From: jcc@frog.UUCP (Jim Chagnon)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION IS FUCKING HILARIOUS
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:31:00 GMT
Organization: CRDS

In article <L60ViB2w164w@Bogus.COM> punk@Bogus.COM (Jack C. Royce) writes:
>Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>> If you go back in the thread a bit, I believe the picture in question
>> was two men KISSING - a far cry from fucking.  As for seeing straights

>Well, if you would bother to take the time to read the fucking message, you
>would see that the message that I followed, the idiot was talking about
>FUCKING (totally naked) on the front page of the news paper.

>I suggest that you read the entire message before you post.

 I suspect he did.  He also knows that you weren't paying attention
to the thread his post was following.  You see, the little boy that
started this thread complained about a newspaper showing two naked
men kissing.  When some folks here replied with:  "So what, het sex
permeates every aspect of today's media.", he immediately started
frothing about homos fucking.  Tim told you where to find this info,
but you apparently prefer ignorance.

>Look, I said, that I don't agree with pornographic matieral in reach of
>children.  And that includes tv.  The day time soaps that you talk about are
>on when the kids are in school anyhow.

 Oh, and they take these shows off the air in the summer?  They -don't-?
What are you doing about it, besides pissing and moaning about a newspaper
picture?

>I fucking didn't say anything against faggots in that post.  Now, I am really
>starting to get a strong dislike for faggots based on what you people are
>showing me.

  What people are showing you is your own bigotry.  I wouldn't like it
either.

>> Your kids are hardly seeing anything that could "promote" gay sex.
>> See above, your kids are exposed to hours of straight fuck scenes,
>> commercials which promote the same, ad nausium.  Don't even try
>> to tell me that ONE newspaper cover's picture of two men kissing
>> is earth shattering.

>Why in the HELL do you people exaggerate so?  Sheesh, tv is too sexually
>oriented.  But the fact is, sex sells, and the advertisers are not likely
>to change that.  Take that up with them.

 He's not exaggerating, as you admit in your second sentence.  And you
managed to hit the nail on the head without even knowing it.  You're
ranting about the pic and the gay community(1) , not the news-stand or 
the editor of the paper(2).  Take that up with -them-.

(1) This makes you appear a bigot.  You can try to deflect this image
by saying you are against -all- sexually explicit materials (as you have)
but unless you've actually whined about it before-hand, this merely makes
you look like a prudish, hypocritical, evasive bigot.

(2) This option may make you look like a prude or a censor, but you at
least have the opportunity of maintaining some personal integrity.

>You are so against heterosexual sex on tv, but don't care about your type
>of sex.

 Where did he say he was against anything?  That is exactly the charge he 
is making against you and that other bonehead.  You don't whine (or do 
anything else) about all the het sex on tv, magazines, advertising, movies,
books, bill-boards, etc., but you two go ballistic over one newspaper pic 
that -you- haven't even seen.

>Hmm, that is as much of bigotry as can be!

 I'm pleased that you agree.

>I'm not for a sex is evil attitude by far, but as you can see, this generation
>hops in the sack all too quick.  I think it is time to get some morals.

 Why don't you get some then, and if I decide I need any, I'll look you up.

>Its good to slow things down, or are you not for that?

 What do you care?

jcc

...."hehehe" Jack Royce....."hehehe" The Dark Knight.....