From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:12:23 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1993Jan6.202458.10613@csc.ti.com>, dp writes:
> Maybe you should talk to the over 6000+ people that were exposed to
> Hepatitis-A at various parties catered by a company in Texas that had a
> practicing homosexual male food handler contaminate their food at several
> holiday parties last month and see if they think that it's stupid.  Maybe you
> should talk to the 20+ people that are still in the hospital and see if either
> they or their insurance company thinks that it's stupid.
>
> But then again, he did wash his hands and clean under his fingernails all those
> other times. . .

So Mike, just what is your point here?  What is the relationship to
being a "practising homosexual male" and having hepatitis-A?  Witness
the 6000+ people you mention that contracted it from food.  I assume
they weren't all "practising homosexual males".  Bad hygene by a food
handler can spread heptatis-A...there is no requirement that you are
also gay.

> Isn't it stupid to ignore the fact that sodomy (specifically anal/oral sex,
> performed in that order) IS a public health issue.  To ignore this is a
> "stupid".

While you are on the topic of stupid, why do totally ignore plain ole
heterosexual sex?  It too spreads diseases as well as unwanted
pregnancies and is also a public health issue.  Again, what is your
point?

> |> Who thinks that you cannot love that which you refuse to be close to.
> |> Holding gays at arms length and saying "I love you, but hate
> |> what you are and do" isn't love, it's hypocrisy of the worst kind...
> 
> True, but so is pretending to fighting for "homosexual rights" by giving the
> AIDS virus "civil rights".  

What are you talking about?  AIDS is a virus and has no civil rights.
People with HIV however do have civil rights.

> I have a cousin who died last fall because of the
> "civil rights" that the so-called "defenders of the gay community" were able
> to win for the AIDS virus.  

Your logic here brings a whole new meaning to conspiracy theories.  As
Frank Elliot points out in another followup to your post, it was the
gay community that worked to stop the spread of AIDS several years
before government involvement.

> Sure, he chose (his words, not mine) to live the
> homosexual lifestyle that eventually killed him (once again, his words),  but
> the "leaders" of the gay community must accept responsibility for their
> fighting against an early quarantine of those suffering from the AIDS virus.
> How many people are now dead because these "leaders" fought against such a
> quarantine.

The gay community has long argued that it is each person's
responsibility to know how HIV is contracted and to protect
themselves.  As Frank Elliot also alludes to, how many people are now
dead because the "leaders" of our country refused allow education on
the HIV transmission because it was a "gay" disease?

> As my cousin pointed out prior to his death, the so-called biological
> agruments for homosexuality being a "normal" lifestyle could more easily
> be used to justify that rapists, thieves, and those who practice incest
> as simply practicing "alternate" lifestyles.  Indeed, drug usage and murder
> could also be justified from nature.  

Biological arguments that the "homosexual lifestyle" is normal?  Just
what are you talking about?  Is there any basis in biology that any
lifestyle is "normal"?  Aren't lifestyles a purely human social
contruct unrelated to biology?

> Another interesting thing that he
> pointed out was that the very same arguments used to support "alternate
> lifestyles" tear down the concept of civil rights, much less equal rights. 

You've got to be kidding here...granting equal rights to homosexuals
tears down the concept of civil rights?  Just how do you define civil
rights?

> Remember that in the natural world animals with the power get what they want
> until another animal prevents them (see there, Sadam and Adolf too have a
> "natural justification" :-)).

Again what are you talking about?  The argument that homosexuality
occurs naturally is that homosexuality has existed in all civilations
and all cultures.  Sounds pretty natural to me.  Just because the
majority of a population doesn't possess a particular trait, doesn't
make it any more or less "natural", it merely exists.  

> He also would raise the question of how homosexuality fits the evolution
> model.  Would homosexual male animals ever reproduce in nature?  If they did,
> they would clearly be bisexual, NOT homosexual.  How could male homosexuality
> have ever evolved?

Well, there are lots of arguments to a evolutionary basis to
homosexuality.  One is a non-child-producing adult that can contribute
food and shelter to a group would likely contribute to the children of
the group reaching adulthood and reproducing.  There are many others.  
How do you explain drone bees?

Again you have no point here.  Homosexuality does exist.  Whatever the
cause it has existed throughout human history.  Discriminating against
homosexuals will not make them go away.

> It's usually at this point that people I talk to about his thoughts usually
> call me a "homophobe".  Don't bother, the three paragraphs above are some of
> the thoughts that my cousin shared before his death, 

So, if you don't believe this, why are you posting it?  You obviously
believe it.  

> and the first paragraph
> is simply connecting information that he shared before his death with news
> that I heard on a local "top-40" station this past weekend.

I am sorry about your cousin's death.  I'm also sorry that he died a
gay homophobe.  I can understand heterosexuals not understanding or
being ignorant of what it means to be gay, but I have a more difficult
time understanding a gay person that believes the lies they hear.

Jim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19931 alt.politics.elections:24806 alt.politics.libertarian:3249 talk.politics.misc:66828