I
simply took one extra step, promoting it in gay nightclubs in Orlando, since
we had set a date that was a few months in the future. The media,
specifically The Orlando Sentinel, then various morning radio talk shows in
Orlando, got hold of the plans and thought it newsworthy enough to make
mention of it in their respective forums. About 1,000 to 1,500 gay men and
women ended up at Disney that day in June 1991.

Since then, the event has grown explosively... for two specific reasons: (1)
groups on the religious right of the spectrum constantly make noise about
it, which generates enormous publicity... remember, the press likes
conflict; and (2) gay people who have gone have a lot of fun (as does most
anyone who goes to Disney) and when they returned home, they told friends,
who then gathered together the following year, had fun, went home, and each
told more friends, and so on, till we get to Gay Day #8 in 1998 where we
expect anywhere from 100,000 to 120,000 people to show up throughout the
weekend.

I won't deny that many find the mere presence of a large number of gay
people in one place to be political in nature. However Gay Day at Disney
started out specifically and solely as a time to gather together and HAVE
FUN at Disney. We have never sought to turn it into any sort of political
forum whatsoever, and in the subsequent years, the only time any gay politic
concept comes into play with Gay Day at Disney is when addressing the
politically inspired complaints against the event's mere existence by groups
in the religious right.

Gay Day at Disney is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a
political event in purpose or design.

The quotes which have been borrowed out of context at various times trying
to justify claims that this is a political event are referring to a campaign
called "Stand Our Ground" (which I should add was started by a straight
woman in Massachusetts who became thoroughly fed up with all the anti-Disney
redderick spread by certain groups), and the reference "we stand together
against bigotry, hatred and intolerance nationwide" is in reference to that
campaign, not to Gay Day at Disney. If the religious right and extremist
groups such as Operation Rescue could learn to keep their mouths shut and
let others enjoy what Disney offers in peace, we would not be forced into
the position of responding to their misguided actions. But, do not expect we
will not respond in some manner. We will.

Frankly I will immediately discount any straight person arguing against Gay
Day at Disney unless they have personally attended Disney during the event.
If one has something to say, it should be based upon reality, not upon
heresay. And I will say that with very few exceptions, the conversations
going on here about "what goes on at Gay Day" which are held by those
espousing an opinion against the event, are generally without much factual
basis.

If you will momentarily blind yourself to the gender if any particular
individual, then Nothing, Absolutely Nothing, goes on at Disney during Gay
Day that does not happen every other day of the year.

But it is not apparently reasonable to ask that one momentarily blind
oneself to gender. In fact, because gay men and women have for so long in
this country been ostracized by groups in the religious right, among others,
suddenly it becomes quite "noticeable" when two adult men or two adult women
might be holding hands while visiting Disney, whereas hundreds of couples
consisting of a man and a women doing exactly the same thing go completely
unnoticed. That's because ever since we grew up, we had role models
throughout our lives in the friends and strangers around us, and this
behavior, a man and a women holding hands, was so common, we tend to just
tune it out. But differentiate from that, and suddenly it's like being in
the spotlight.

It is not hard to understand that it is a difficult thing for two men or two
women to simply hold hands in public under such a spotlight of scrutiny. The
idea of attending Disney as a group of gay men and women was to provide that
same sense of commonality with sheer numbers. In other words, to permit
these many otherwise completely normal people to "have a day" when they can
enjoy the experiences offered at Disney without feeling that there is some
majestic spotlight identifying such simple behaviors as holding hands in
public with your loved one.

That's entirely what Gay Day at Disney is all about. Nothing more. And
nothing less. While it SHOULD BE quite acceptable for two men or two women
to hold hands in public any time of the year (and it is certainly and
legally quite permissible), that spotlight it puts people under can become
traumatic. Moreso with some of the nastier people who find they must go out
of their way to snort rude comments about that behavior when they become
aware of it. It is NOT a comfortable environment to be in. It should be. But
it is not. One day, it will be, and when that day finally is upon us, Gay
Day at Disney will likely still be around because of the social atmosphere
it has created, but it will no longer be NEEDED.

We try very hard to let as many people know about Gay Day as we possibly can
with the resources we have. Sure, there are people that don't like being
around gay men and women in such numbers. And while we can argue forever
about calling them names, they exist, and all we can do to try to help them
get through Gay Day is to help them plan around it. Disney does not help
very much in that regard, because for them, this is just another day in the
business they run. They have nothing to do with it, and have no problem with
it. They simply do what they do every other day of the year.

Now, I won't deny we have always had reasonable access to Disney management
(at least as of 1993), but it is not because Disney was doing anything for
us or helping us. It was because we worked together to try to find ways to
ensure this did NOT turn into a political event, and did NOT become anything
more than a time to have fun at Disney, like every other day. I could cite
case after case, actually, where normal business decisions were made by
Disney management to AVOID appearing to be doing anything at all for Gay
Day. Any other company (and many in Orlando during Gay Day do take advantage
of the gay tourists in town, as they rightly should) would recognize the
market that exists that weekend and work towards opportunities to provide
entertainment and make some additional money from it. But this fever-pitch
nonsense spouted left and right by the religious right and similar groups
has caused them to look almost too closely at everything they might
otherwise do. For example, the week after Gay Day, at Downtown Disney
Pleasure Island, Vibe Magazine and Disney are bringing in all sorts of live
entertainment to celebrate Black History month. Why won't Disney bring in
entertainment that might be specifically attractive to a gay crowd? Would
any straight person really object to more live entertainment at Pleasure
Island? Do only gay people go to Madonna concerts? Or, for that matter,
Village People concerts (Disney booked Village People for Pleasure Island
New Years Eve one year, in fact... certainly raised no eyebrows then, so why
would it during Gay Day?)

With absolute certainty, I am sure that Disney does not deserve any of this
boycott nonsense. It is grossly unfair to them as a company, and to every
guest who spends their hard earned money at Disney.

Now, on to the shirts: we never expected to be the majority of the park
population when Gay Day first began (and frankly, I'm not sure I would ever
have believed back then that Gay Day would become so big so fast), and the
"wear red" idea was one I came up with as a means of us being able to "find
eachother" easily and feel more comfortable in general. Contrary to some
people's beliefs, you generally cannot tell a gay person from a straight
person if you were to just look at them. Since then, the t-shirts have taken
on a life of their own. Another fact: Disney management first got involved
with us directly in an attempt to defuse what they thought might be
happening as we came in larger and larger numbers, and the red became more
of an issue, especially with other guests who happened to wear red without
realizing the meaning we had given it that weekend. So we tried to eliminate
it in 1994. Well, it didn't work. But also in 1994, Disney started feeling
more comfortable with people's behavior. It was obvious that it was not
turning into a political platform for the gay community, but was continuing
on its course as an entirely social gathering to have fun. And I got so many
complaints about not having red shirts that we went back to that in
following years.

Disney management bends over backwards to address every complaint they get,
even those made with certain malicious intent. For several years, they gave
away free shirts to those guests wearing red who were upset to find
themselves in the park on Gay Day. They provided free tickets and
transportation to any other park (even non-Disney parks) to guests who
didn't want to be there. And those wonderful people at places like City Hall
had to endure endless hateful comments, too. Yet, they didn't flinch, they
smiled, and helped everywhere they could.

These last few years, Disney has gotten some backbone on those issues, as
word spread about how easy it was to get "something for nothing" out of
Disney just by acting like a bigot, Disney has clamped down more and more,
and nowadays is less likely to blanketly do those sorts of things to
everyone complaining, yet they still do bend over backwards to be helpful.

I hope that answers a few of the questions people have had, and with some
facts rather than innuendo, hearsay and simply wrong information.

So before you blindly bash Disney for something they have absolutely nothing
to do with, you might think first, and realize that Disney HAS gone out of
their way to assist people who have problems with Gay Day, without any real
reason except that they want every guest, gay or straight, to enjoy what the
parks have to offer. But some people are simply never satisfied unless the
entire world fits the exact framework for it which they have created in
their own minds. The United States was formed mostly because of religious
persecution in other countries, so before you just blindly start persecuting
people for being different, think what a wonderful place this country is
compared even today to many countries elsewhere in this world. Think how
much nicer it could be if everyone could simply exist day to day being who
they are and feeling welcome wherever they might go. And think about the
traumatic effect on those who must suffer because others do not permit them
that basic human right to be who they are. Gay Day at Disney is a very tiny
attempt to provide a glimpse of such a wonderful ideal world in a very
magical resort to a number of people that do not have the benefit of
enjoying their lives in peace. Perhaps Gay Day's apparent success at this in
so little time is a sign that there's more wrong in the rest of the country
than many people admit.

---
Doug Swallow
Founder/Organizer, Gay Day at Disney
http://www.gayday.com

(To reply by email, remove the "nospam." from my email domain name)


BigLug ®

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

[Ummm... anyone else see the irony in the fact that GayDay
was started by a guy named Doug SWALLOW? Just asking...]


Doug Swallow wrote:

> If the religious right and extremist groups such as Operation Rescue
> could learn to keep their mouths shut and let others enjoy what Disney
> offers in peace,

Here we see the true motive.... silence the critics. Interesting.


> Frankly I will immediately discount any straight person arguing against
> Gay Day at Disney unless they have personally attended Disney during the
> event. If one has something to say, it should be based upon reality, not
> upon heresay.

Invalid thesis --- I've never shot up heroin, but I know that's bad.


> It is not hard to understand that it is a difficult thing for two men or
> two women to simply hold hands in public under such a spotlight of scrutiny.
> The idea of attending Disney as a group of gay men and women was to provide
> that same sense of commonality with sheer numbers.

To "desensitize", "normalize", and "numb" the public.... Interesting.


> But some people are simply never satisfied unless the entire world fits
> the exact framework for it which they have created in their own minds.

Sounds like *your* goal. (change the mindset of Americans towards
homosexuals)

BTW, America was "founded" to spread Christianity (and stop the
persecution
thereof). Read the Mayflower Compact and the inscription on Plymouth
Rock.


Thanks, and have a nice day...
Mark :)

Charles McGuinness

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

Doug,

I enjoyed reading your post and finding out about the history of the event.
By now you must either feel proud or scared of the event you've created. Or
maybe both. In any case, you're one of the few people who gets their 15
minutes of fame once a year!

Best,
-- charles


Jason Travis

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

>[Ummm... anyone else see the irony in the fact that GayDay
> was started by a guy named Doug SWALLOW? Just asking...]

I'm not sure I get it. Most people swallow up to a few hundred times a day.
Nothing really unusual in that. Oh, perhaps you're referring to the fact
that Disney serves *food*...which would make it necessary for anyone at the
park to SWALLOW...I get it now! You're quite a funny guy!

>> Frankly I will immediately discount any straight person arguing against
>> Gay Day at Disney unless they have personally attended Disney during the
>> event. If one has something to say, it should be based upon reality, not
>> upon heresay.
>

>Invalid thesis --- I've never shot up heroin, but I know that's bad.

Most of the people you're getting your "heroin" information from say it's
bad, right? Heroin is a bad thing. Going to Disney is not in any way
life-threatening. Invalid rebuttal.

>> It is not hard to understand that it is a difficult thing for two men or
>> two women to simply hold hands in public under such a spotlight of
scrutiny.
>> The idea of attending Disney as a group of gay men and women was to
provide
>> that same sense of commonality with sheer numbers.
>

>To "desensitize", "normalize", and "numb" the public.... Interesting.

Why is it bad to get used to something that you can't change? Homosexuality
will continue whether you like it or not. Just as attitudes towards hetero
"normal" sex become less and less repressed, so will they towards
homosexuality. While I agree that this isn't necessarily all good (we had
to kick two teenagers out of the bookstore I work at for having sex in the
children's department) doesn't it make sense to not be so hung up about tame
affectionate contact? Love (meaning love, not sexual contact) should never
be a reason to hide.

>> But some people are simply never satisfied unless the entire world fits
>> the exact framework for it which they have created in their own minds.
>

>Sounds like *your* goal. (change the mindset of Americans towards
>homosexuals)

Um...in case you've forgotten, those two groups overlap. "American" is not
the opposite of "homosexual".

>BTW, America was "founded" to spread Christianity (and stop the
>persecution
>thereof). Read the Mayflower Compact and the inscription on Plymouth
>Rock

So it's okay to persecute a different group for their beliefs which don't
pose any threat or damage to you personally? Freedom of religion was only
ONE of the freedomsthe Pilgrims wanted by coming to America. The basic idea
was to get away from any sort of monarch who could tell the populace what to
do or not do. Far as I know, that's still in effect.

Your message was rude, ill-conceived, and did not manage to refute any of
the points in the original post. Try again if you think you can do better.
--
--Jason
Theatre Forum
http://forums.msn.com/Theatre


Rende

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

"Jason Travis" <jctr...@do.not.spam.msn.com> wrote:

>"Most of the people you're getting your "heroin" information from say it's
bad, right? Heroin is a bad thing. Going to Disney is not in any way
life-threatening. Invalid rebuttal."

I believe the poster was using a metaphor to prove the point. The poster
simply stated that one does not have to partake in an activity to know that it
is bad (or maybe just not right for that person). Stretching the statement and
judging it as invalid is not logical.

>"Why is it bad to get used to something that you can't change? Homosexuality
will continue whether you like it or not."

Conversely, why can't the homosexual community get used to the fact that not
everyone will accept their behavior, whether they like it or not.

>"Just as attitudes towards hetero "normal" sex become less and less repressed,
so will they towards homosexuality."

Reminds me of a history lesson about the way things were before the fall of the
great Roman empire.

>"Love (meaning love, not sexual contact) should never be a reason to hide."

I'll take displays of love over displays of hatred any time...but too much of
anything can be annoying.

>"Um...in case you've forgotten, those two groups overlap. "American" is not
the opposite of "homosexual".

I think the poster was referring to the majority of Americans being
heterosexual

>"So it's okay to persecute a different group for their beliefs which don't
pose any threat or damage to you personally? Freedom of religion was only ONE

of the freedoms the Pilgrims wanted by coming to America. The basic idea was


to get away from any sort of monarch who could tell the populace what to do or

not do. Far as I know, that's still in effect.."

I think the term "persecute" is a little strong. Most of these posts refer to
opinions, not persecution. In terms of posing any threat or damaging people, I
think that is a bit more subjective. Parents may feel uncomfortable and/or
stressful trying to explain to their children why two people of the same sex
are behaving affectionally (heck, the same may be said for explaining them
about two people of the opposite sex).

Holyamos

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>Why is it bad to get used to something that you can't change? Homosexuality
>will continue whether you like it or not.

Unfortunately, many things in our society will always be with us, like drug
addiction, alcholism, mental illness, etc. does that make it ok?

>So it's okay to persecute a different group for their beliefs which don't
>pose any threat or damage to you personally? Freedom of religion was only

>ONE of the freedomsthe Pilgrims wanted by coming to America. The basic idea


>was to get away from any sort of monarch who could tell the populace what to
>do or not do. Far as I know, that's still in effect.

Put another way the pilgrams did not want a loud and vocal minority trying to
immpose its beliefs on the majority...Hmm sounds kinda familar?


> Heroin is a bad thing. Going to Disney is not in any way
>life-threatening. Invalid rebuttal.
>
>

I do not think the poster argument that going to Disney is a bad thing, his
argument was the use of Disney by gay groups to promote their lifestyle was
offensive to many people.

>Your message was rude, ill-conceived, and did not manage to refute any of
>the points in the original post. Try again if you think you can do better.

I disagree, the poster message was just contrary to your own beliefs, just as
my response is as well. Why do you feel the need for personal attacks? Both
sides of this debate make logical arguments that can be attacked depending on
the set of assumptions you make.

jam...@peganet.com

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

In article <199805250254...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

holy...@aol.com (Holyamos) wrote:

>

> >Why is it bad to get used to something that you can't change? Homosexuality

> >will continue whether you like it or not.

>

> Unfortunately, many things in our society will always be with us, like drug

> addiction, alcholism, mental illness, etc. does that make it ok?

This lame arguement again....Comparing homosexuality to drug addiction,
alcoholism and mental illness. How unique. FYI - the APA declassified
homosexulaity as a mental illness in the early 70's. Homosexuality is a
NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal species.

>

> >So it's okay to persecute a different group for their beliefs which don't

> >pose any threat or damage to you personally? Freedom of religion was only

> >ONE of the freedomsthe Pilgrims wanted by coming to America. The basic idea

> >was to get away from any sort of monarch who could tell the populace what to

> >do or not do. Far as I know, that's still in effect.

>

> Put another way the pilgrams did not want a loud and vocal minority trying to

> immpose its beliefs on the majority...Hmm sounds kinda familar?

Hmm....if this were the case, then slavery would still be in effect,
bi-racial marriages would be illegal, and women would still be limited as to
where they could find employment. Sound kinda familiar?

>

> > Heroin is a bad thing. Going to Disney is not in any way

> >life-threatening. Invalid rebuttal.

> >

> >

> I do not think the poster argument that going to Disney is a bad thing, his

> argument was the use of Disney by gay groups to promote their lifestyle was

> offensive to many people.

Since you used the word.....what exactly is a gay "lifestyle"? Perhaps you
mean "sexual orientation" instead?

>

> >Your message was rude, ill-conceived, and did not manage to refute any of

> >the points in the original post. Try again if you think you can do better.

>

> I disagree, the poster message was just contrary to your own beliefs, just as

> my response is as well. Why do you feel the need for personal attacks? Both

> sides of this debate make logical arguments that can be attacked depending on

> the set of assumptions you make.

>

People need to remember that "beliefs" are of a personal nature. If you are a

Christian and belive that homosexuality is a sin, fine - but there are far
too many people that want to "impose" their beliefs on others. Why can't the
human race just apply "their" beliefs to themselves and their own families,
and let the people who may have a different belief system live in peace?

I am a devout Christian, and I am not compelled to judge anyone. I love the
alcoholic, the drug abuser, the homosexual, the heterosexual, the prostitute,
etc., EQUALLY. God, and only God alone will decide who gains entrance to
Heaven and who doesn't. If 5 million KKK members want to visit WDW on the
same day this year, I say, more power to them. If I don't want to be in
their presence due to MY beliefs, then I will schedule my vacation
accordingly.

Life on this planet of ours, would be so much more enriched, if we took the
time to live our lives according to our own beliefs, and quit making other
people adhere to them.

Todd

jam...@peganet.com

Rende

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

jam...@peganet.com wrote:

>"This lame arguement again....Comparing homosexuality to drug addiction,
alcoholism and mental illness. How unique."

The poster was not comparing them, and the argument was not "lame" at all. The
poster was stating a simple fact, to which you should agree. Drug addiction,
alcoholism, mental illness, and homosexuality will be a part of society no
matter what people do to try and stop them. You inferred the connection
between these (often referred to as "bad") behaviors.

>"FYI - the APA declassified homosexulaity as a mental illness in the early
70's."

This does not mean that it is to be regarded as "normal" just because it is not
a mental illness.

>"Homosexuality is a NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal
species."

There are a lot of things that are "natural" in animal species, but that does
not make them normal.

>>"Put another way the pilgrams did not want a loud and vocal minority trying
to immpose its beliefs on the majority...Hmm sounds kinda familar?"

>"Hmm....if this were the case, then slavery would still be in effect,
bi-racial marriages would be illegal, and women would still be limited as to
where they could find employment. Sound kinda familiar?"

Your logic escapes me. I would conclude the opposite.

>"Since you used the word.....what exactly is a gay "lifestyle"? Perhaps you
mean "sexual orientation" instead?"

If you can suggest an alternate term, then you must have gotten the poster's
point.

>"People need to remember that "beliefs" are of a personal nature. If you are
a Christian and belive that homosexuality is a sin, fine - but there are far
too many people that want to "impose" their beliefs on others. Why can't the
human race just apply "their" beliefs to themselves and their own families, and
let the people who may have a different belief system live in peace?"

Because minority groups are pushing for rights not normally associated with
them. What about gay marriage? Marriage is a legal ceremony with religious
roots. The definition of marriage is the union of two people of the opposite
sex. Gay activists want to change the definition and receive the benefits of
marriage, even though they do not conform to the religious rules that it was
based upon.

>"I am a devout Christian, and I am not compelled to judge anyone. I love the
alcoholic, the drug abuser, the homosexual, the heterosexual, the prostitute,
etc., EQUALLY. God, and only God alone will decide who gains entrance to
Heaven and who doesn't. If 5 million KKK members want to visit WDW on the
same day this year, I say, more power to them. If I don't want to be in their
presence due to MY beliefs, then I will schedule my vacation accordingly."

That is all well and good, but as a society we have an obligation to make
judgements (and take action) when required. I would assume that you do not
believe that we should allow child molesters to go around commiting their
crimes all for the sake of letting God make the final judgement. Society sets
the rules, and religion is only a part of that equation. People can object to
behaviors without having any religious beliefs.

Holyamos

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>This lame arguement again....Comparing homosexuality to drug addiction,
>alcoholism and mental illness. How unique. FYI - the APA declassified
>homosexulaity as a mental illness in the early 70's. Homosexuality is a

>NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal species.

Ah! the old animal anaolgy again! You are absolutely right most higher animal
species do exhibit behavior that we would call homosexual behavior. However,
the this beavior in animals is not in any way compareable. In most cases the
behavior of homosexuallity in animals is intended to show fear, submission,
anger, or as a sign of social status. These acts of homosexuallity in animals
are isolated behavior in what are otherwise heterosexual animals. If it were
truly a "natural" or inate beavior in animals to be "gay" it would be
extremely rare due to natural selection. Kinda hard to pass on a gay gene
without reproducing

>Hmm....if this were the case, then slavery would still be in effect,
>bi-racial marriages would be illegal, and women would still be limited as to
>where they could find employment. Sound kinda familiar?
>
>

I would dare to say most women and minorities would find this argument
offensive. You are comparing inate qualities a person has no control over to a
behavior that has questionable roots.

>Life on this planet of ours, would be so much more enriched, if we took the
>time to live our lives according to our own beliefs, and quit making other
>people adhere to them

While I agree to this general proposition, there is nevertheless a need for
boundries in our society. What if I decided that It was ok to walk around nude
everywhere? I am not hurting anyone, the nake body should not be offensive?
It is perfectally natural? Yet I think you would agree that this behavior or
"belief" should not be encouraged or openly expressed.

A society need a set of generally accepted behavior guidelines. Sure if you
want to be a nudist go start your own nudist colony, live it up in the nude!
That is exactally what this country was based on. However, when you try and
convince a non-nudiist this behavior is ok and should be openly expressed and
accepted, ah! therein lies the problem.

As in the nudist above, if you want to engage in homosexual acts or express
your "homosexual orientation" with a bunch of your consenting pals, go right on
ahead! But, do not try and demand that the majority of the population MUST
accept and be witness to this behavior.

Jason Travis

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

--Jason
Theatre Forum
http://forums.msn.com/Theatre
>>"Most of the people you're getting your "heroin" information from say it's
>bad, right? Heroin is a bad thing. Going to Disney is not in any way
>life-threatening. Invalid rebuttal."
>
>I believe the poster was using a metaphor to prove the point. The poster
>simply stated that one does not have to partake in an activity to know that
it
>is bad (or maybe just not right for that person). Stretching the statement
and
>judging it as invalid is not logical.

My point was that he needs to pick an appropriate metaphor. Of course
heroin is a horrible thing. You may as well say, "I don't need to saw my
legs off to know that it hurts!" He's comparing taking heroin to spending a
day in a park with people he *thinks* he won't like. The latter is a much
more subjective thing than he's giving credit for.

>Conversely, why can't the homosexual community get used to the fact that
not
>everyone will accept their behavior, whether they like it or not.

You know, if the two groups on both sides get that through their heads, it
wouldn't be a problem. The original poster is probably going to notice that
I used the term "head" in the last sentence and make a sidelong comment, so
I'm preempting it right here.

>>"Just as attitudes towards hetero "normal" sex become less and less
repressed,
>so will they towards homosexuality."
>
>Reminds me of a history lesson about the way things were before the fall of
the
>great Roman empire.

Oh please. I'm not talking about the collective orgy that was Rome before
it fell. I'm speaking of people being afraid to talk about sex and
acknowledge that things happen, and that they aren't always going to
understand or know about everything that goes on in the world. This opening
of collective minds, to me, is a good thing. Think about all the wives of
the fifties who didn't weren't always taught properly and were afraid to
acknowledge or explore thier own sexuality. Repression internally, not
external.

>>"Love (meaning love, not sexual contact) should never be a reason to
hide."
>
>I'll take displays of love over displays of hatred any time...but too much
of
>anything can be annoying.

Agreed.

>>"Um...in case you've forgotten, those two groups overlap. "American" is
not
>the opposite of "homosexual".
>
>I think the poster was referring to the majority of Americans being
>heterosexual

Correct. But the way he phrased his statement isn't the same as you've
phrased yours. He said "Americans" in opposition to "homosexuals" without
qualifying...very bad form.

>I think the term "persecute" is a little strong. Most of these posts refer
to
>opinions, not persecution. In terms of posing any threat or damaging
people, I
>think that is a bit more subjective. Parents may feel uncomfortable and/or
>stressful trying to explain to their children why two people of the same
sex
>are behaving affectionally (heck, the same may be said for explaining them

>about two people of the opposite sex).

I agree with you. This has been for the most part a clash of opinions. The
reason I de-lurked and felt the need to refute this guy was the fact that
instead of presenting his opinions intelligently, this poster opened up with
the snide comment about the name "Swallow." This put him immediately into a
category (as far as I'm concerned) that devalued any of his comments. The
veiled insult is what I'd call persecution. Many schoolchildren are
tormented verbally by their peers without ever being physically harmed, but
this is still abuse in my book.

ap...@bellatlantic.net

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>
> Homosexuality is a
> NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal species.
>
A patently false statement. Please cite reputable scientific sources
for this fiction.

Scott

Jason Travis

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>>Why is it bad to get used to something that you can't change?
Homosexuality
>>will continue whether you like it or not.
>
>Unfortunately, many things in our society will always be with us, like
drug
>addiction, alcholism, mental illness, etc. does that make it ok?

Drug addiction and alcoholism are learned behaviors that are medically
harmful to individuals who practice them. Don't even tell me that you think
mental illness is something that is not "okay". Mental illness that is not
caused by drugs or alcohol is something a person cannot control--either that
they were born with, or develop due to trauma or illness that manages to
affect the brain or spinal cord.

Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. It's a condition that is wired
into the brain from the moment a person is born. The people who you see who
practice homosexuality are those who didn't have it surpressed completely by
pressure from society and/or couldn't live with themselves by hiding or
pretending not to be. I'm not saying everyone is a "potential" homosexual;
a person either is or isn't. I'm asking you why anyone would "choose" to be
homosexual and be perceived as abnormal. Beleive me, it would be much
easier on all sides if homosexuality were not a factor people had to deal
with. But it does, and many gay people simply choose not to lie to
themselves anymore.

>Put another way the pilgrams did not want a loud and vocal minority trying
to
>immpose its beliefs on the majority...Hmm sounds kinda familar?

Put even another way, the pilgrims did not want personal freedoms imposed
upon by anyone, majority or not.

>>Your message was rude, ill-conceived, and did not manage to refute any of
>>the points in the original post. Try again if you think you can do
better.
>
>I disagree, the poster message was just contrary to your own beliefs, just
as
>my response is as well. Why do you feel the need for personal attacks?
Both
>sides of this debate make logical arguments that can be attacked depending
on
>the set of assumptions you make.

You seem to harbor confusion. A "personal attack" is (stay with me here) an
attack upon a person. Notice above that my portion of the quoted post above
reads, "Your *message* was rude..." I said nothing about the poster
personally. My calling his message rude was due to the fact that he begun
his diatribe with a question to the effect of "Anyone find it odd that the
poster's name is Swallow?" This is a very out of place comment based upon a
common misconception regarding oral sex. Rude, personal, and unecessary
here.

Your comment that both sides of the debate make logical arguments that can
be attacked is true, and I find nothing wrong with it. This poster just
needs to fight cleanly if he's going to at all.

Jason Travis

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>The poster was not comparing them, and the argument was not "lame" at all.
The
>poster was stating a simple fact, to which you should agree. Drug
addiction,
>alcoholism, mental illness, and homosexuality will be a part of society no
>matter what people do to try and stop them. You inferred the connection
>between these (often referred to as "bad") behaviors.

This poster you responded to and I both inferred the connection because that
was exactly what the original poster was trying to imply...IE
homosexuality=drug addiction=bad. Not the case.

>>"Homosexuality is a NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal
>species."
>

>There are a lot of things that are "natural" in animal species, but that
does
>not make them normal.

Damn this word "normal" that people seem to hide behind! Anything not
normal is seen as "abnormal." How about we use the term "different" instead
of "abnormal"?

>>>"Put another way the pilgrams did not want a loud and vocal minority
trying
>to immpose its beliefs on the majority...Hmm sounds kinda familar?"
>

>>"Hmm....if this were the case, then slavery would still be in effect,
>bi-racial marriages would be illegal, and women would still be limited as
to
>where they could find employment. Sound kinda familiar?"
>

>Your logic escapes me. I would conclude the opposite.

Correct. Because he's using a tactic known as "sarcasm" to get his point
across...therefore showing that the original logic makes as little sense as
what he just said.

>Because minority groups are pushing for rights not normally associated with
>them. What about gay marriage? Marriage is a legal ceremony with
religious

>roots. The definition of marriage is the union of two people of the
opposite


>sex. Gay activists want to change the definition and receive the benefits
of
>marriage, even though they do not conform to the religious rules that it
was
>based upon.

Hehehe...the day that you force people to inject religion into every single
marriage is the day that marriages decline sharply in number. Truly,
religion is the original basis of marriage, but this is not the case in 80%
of them today. Witness that you can get married with little fanfare in
front of a judge, or even at a drive-up window in Las Vegas. Legal benefits
of marriage have little to do with religion either, and even though this is
incredibly off topic, any two people who wish to run a household together
for the rest of their lives should be able to be protected by certain
aspects of the law. Religion need not and should not enter into legality,
as many heterosexual couples prove every day.

>That is all well and good, but as a society we have an obligation to make
>judgements (and take action) when required. I would assume that you do not
>believe that we should allow child molesters to go around commiting their
>crimes all for the sake of letting God make the final judgement.

No. Where law comes into play is when one person tries to harm another who
has no choice in the matter. That whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" thing.

Jason Travis

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>are isolated behavior in what are otherwise heterosexual animals. If it
were
>truly a "natural" or inate beavior in animals to be "gay" it would be
>extremely rare due to natural selection. Kinda hard to pass on a gay gene
>without reproducing

But notice it does happen, even though you think the "gay" gene would be
selected out due to non-reproduction. Ever think that perhaps mother nature
might be trying to put a curb on the population by making people who don't
wish to copulate with the opposite sex and thus not reproduce? Used to be a
good plague would do the population reduction trick, but Mother Nature's
gotten really sneaky on us.

>I would dare to say most women and minorities would find this argument
>offensive. You are comparing inate qualities a person has no control over
to a
>behavior that has questionable roots.

Here's the fault in logic: Heterosexual people WILL NOT BELIEVE that
homosexuals don't have a choice in the matter. If there were some sort of
vaccine you could take to not be gay, not be thought of as weird by society,
and live a complete, "normal" heterosexual life...believe me, I'd be first
in line. As it stands, homosexuality is just as undecidable as being
female, minority, or brain-damaged. Without resorting to any sort of Brave
New World/Gattica/Hitler techniques, it will remain undecidable.

>A society need a set of generally accepted behavior guidelines. Sure if
you
>want to be a nudist go start your own nudist colony, live it up in the
nude!
>That is exactally what this country was based on. However, when you try
and
>convince a non-nudiist this behavior is ok and should be openly expressed
and
>accepted, ah! therein lies the problem.

This is the first time somebody has made a valid point in this argument.
Although I'm homosexual, and I disagree with all the harrumphing about
"there shouldn't be Gay Day". I also agree it's really stupid to even feel
the need to have Gay Day. Every day is gay day, far as I'm concerned. I
also think that nudity should be an acceptible normal thing, so long as it
isn't imposed on people who don't wish to see it. On both sides, it's a
matter of behavior and decorum and not tromping on *other* people's rights
to save your own.

A friend of mine attended a Gay Day and was mortified at a queue full of
people singing perverted lyrics to "It's A Small World"...something to the
effect of "It's a Queer World" even though children were present. He bought
a Goofy shirt to replace his red one. While we can argue on both
sides...let's hope that homosexuals understand that even though it is
unofficial "gay day" that the entire world is looking at the way we act and
making decisions based on that. So personally, yes I'm against gay day.
I'm also against anyone who tries to deny that they have the right to enjoy
themselves in Disney simply because some morons don't think that their
public behavior within the realm of good taste is acceptable.

Holyamos

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

>Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. It's a condition that is wired
>into the brain from the moment a person is born.

The entire crux of your argument rest on the above assumption, which has very
little, if any scientific support. One of the critical arguments on
homosexuality is whether it is environmental or if a person is "born" gay.
Even assuming that it may have its roots in genetics, does that mean this
behavior should be accepted by people? I have heard many research efforts that
have tried to link alcoholism to genetic factors. If this is true should we
embrace alcoholics and accept them because they many have been a genetic
predisposition?

>I'm asking you why anyone would "choose" to be
>homosexual and be perceived as abnormal.

Why would anyone choose to engage in any abnormal behavior period? Many
abnormal beaviors are a result of environmental factors that effect us from a
very early age, and may influence our future bahvior to such an extent that we
may engage in an acticity even though we know it to be wrong or abnormal.
Accordingly, I am willing to concede that many homosexuals may, if fact, be a
product of an envorinment in which they had very little if any control. In
that sense they really do not have a "choice" on being gay or not. However,
this is still a very unpersuasive argument in trying to have people accept and
recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.

jam...@peganet.com

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

In article <199805251529...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

holy...@aol.com (Holyamos) wrote:

>

> >This lame arguement again....Comparing homosexuality to drug addiction,

> >alcoholism and mental illness. How unique. FYI - the APA declassified

> >homosexulaity as a mental illness in the early 70's. Homosexuality is a

> >NATURALLY occuring presence THROUGHOUT all animal species.

>

> Ah! the old animal anaolgy again! You are absolutely right most higher animal

> species do exhibit behavior that we would call homosexual behavior. However,

> the this beavior in animals is not in any way compareable. In most cases the

> behavior of homosexuallity in animals is intended to show fear, submission,

> anger, or as a sign of social status. These acts of homosexuallity in animals

> are isolated behavior in what are otherwise heterosexual animals. If it were

> truly a "natural" or inate beavior in animals to be "gay" it would be

> extremely rare due to natural selection. Kinda hard to pass on a gay gene

> without reproducing

And you have documentation to back up these claims?

>

> >Hmm....if this were the case, then slavery would still be in effect,

> >bi-racial marriages would be illegal, and women would still be limited as to

> >where they could find employment. Sound kinda familiar?

> >

> >

>

> I would dare to say most women and minorities would find this argument

> offensive. You are comparing inate qualities a person has no control over to a

> behavior that has questionable roots.

Women and Minorities - feel free to voice your opinions

You are saying (correct me if I am wrong) that a gay person should deny their
sexual orientation because you believe it is a choice. How very heterosexist
of you.

>

> >Life on this planet of ours, would be so much more enriched, if we took the

> >time to live our lives according to our own beliefs, and quit making other

> >people adhere to them

>

> While I agree to this general proposition, there is nevertheless a need for

> boundries in our society. What if I decided that It was ok to walk around nude

> everywhere? I am not hurting anyone, the nake body should not be offensive?

> It is perfectally natural? Yet I think you would agree that this behavior or

> "belief" should not be encouraged or openly expressed.

Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to be naked? Are you THAT insecure in your
body that you would supress people who aren't?

>

> A society need a set of generally accepted behavior guidelines. Sure if you

> want to be a nudist go start your own nudist colony, live it up in the nude!

> That is exactally what this country was based on. However, when you try and

> convince a non-nudiist this behavior is ok and should be openly expressed and

> accepted, ah! therein lies the problem.

The problem lies in your discrimination.

>

> As in the nudist above, if you want to engage in homosexual acts or express

> your "homosexual orientation" with a bunch of your consenting pals, go right on

> ahead! But, do not try and demand that the majority of the population MUST

> accept and be witness to this behavior.

>

As I have stated NUMEROUS times, homosexauls are not looking for acceptance.

Does EQUAL RIGHTS ring a bell?

Mark Johnson

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98