From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Pamela Cho Publishes Private Email 
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:26:03 GMT



  Pamela Cho chose to publish a private discussion between 
  the two of us.  I terminated the discussion because she 
  admitted in email that her mind was made up and she thought
  homosexuality was abnormal.  There is no point in continuing
  discussion when that sort of impass is reached.

  She's apparently new around here; most people seem to feel
  that usenet etiquette requires permission for the publishing
  of private email.  See news.announce.newusers for a discussion
  of such things.
  
  Whether you think this or not, you should probably consider
  that your mail to her will be published without your permission.
  
  Wayne



In article <1993Janiioo8.114817.2396@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
kkk

>From:	IN%"hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu"  
>  
> /> For one thing, I think it is interesting that you refer to a child
> /> as an 'it'.
> /    not really, it's a gender neutral pronoun, and that's
> /    all I mean, but it's interesting that you should 
> /    play on this as a vulnerability...
> 
> I see now....OK, it's just I'm not accustomed to that pronoun for people.
> 
> /    All I ask is that my child receive care and love and  be
> /    taught to be broadminded.  I would much rather have muy
> 
> That's appropriate.  And I know what you're saying, also.  I, too, hope
> that children can learn to be open about individual differences.
> How do you teach that and yet teach a sense of morality as well?
> It doesn't have to be about homosexuality either.  It could be
> anything you feel is 'immoral' or not right.  I think it's a tough
> job to teach kids the difference between acceptance for others to
> do something, but drawing the line for themselves somewhere.  And
> your implication that children must learn to choose for themselves
> is true, and inevitable.  No parent can even expect to 'control' a
> kid completely, although they protect and love them to the best of
> their abilities.
> 
> /    child brought up by a homosexual couple than, say, you.
> 
> Now, wait a minute.  We're discussing an issue here, not me and not you.
> I would appreciate it if you would leave off personal attacks, because
> it just antagonizes what might be an interesting discussion, OK?
> 
> /    It was clear from the outset that your mind was, as you
> /    admit below, already made up.  Your posts on this subject
> 
> Well, actually, the truth of the matter is, I haven't been sure about
> this at all.  I have 10 pals from college (back in the late 70's).  We
> did everything together, and the 4 years were probably the best years
> of my life.  I love those people.  Well, several years after graduation,
> EACH ONE of them came 'out of the closet' (I don't like that phrase).
> Well, it was a shocker of a year, as you can imagine.  I cried with
> my best friend, Jimmy, over the phone and in person as well.  And each
> of them was amazed that none of them knew they were gay then.  It was
> strange, actually.  Well, since that time 3 of them (including Jimmy)
> have died of AIDS.  And you know, it just makes me wonder.  Is it worth
> it?  Is homosexuality really worth the suffering that it brings to them
> and to me?  I have been in anguish over their deaths, and it seems
> just so senseless.  Then there's the scripture staring at me.  I mean,
> it's very difficult NOT to be frustrated about it.
> (Two more have AIDS now, and are slowly dying.)
> 
> /    are nothing more than an effort to muddy waters and create
> /    bad feelings.  
> 
> I don't think that expressing one's opinions on a matter is really
> meant to create bad feelings.  You can disagree with me if you want.
> 
> /A lovely representative from God, you are.
> 
> A Cheap shot.  That's really below the belt.
> 
> > You're right...it is my opinion that homosexuality is an
> > abnormality...or if not abnormal...immoral.
>     
> /    And you're wrong.  Maybe you'll learn this someday
> /    if a child of yours confides in you that he or she
> /    is gay  (you'll probably then think of him or her
> /    as an 'it', is my guess).
> 
> Your hostility in the letter makes me think that you won't tolerate any
> one's opinion but your own.  When I read this yesterday, I was pissed
> off, and I didn't want to write until I had cooled off some.  I think
> letters should be aimed at the discussion, not at the writer of the
> discussion.  The sarcasm is unnecessary and unwanted.
> 
> > In a way I compare it to someone who has rationalized abnormal
> > behaviour as normal.  In law you can just about rationalize 
> 
> /    Right, and in rhetoric, you can make a tautology sound
> /    like something significant.  But homosexuality is
> /    normal, and your ignorance of the subject isn't
> /    going to change that.
> 
> I am thinking that homosexuality probably is normal for some people and
> not for others.   Normal is one of those words that is hard to define.
> Having one blue eye and one brown eye isn't normal, but then, who cares?
> My beef is mostly based on the morality of it.  Where do we draw the
> line, and if we, as Christians, are supposed to be compassionate and
> caring....OK, then we accept the people, but do we accept the act?
> Or if we don't, do we just keep quiet, and go about our business?
> Or is it ethical to stay quiet about something you feel is wrong?
> Especially when it means death for those people you love?
> 
> /    I love thinking about all you people who are going to have
> 
> 'you people'...I'm not sure what that classification is, but it
> sounds like another put down.
> 
> /    apoplectic fits as gays begin to win their rights.  Some
> 
> I have no doubt whatsoever that gays will win their rights.  Legally,
> how can you argue against it?  The only legal dilemma I can think of
> is the spreading of AIDS...but then, is it illegal to spread a disease?
> So it's just a matter of time for the laws to change.   The reason I
> posted the question in the first place was from the idea that the
> laws WOULD pass, and I was trying to post an interesting question
> based on the reality of homosexual couples, and so on.  If homosexual
> couples are recognized as a 'legal or binding' contractual marriage, 
> then they should have the right to adopt.  No one had posted that thought
> before, so I gave it a shot.  Looking back, the question may have been
> inappropriate or offensive to some, but I still think it's interesting
> to ponder.
> 
> /    of you will probably die of strokes, but the flip side of
> /    that is that the average intelligence of the species will
> /    go up a few points.
> 
> There you go again.  You're big on the insults, it makes me want
> to hurl them back at you.  But that's stil not the issue, is it?
> Calling people names won't win anyone over to your side of the 
> issue, in fact, it probably would have the opposite effect for
> some people.  That's why I cooled off before writing you back.
> I won't allow your offensive statements that are personal attacks
> towards me to sway my opinion in EITHER direction.
> 
> You have to seperate the issue from the person.
> 
> /    Don't bother answering; it's clear that we have no
> /    common ground.
> /    Wayne
> 
> You can write back if you like.  I don't think you give people a chance
> to express their views. Why don't you write back when you cool off and
> want to discuss the issue?  I know this is something you feel strongly 
> about, and I respect your opinion, as I expect you to respect mine as 
> well.  It sounds like when you wrote this letter, you were very angry.  
> That's OK, just aim the anger to the issue. 
> 
> BTW, several other people have written me, many have disagreed with me,
> but it wasn't 'a brawl'...it was an interesting discussion.  Lighten
> up a little, OK?
> Regards,
> Pamela Cho
> 
> 
>
>-- End of filtered message --


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc