From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.230317.25587@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>It is interesting that almost no-one has responded to my "sexuality graph"
>with anything other than "thats BS".

Well, why don't you think about that for a while?

>Why?  Most gay couples are masculine-feminine,

NOT!

>and those that are not are
>(from my experience) not characterized by Christian values.

!!!!

Here I am thinking I'm discussing a topic with someone rational
when a zinger like this comes out.

What am I to make of this?  First gay people are damned.  Now it's only
the butch/femme ones who are real Christians?  John, you are living in
a fantasy world of your own construction.  It bears no resemblance to
reality out there, and when it comes to the nature, feelings, desires
and aspirations of gay people, OUR opinions and self-evaluations
count.  Not yours.  _Especially_ not yours, since with every successive
article you reveal just how fragile and tenuous your brand of
introspective, onanistic logic is.  In fact, perhaps we could go so far
as to say that "it's not _natural_" for you to be imagining such
things.  Yeah, why not!?

>Is it so absurd
>to suggest that feminine gay males are initially attracted to other males for
>their masculinity, and then direct their sexual interests in that direction
>as a result?  Is it so absurd to suggest that this same person might be
>attracted to a masculine woman (although more rare than masculine men), as
>far as personality is concerned?

I would say that most, if not all, gay men are attracted to men because
of their "masculinity", but what constitutes "masculinity" is a very
individual matter.  Given your track record, I can be pretty sure that
it doesn't resemble your idea of "masculinity".

>Lets face it, the pleasure of the sex act is gained (for the male) from
>the orgasm accompanying ejaculation.  The recipient might as well be a hole
>in the wall as far as this is concerned.  Therefore anything "special" in the
>homosexual relationship _must_ be above physical sex, which I proffer one
>can also find in that rare breed of female...
>Someone please tell me why this is so absurd.

It sounds to me that you must have some problems with a few of your
senses.  Do you really imagine that physical attractiveness is simply a
matter of a "hole in the wall"?  Of orgasm?  I like the men I like
because of the way they look, the way they feel, the way they smell, and
the way they act.  Women don't have the secondary sex characteristics
I'm attracted to.  I like beards and body hair.  They've got curves
in all the wrong places (for my taste).  Now, even the most
"masculine woman" (in your definition) isn't going to have these.
She's also not going to have a cock.  Even speaking from matters of
personality, a woman, no matter how "masculine" by your definition,
isn't a man, and an "effeminate" man (using your criteria <shudder>)
isn't a woman.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer