From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:49:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <194565@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <12167@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > You are perfectly able to be a homosexual in private.  You don't
> > have to announce everywhere you go, and thus make it an issue to
> > employers or landlords.
> 
> Let's turn this around, Clayton, and see just how practical this is.  You
> are allowed to be heterosexual in private, but nowhere else.  This means
> that you may not get a one-bedroom apartment with your wife, because then
> it would be apparent that you were sleeping with her and thus, heterosexual.

What?  You mean that all those dorm rooms at college are occupied
by homosexuals?!  Wow!

When I was single, and looking for relatively cheap housing, I
considered a place that had two bedrooms and four beds in it.  It
was all single men.  It was crowded, and the lack of privacy bugged
me, but that was no reason to assume that they were all homosexual.

> You may not hold hands, hug, kiss, or display affection to her anywhere you
> might be seen.  You may not wear your wedding ring.  You may not keep her
> picture on your desk or wall.  You may not tell people that you have a wife,

I've already pointed out the fallacy of this one.

> nor speak of her too affectionately for fear people will find out that
> you're heterosexual.  You may not have parties where couples are invited
> for fear that the neighbors will find out you're heterosexual.

You mean that right now, if I invited a bunch of guys over to my
house, the neighbors would assume that I was a homosexual?

> Would you accept these limitations on your current lifestyle?  If so, why?
> If not, why should gays?

These limitations are in your head.  In any case, if the society we
live in is so homophobic that you have to hide all these characteristics,
then why should our government pass such a law?  Clearly, from your
description, a majority of the people in our society are homophobes,
and would disapprove of an antidiscrimination law.

> > You mean I should ignore what the homosexual community is clearly
> > broadcasting?  I should ignore you when you say that the homosexual
> > community is divided about sex with children?
> 
> Your total evidence on this and other issues about homosexuality consists of:
> 1.  Local media coverage of the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco.
> 2.  Postings to soc.motss.
> 3.  Two studies on child molestation (which you misinterpreted).

Discussions of why NAMBLA didn't get to march in Los Angeles (the
losing side of the board of directors of Christopher Street West
RESIGNED rather than continue to participate in an organization
that would let NAMBLA march).

> And just for the record, the homosexual community is not "clearly broad-
> casting" anything.  A few people on soc.motss are writing things that you
> disapprove of.  There is a tremendous difference between these two state-
> ments--a difference you seem unable to grasp.
> 
> Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

No, a lot of people in soc.motss are writing things that I assumed
that you would disapprove of -- that children are appropriate
sexual partners for adults.  What tells me more, however, is the
response of homosexuals on the net when I ask them to shun NAMBLA.
Clearly, NAMBLA is more important to them than respectability.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.