From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:40:11 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec9.195005.29568@anasazi.com> Mike Best, best@anasazi.com
writes:
>You may be referring to one of my posts.  I do not claim to be irresistable
>to gay men but I do claim to have been hit on by gay men.  The reason
>I have stated this is to illustrate the fallacy of the argument that I've
>heard that says gay men are only attracted to other gay men because these
>are the only individuals who would be attracted to them.  This is an
>explanation that defies my common sense....... and my common experience.

I believe the correct (or, at least, the valid) argument is that =healthy=
gay men, just like =healthy= heteros, seek sex with consenting partners. 
Isn't that what we're talking about when we refer to "hitting on?"  Each
sometimes approaches someone who is not interested for whatever reason.  As
a rational individual, your reaction to being "approached" by a gay man
should be similar to what you should expect if you were to approach a woman
who turned out to be a lesbian.

And, yes, there are "unhealthy" gays, just as there are "unhealthy" heteros.
 People are people, and some are flawed.  Don't judge them all by the rotten
apples.

Approaches by gays almost always start out with an attempt to find out if
the other person shares their orientation.  =Then= they seek a mutual
attraction.  Those that do not are as illmannered (and just as common) as
heteros who behave with similar bad grace toward women (like making
suggestive comments on the street).

>>I wonder how many of these bigots believe that they've never
>>showered with a gay man and not known it.  
>
>I'm sure I have, but if these gay men are to be openly gay (by official
>recognition and protection in the military) then I have a right to 
>privacy from their gaze etc.  If you do not acknowledge this aspect 
>then I submit that you are the intolerant one, perhaps placing more
>emphasis on an agenda than on rights.

OK, it's true.  We don't understand.  In spite of the fact that gay men have
had their whole lives to become desensitized to becoming sexually stimulated
by the presence of naked heterosexual men, and that signs of such
stimulation are seen so rarely as to be considered virtually nonexistant, we
should allow for some people's fear that they might.  And to some people,
yourself included, that fear should take precedence over the gay's right to
be treated fairly and equally.  I may never understand it, but I'll accept
that the point of view is held by people who, otherwise, seem perfectly
rational.  And, I will =oppose= it.

>Your inability to separate bigotry from intellectual discourse illustrates
>yet again that it is easier to be a liberal than a conservative because
>liberalism requires less intellectual discipline and rigor...

This is the second time you have put forth this cheap shot.  It is not
worthy of one who claims intelletual discipline.  The poster was doing her
best to address the issues, do her the courtesy of doing the same.  

With regard to liberalism vs conservatism, one might as well state the
converse, that it's easier to be a conservative because they have ministers
and self important talk show hosts to do their thinking for them.  Both
statements show a similar lack of intellectual depth.  Shame!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:53:49 GMT
Subject: Rush to Lobsters...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA