From: weird@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (john.t.erhardt)
Subject: Re: HEY, ETHAN, TAKE A LOOK! HOMOPHOBIA RULES!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:12:28 GMT

In article <3658@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
>ONCE AGAIN!
>
>In article <3625@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
>=>In article <3610@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales) writes:
>=>Well, considereing the *only* "research"" was done by a homosexual on
>=>the brains of dead-from-AIDS homosexuals, I would have to consider
>=>some bias in the case.  It's spurious at best.  Is Down's Syndrome
>=>a genetic normality?  Marfan? Achondroplasia?  What then is genetically
>=>normal?  I mean, if you're going to try to argue genetics, why not
>=>include the whole "darwinian-natural-selection" thing?  Would homosexuals
>=>procreate?  Do they strengthen the species by their activities?  No.

How do you know?  Just becuase someone engages in sexual activities 
with someone of the same sex does not mean that person does not want children.
What do you have to say about infertile people?  If someone is physically
unable to have children (whether one wants to or not), does that make them
less of a person, or abnormal?  What about someone who doesn't want to have 
children?  Is there something wrong with them too?
You seems to make some wild assumptions.  

There are heterosexual men and women who want children and there are those taht
do not.  THere are also homosexual men and women who want children and 
there are those that do not.

I myself am undecided.  It may depend upon what kind of world we will leave
for our children.  In other words, it may depend upon what kind of mess
we leave for them to clean up.

>gEE whiz!  I had to stop and laugh!  What a crazy statement!
>You moron!
^^^^^^^^^
> 
>Pull the other one!  No, sheep are forced into it by sick (and lonely)
>shepherds!  You slay me!  Give this up, you dolt!
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>a married coworker?  What about one who's "sexually unappealing" to
>>you?  How about one who's lesbian?
>
>You asshole!  I never implied this at all!  I just don't understand your
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>thinking...  I don't see how you could "reason" that I am the type of
>man who hits on women.  I'm trying to keep my religious beliefs out of
>this, but you're trying...  I don't "hit" on women at all!  I'm waiting
>for my boss, or the president of the company I'll work for as a top
>engineer, to introduce me to his daughter, niece, etc or I'm waiting
>to meet someone at Church! Get the picture?!?!?  I'd rather do the
>mating game my way, which does not involve the bar scene!  I do not want
>to get involved with a girl who gets trashed an allows herself to be 
>picked up!  I practice ABSTINENCE!  I don't fuck and won't until I'm
>married! HA HA!  Boy, did you misjudge me!  As far as the lesbian goes,

And you're proud of this?  If you only knew what you were missing.  He He!

>if she doesn't make an issue of her desires I couldn't care less!  
>The workplace isn't an appropriate area for for making statements of
>sexuality, it's a place to WORK!  
>
And what if a lesbian was open.  What's wrong with that?  Are you saying
that a person is okay unless they're open about their sexuality?  Or
do you not like people open about their homosexuality?  If you had a friend
who was homosexual (1in ten remember) , would you stop being friends with
that person is they told you they were gay/lesbian/bi?  I think I know
what you'd say.  but think about it.  AFter all you've know about that person
and what astrong friendship you have with them, you'd throw it all away
because their sexual desires are not the same as yours?  Actually since
you said you don't have sex, I wonder about your sexual desires.

>>Define "normal."  By my definition, members of all-male fraternities
>>aren't normal.  Would you like to kill yourselves, or would you prefer
>>help?  :-) :-) There's no such thing as "normal."  Is a Scot normal if
>>he wears a kilt?  Even if it's called a dress in this country?
>
>Normal means heterosexual.  How one controls this "normality" is up to
>the individual.  Examples of bad control are Rock Hudson, Adolf Hitler
>(a vegitarian and tee-totaler), Catherine the Great.  Plenty more.
>Examples of Good control are Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Jesus, Martin
>Luther King (prove he was a "tomcat"!), George Bush (I know, I know...)
>Jimmy Carter, etc... Plenty more.
>
You're not answering his question/request.  You gave examples of what you
think is normal.  You didn't define it.  And whatever normal means, I'm
sure I can think of some pretty abnormal het's.  If some heterosexuals are
not normal then normal does not mean heterosexual.

>You're a real piece of work, ethan.  I tend to think that many of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You are wrong.  I am right.  You live a cloistered life devoid of morality,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've taken the libery to highlight (sort of)  all of yourname calling
and similar remarks, you must be pretty angry and immature to resort to
this.  What's wrong?

John Erhardt
Xref: sparky soc.college:1806 alt.cult-movies:3872 alt.folklore.college:1190