From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An Anonymous Reader's Comments on the Big Flame War
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:45:48 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <98740@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >While listening to my "favorite" evangelical Christian radio
    >show, I have heard the "illustrious" "Dr." D. James Kennedy
    >state that one-third of gays commit suicide in their teens,
    >because of their homosexuality, and that this is certainly
    >not a "gay" lifestyle to be enjoyed, but rather avoided, due
    >to its inherent "sinfullness", and lack of (spiritual)
    >fulfillment. I fully expected him to further conclude that
    >rape victims ought to be condemned as well, for their
    >abnormally high levels of depression.

That would be a false comparision. Rape victims clearly have been
subject to an act of coercion. Homosexuals have not been coerced,
and may have a choice about their sexuality.


    >Re: this (seemingly endless) debate, one point that I have
    >*not* seen stressed, is the percentage of closeted
    >homosexuals, and how this might skew any sort of statistical
    >analysis. It should be obvious that it is impossible to
    >measure the extent of homosexuals who will not admit to being
    >homosexuals; I firmly believe that the actual number of gays
    >*is* 10%, give or take an order of magnitude. (For the
    >subtlety-impaired, please re-read the last sentence, or ask
    >someone to interpret it for you). I also firmly believe that
    >this silent majority would render *any* sort of statistical
    >analysis or any conclusions derived from such analysis
    >*completely* meaningless; and that certainly includes the
    >surveys that Clayton refers to, and any spurious conclusions
    >he may have come up with, regarding homosexual "promiscuity",
    >and any imagined correlation with child molestation. An
    >example of the meaninglessness of such surveys is in the
    >apparent disparity between average incomes of gays and
    >straights, with a complete disregard for the fact that lower
    >income homosexuals can not *afford* to come out of the
    >closet.

Is closeted-ness a possible transient aspect? When I was 13, I liked
13-year old girls. I don't anymore. Perhaps in some/many homosexuals,
a possible imprinting point went in the wrong direction? I.e., it's not
a closet so much as an extended stop at an intersection while trying to
figure out which way one wants to go.

    >Other points that would seem to render Clayton's position
    >utterly groundless is the cause and effect relationship
    >between homosexual *behaviour* and condemnation thereof.
    >Persecution of homosexuals has existed for *centuries* before
    >the emergence of the "homosexual fascist lobby". Given that
    >society has refused acceptance of gays, and refused them the
    >*special* priveleges granted to *straights*, why should
    >Clayton expect (insist!) that gays to conform to a society
    >that has rejected them? And why should he be surprised that a
    >"fascist lobby" has emerged to fight *back*. The temporal
    >relation is a *very* good indicator of cause and effect; it
    >is the prolonged abuse of gays that has caused a vocal
    >minority to retaliate with a "fuck you! we don't care what
    >you think anymore" attitude. Why should *anyone* expect a
    >statistical analysis of this vocal minority to be meaningful,
    >or correlated in *any* way with the concept of homosexuality
    >in general. I believe that Clayton, and people like him, have
    >caused *far* more damage, and are a *far* greater threat, to
    >society than child molestors. (Don't get me wrong; raping
    >children *is* a bad thing. But Clayton is even worse.)

Perhaps then sociopaths should have a fascist lobby for them -- to get
the "special" rights not "granted" to them? Of course, we must ignore all
the other minorities that have been discriminated against and despised
yet haven risen to the top without temper tantrums (Chinese for example).

And as for support, as your letter itself shows, many people DON'T want
to publicly get in the middle of this. I have gotten private email
in support. DOn't suppose they're afraid of a homosexual backlash now
do you?

    >Although Clayton *claims* to be opposed to *any* form of
    >anti-discrimination laws, as an affront to *his* civil
    >liberties, and he singles out the "homosexual fascist lobby"
    >as the single worst offender, I have never heard him utter
    >the terms "religious fascist lobby", "black fascist lobby",
    >"women's fascist lobby", "cerbral palsy fascist lobby",
    >"senior citizens fascist lobby", etc. Of course, Clayton has
    >a history of posting threads to the *wrong* newsgroups;
    >perhaps he has complained about these multitudinous other
    >"fascist lobbies" on newsgroups that I don't read. According
    >to the current California Dept. of Fair Employment and
    >Housing Policies, employers and landlords may not
    >discriminate on the basis of race, color, ancestry, religious
    >creed, national origin, sex, physical handicap, medical
    >condition, age, or marital status. I would further contend
    >that the "homosexual fascist lobby" is not the worst offender
    >of Clayton's civil liberties, as they have not yet
    >successfully attained *any* civil rights, even after the
    >passage of AB 2601, which did so little, yet Clayton hated so
    >much. I do not understand how Clayton (or anyone) can be
    >opposed to civil rights protections for homosexuality on the
    >grounds that it is a "chosen" lifestyle, yet *not* be opposed
    >to protecting religions, even though that is *also* a chosen
    >lifestyle.

Children argue like this you know -- "but he is doing it, why don't
you punish him too".

And hey, if a chosen lifestyle is as disgusting to as many people as
homosexuality is, it too won't be popular. Hired or rented to any Hare
Krishnas lately?


    >I would further contend that the only reason that
    >anti-discrimination laws exist *now*, is due to the *only*
    >"fascist lobby" that Clayton has ever expressed support for:
    >the "religious fascist lobby". (I do not seek to condemn
    >religion in general, here; only the portion of it which has
    >sought to enforce its views on non-congregational members by
    >means of coersive legislation; I use the term "fascist lobby"
    >because it is a concept with Clayton is familiar with and has
    >espoused to death in his postings). Clayton himself has
    >stated that the reason for anti-discrimination laws
    >concerning blacks are a direct result of government enforced
    >discrimination; where does he think that the lobbying for
    >this government enforcement came from???

White politicians.


    >Brian: Please feel free to anonymously post any or all of
    >this on my behalf. Or not. (I am currently a closeted
    >homosexual, and I've known this since I was 4. I have also
    >*never* been molested as a child, never been recruited by a
    >homosexual, have never recruited young homosexuals, and at
    >the age af 27, I am still a virgin, so I have never been
    >promiscuous, unlike my straight friends. One reason I am
    >still closeted after this past NCOD is that I will soon be
    >looking for a new employer, and I do not trust the passage of
    >AB 2601 to protect me ...)

A virgin at 27? To each his own. Given the primacy of sex in the human
organism, this is rather extreme. It's like pounding nails into your
skull -- it's your right to do so, it's moral to do so, and it's really
weird to do so and makes a person rightfully wonder about your total
mental competence.

So you don't feel too picked on -- that's what I also don't like about
priests -- the abnormalcy of sexual abstinence.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics