From: mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au (Mark Deitch)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is NOT natural
Reply-To: mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date:  9 Nov 92 13:05:40 GMT

leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy) writes:


 >
 >"Unnatural" is an insult. It implies -- and I'm only pointing such an
 >elementary definition out because it's outside the understanding of
 >your average bigot -- that the unnatural thing is something that should 
 >not happen, or shouldn't be allowed to happen.

No, unnatural/natural is a biased term,  describing a persons belief in what they think 
is `correct', in my opinion Homosexuality, and the other
forms of sexual variations which I mentioned are unnatural, I respect your
belief that they are natural, but what is right and what a person believes 
is natural, is a very subjective issue, and each individual has a right
to his/her own beliefs..

 >
 >Bigots place great emphasis on "naturalness," as evidenced by the 
 >recent "KYLIE TIT JOB!" furore. In Deitch's case, I'm betting his 
 >definition of "natural" is "things which I've seen before, however 
 >sheltered my childhood may have been."  

 You could not possibly imagine the experiences I have had in my days
 of sexual exuberances, each person has their own right to what they
 believe natural/unnatural is, some people believe that masturbation
 is unnatural, others believe it is natural, I am only complaining when
 one of the controversial aspects is pushed so abruptly. I am sorry to admit
 it, but I find the thought of two men having sex quite repulsive, and the
 picture in a certain UTS publication where two men were naked in bed,
 kissing just went a bit too far.

 >Your emphasis on "reproduction" as a fulfilling human function (the 
 >only fulfilling human function is the implicit argument here) is
 >irrelevant. As an "Oprah" guest once pointed out, if people capable
 >of reproduction are the only ones considered human -- and therefore
 >"natural" -- then you've just made impotent men and barren women, and 
 >those who choose not to reproduce, into sub-humans.
 >
Yes, I believe that impotent men, also suffer from a type of sexual disorder
I NEVER said that I believed anyone to be sub-human, I believe that some of
the thoughts which I have had in my life are unnatural, but that does not mean
that I think I am Sub-Human. AS I don't think that homosexuals are sub-human.
.
 >
 >I think you may mean "continuation of the species" here. Is this
 >something that worries you all the time? Or, like most bigots, are
 >you only worried about species continuation when it suits you?
 >If so, there *are* other cliches more worrying than a few
 >people not having 2.4 children, such as "the destruction of the 
 >environment" and "world war III." Gay-bashing, by the way, is
 >one way of not continuing the species.
 >
I am not worried about homosexuals causing mass extinction I am just 
saying that the human reproductive system was made for heterosexuality.
To condone Homosexuality would be like saying the uterus, ovary, testicle
fallopian tube, semen, etc. are all useless, not there for any real  
purpose.r
 
 >> My point is that homosexuality is a sexual disorder,
 >
 >"Disorder" and "disease," in this context, have the same meaning. 
 >I'll quote your first paragraph here: "...and I would not judge a 
 >person as being `Diseased'" 
 >
A Disorder is something that is mundane, out of the ordinary but not horrible.
A disease is something vile and terrible, I did not say that Homosexuality
was generally sick, it repulses me, but so do Strawberries.
>> just like
 >> child molestation and beastiality,
 >
 >Homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex, which to all 
 >purposes is hetrosexuality with a different target. Child
 >molestation is interferring with children. Beastiality is 
 >interferring with animals.
 >
 >Why do you see those three as similar?

They are all variations of a persons sexual preference, that go against
the basic heterosexual concept. In my opinion asexuality is also an unnatural
sexual disorder.
 >
 >> so why is it publicised so explicitly
 >> around the University?
 >
 >It isn't. There is a page in Vertigo each month, and some posters
 >and stickers were put up recently (and torn down within two hours.
 >I wondered who did it: the 1991 first years were too tolerant for 
 >that kind of stunt). 
 >
Get a dictionary out man! Explicitly means clearly, not frequently!!
he Gluts posters always had pictures on them, why?,  you never see the
CLUTS or whatever they're called publicising intimate heterosexual contact.

>> Why do they post up stickers like `Queer until I die'
 >> `Every woman has the potential to be a lesbian'
 >
 >They're true - particulary the last. (Of course, you could just 
 >as easily stick up "Some people have brown hair" or "Person X 
 >is *very* tall." But no-one -- to my knowledge -- has been
 >killed by ignorant bigots for having brown hair or being tall.)
 >
 >>who the fuck wants to read them? 
 >
 >I was amused -- mostly wondering what the first years would
 >make of *this*. They're also helpful for people who are 
 >unsure about their preferences, and may be happy to realise
 >that the entire of society isn't against them.
 >
Why put up posters like `Queer Until I Die', 
you contradict yourself, a pro-homosexual sticker, stating that
homosexuals are queer, now what does queer mean?
You know inside that your sexual orientation is a variation from the 
ordinary, you also know that people who do not share your preferences, find 
the thought of such activity repulsive, so I ask again why draw attention to
yourselves, with those explicit pictures, and meaningless stickers? People
who wish to be part of a homosexual group, can go along to the meetings, which
can be publicised in writing, like most other clubs, you wish to be
treated like ordinary people, then act like ordianry people and do not make such
a fuss, that way most people will not give a shit. You wish to make your members feel
comfortable then give them the pictures when they attend the meetings.



>> They are just like saying, `Young enough to bleed, young enough to breed'
 >
 >No, the first stickers you mentioned seemed to make sense.
 >
Sorry, but by your argument, this statement is also true.

 >If you can't understand the difference between "asserting your right
 >to a different life to the norm" and "sticking your penis into a
 >stranger's mouth," don't worry. Neither can my Mother.
 
Do you not ever experience the desire for the softness and gentleness of
an exquisitely beautiful young woman? Have you never wished to
carress such a person's soft pale skin, hold her frail delicate body in your arms,
protect her and share everything with her, create and experience life with her, 
be able to give yourself to her fully, both physically and spiritually, live together
in a never ending paradise of unearthly sublimity?  You may argue all that you will
but the reason for physical attraction is sex. The reason for sex is
reproduction, anal sex is not productive. You may say there is more to love than
sex, Very true, then do not have sex with your partner, if you do not have
any sexual attraction to a member of your own sex and it is purely
plutonic then good. The fact is some homosexuals do, now do not
try to argue against the fact that the act of sex is for reproduction.
Semen does not incubate shit. Therefore to me it is unnatural.

 >> the GLUTS posters are there, for people who need
 >> help,
 >
 >Support, not "help," which implies "problem."
 >
 Alot of people do see it as a problem, alot of people do not want to be homosexual.
 It can be seen in this light as being an unnatural occurence, 
  they need Gluts, to be shown that it is Ok, and that it is natural for them.
  This still does not warrant the stickers and the pictures.
 >> these other trashy pieces of unnatural 
 >
 >Whoops! That word again!
 >
 >> advertising, are both unnecessary
 >> and disturbing.
 >
 >Are you *worried*, Mark? So is JACKSON,Chris.
 >
 >> Disturbing, in that people actually wish to promote this
 >> sexual disorder.
 >
 >Disease, disorder, whatever. You're still contradicting your 
 >little speech about not being prejudiced. If you can't deal
 >with having gays nearby then you are prejudiced. If you
 >are prejudiced, you are a bigot. (Are you following so far?)
 >If you are a bigot, you are therefore not a nice person, and 
 >are unlikely to impress girls.
 >
I do not mind homosexuals at all, as long as they do not try anything on me,
and even if they did it would just be like an unattractive girl to me,
I am not prejudiced, i just believe that gays sexual preference is
a variation to what is basically regarded as normal.
>> I know they cannot help it, and Ok, allow them to be all they want
 >> in their own group,
 >
 >You assume we care whether you'll "allow" gays to be what they want. 
As I said earlier, do what you want, just do not show people who do not want to see.
>

>> that's why there is GLUTS,
 >
 >GLUTS had to fight to be established at UTS -- against the wishes of
 >bigots such as yourself. Queensland University recently disallowed
 >the establishment of a gay group, again, because of people like you.
 >
 >One of the priorites of GLUTS (you'll be pleased to discover) is to 
 >make the more naive students aware that there is a large gay 
 >population at UTS. And that they're irritated with people like you.
 >
I am not against GLUTS, I am for it, it is an excellent idea to have a society
for homosexuals, after all you cannot help it, but I cannot help feeling that 
the picturesque advertising of it is quite unnecessary.
>> but why push it onto
 >> those people who wish no part of it? 
 >
 >These stickers are not so persuasive that you can't ignore them. 
 >An indiviual with your kind of profoundly unshakeable hetrosexuality 
 >should be able to handle anything! Even orange stickers!
 
Noone, is unshakebly heterosexual, everyone has a homosexual side to their
 sexuality, just some more than others, I am saying that I feel it to be
 unnatural, I have the right to say that just as much as you have the right to say
 it is natural..
 >
 >> Also those SICKENING pictures, why does the homosexual society feel that
 >> it has to show pictures of men kissing, in bed nude, women kissing, etc.
 >
 >Because, and I can authenticate this personally, a gay person is 
 >unlikely to see any positive images of gays in love until they're
 >roughly nineteen. This can, particulary for the unsure such as yourself,
 >lead you to think that hets are the only people who have "real love."
 >Bullshit, but most teenagers are embarrasingly naive.
 >
What constitutes real love? ignore society, ignore decorum, ignore morals
what is REAl love, what is the reason behind love? Why is there love?
Real love is for the evolution of the human species, people vary on this basic
motive, through various variables.
 >> What is the point?, other than to grab attention?.
 >
 >"Draw attention to."
 >
 >> I think some law should be
 >> imposed on the advertising of these unwarranted portrails of indecency.

Ok, this may be a bit harsh, but that could at least make them less explicit.
 >And I think people like you should be re-lobotomised and forcibly 
 >educated. But that would be rude.
 
 Problem is, I am educated in this regard, you do not see my side of the issue.
 You believe that everyone who finds homosexuality distasteful is automatically
 biased, ignorant and uneducated, but in doing so, you are displaying
 these very qualities that you are fighting against.
 
 .