From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 05 Sep 92 22:35:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <mccalley.715646775@topaz1> mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes:
>kutem@grouper6.Berkeley.EDU (Jon Kutemeier) writes:
>
>>And bigotry and discrimination still exist, even with all this great thinking
>>capacity we supposedly have. I *do* wonder what our excuse is. The inability
>>to acknowledge the love two people share, whether it is between a man and a
>>woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is one of the most saddening
>>things I see in this world today.
>
>Or say... A man and his dog?  Or maybe a man and a young boy of say... 
>six to twelve years old who is in the Boy Scouts of America.

      Let's keep the discussion to consenting partners, shall we?  While
it's certainly possible that a boy of twelve could give informed consent
for sex, I don't think it's particularly common.


>[some tripe about the Greeks deleted]

      Irrelevant.  We're not talking about the Greeks, we're talking
about the BSA.


>That is, until the Romans came and conquered them.  And yes, they all
>don't want adults to "love" their children sexually when they go camping.

     Love != Sex.  Learn this, then continue the discussion.


>Camping... I used that one a few times.  It works real good!  The Black and 
>Jewish thing is another story.  So maybe a homosexual and a petafile (sp?) 
>are two different things, but HOW different?  I certainly don't know.

     You apparently have no idea how different.  The majority of
pedophiles identify as heterosexual.  The majority of homosexuals are
not pedophiles.


>  They
>seem like the same league to me (non-reproductive sexual behavior).

     So is oral sex between opposite sex partners.  So is sex with a
condom.  So is kissing.  Should Scout Masters be required to refrain
from these activities?


>>As for risk, why would the risk be any greater for a homosexual monogomous
>>couple, or do you still believe AIDS is primarily a "gay" disease, 
>>primarily caused by their "behavior"?
>
>It wouldn't.  But now you still have the problem of reproducing.  We look
>for success in our mates.  Whether it be good looks, good social skills,
>intelligence, or whatever.  That is what attracts us.  That is what will
>be carried into the next generation.  Homosexuals do not get this.  What
>attracts you is not something that will be carried into the next 
>generation.  So suppose you have some kind of good taste in mates despite
>your sexual preference (but since you don't have to live with the mate for
>a long period of time, you really cant know if they are good), and you 
>decide on a surrogate.  I guarentee you will be limited in that such a 
>mate would be much harder to find.  The reason for this falls in line with 
>the rest of the argument in that a woman who gives up her child does not 
>INSURE its survival.  The human offspring requires the most nurturing of 
>any animal.  Without a good instinct in the mother, the child does not go 
>far.  (It is of course important for the father to do his share as well).

     Does the above paragraph actually say anything?  You seem to
believe that natural selection is still at work in humans, and that
homosexuals are some kind of evolutionary dead end.  History contradicts
your assumption.
     You also fall into the Dan Quayle-laid trap of believing that
a child requires both a male and female influence, something for which
no evidence exists.


>So maybe it is not impossible for homosexuals to reproduce, but it sure
>is a whole lot harder.  

     Not anymore it isn't.


>And maybe AIDS can strike anyone, but it mainly strikes homosexuals.

     Incorrect.  Do some research.


>So the here are the two main parts of the argument:
>
>	1)  A deadly disease strikes MAINLY one particular group of people.
>	2)  This same particular group has a hard time reproducing.
>
>When I add these two up, the future don't look good for gays.

     So, you are ignorant about AIDS as well as homosexuality.  How
kind of you to share your ignorance with the rest of the net!


>And, if you are biogomous (I saw it on Oprah, or was it Jenny Jones, or
>maybe Phil Donahue, oh, I forget), then you're right back in the game.

     Perhaps you should spend less time watching daytime TV and more
time learning about the subjects you preach about.
     BTW = "biogomous"?  Define, please.


>So, I say it is genetic, and it will be deselected.  Of course we will
>all be dead by then, so only our offspring will really know the truth.

     Do you seriously believe that, even if homosexuality was genetic,
it would be deselected?  How do you explain the fact that homosexuals
have existed for thousands of years, and are still around?

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.