From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: information please
Summary: Ha Ha Ha.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:36:56 GMT



>In article <1993Jan19.020721.21041@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>>am looking for any credible reports or studies on physical characteristics of
>>homosexuals.  By credible I mean that the people doing them have used
>>generally acceptable scientific methods.

[Elf]
   It's rather obvious what d... I mean, cjk is trying to do.  He's
desperately trying to find a way of demonstrating that homosexuality is
a "voluntary" designation because homosexuals, like religious people,
are indistinguishable from the "general population."

[Chris]
Actualy I was just looking for materials to enrich my knowledge.  If
it would happend to fit in with my opinions, so much the better.  If not,
then I look at it, try to understand were I went wrong, and adjust my
opinions accordingly.  As it so happens I was involved in another debate
in another forum and the topic came up naturally.  I wasn't specificaly
looking for Levay's work, but thats all anybody cared to come up with.

Do you have any others?

[Elf]
   His rationale is an amusing piece of tortured logic, but I see no
reason to continue arguing with him on this point; I think both the
religious folks and the pro-liberty folks arguing the points here on
alt.politics.homosexuality would find an equation of homosexuality with
religion offensive and, to be labor a point, pointless.

[Chris]
It has more merit then you are willing to admit. 

As for being pointless, already they are both being compared publicly
and in the same breathe.

I cite Eric Schmitt's article, slanting towards lifting the ban of 
homosexuals from the military.  From the New York Times News Service
titled "Dissenting views partly practical, partly emotional" as appeared
in the San Diego Union Tribune Wednesday 1/27/93.  

        "...That gay service members are forced to resign when
        discovered, while no one would force those with RELIGIOUS
        scruples to resign..."

And also Junda Woo, Staff reporter of the Wall Street Journal, writes 
a neutral article on lifting the ban of homosexuals from the military.  
"Will courts uphold Military ban on Gays?" as appeared in the Wall
Street Journel 1/26/93.

        "...Even outside the military context, gays as a group
        typically haven't been afforded special protection under
        the equal-protection clause, unlike for example, racial or
        RELIGIOUS groups..."

Quoted entirely in context, emphasis mine.

And just a point of clarification here--Are you implying that 
"religious folks" and "pro-liberty folks" are mutualy exclusive?

[Elf]
   The aim of this painful segue is to get a mention of homosexuality
out of public schooling.  But, this particular argument is already
doomed to failure and I see no point in discussing it with d... I mean,
cjk again.

[Chris]
No, this was not a segue into any subject.  But now you compel me
to respond to your post that references our original debate.
Maybe this is your segue back into the debate  to present further
evidence for your point of view.

If you wish to see my segue it is in "Read this if you are straight", 
under "Read this if you are homosexual".  

And the point of the original debate was not "to get a mention of
homosexuality out of public schooling", which may be one of my goals.
The point was to present an alternative viewpoint, and through debate,
enrich others, but more importantly, enrich myself.  I'm not out here 
to draw blood, confuse people, or engage in *PC* "double-talk", or 
simply excercise my fingers.  I have a legitimate concern with the 
issues involved.
.
Finaly, Mr. Sternberg, I have suspicions.  Unfounded as they may be.  But
I will ask you point blank.  Are you participating in this specific news 
group under multiple identities?

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss