From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Twist my words, twist your words,..., (Re: to Howard Black ...)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:23:30 GMT

In article <19DEC199221242808@zeus.tamu.edu> Zeke@homo.is.the.way.to.go.to.get.a.piece.of.pucker.hole.edu writes:
>Why is this, why do the PRO HOMO (i.e. anti-hetero) people that posted
>replies only respond to the pro hetero arguments??

Because the PRO HETERO posts you've made have contained the greatest
amount of misinformation, bigotry, and hypocrisy.

>Any one who agrees that a racial issue and a sexual orientation issue are
>equivalent is a fucking idiot (i.e. you Rob)!   

Interesting.  The last time you said this you supported it by claiming
that gays could change their orientation at will, ergo the issues
weren't equivalent.  I pointed out you were almost completely wrong.
Now you don't seem to _have_ any support, except insults.  Yelling
doesn't get you points, son.  Facts do.  _Why_ is racial discrimination
not equivalent to sexual-orientation discrimination?  Be specific.

>In article <1992Dec19.070718.23582@netcom.com>, 
>robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes...
>>Not yet, they're not.  But we've seen where religious crusades like the
>>CFV and OCA lead to... it's already happened this century, in Germany.
>
>     NOW you attack any group that has anyreligious tenants of morality.
>What is the matter now?  Rob, you have already shown that YOUR brand of
>PRO HOMO is really ANTI-HETERO. Does this statement about religous crusades
>mean that YOUR brand of PRO HOMO is also ANTI-RELIGION?

I'm not attacking "any group that has religious tenets of morality".
I'm attacking "crusades like CFV and the OCA"--i.e. groups which have
as their specific agenda the misrepresentation of gay issues and the
legalization of bigotry against gays.

First you think that because I'm against _you_, I'm against all hetero-
sexuals.  I've pointed out how wrong you are.  Now you think that because 
I'm against the CFV and OCA and their ilk, I'm against all religious
groups.  You're just as wrong this time.  And you claim _I'm_ making
emotional appeals.

>If you trust the psychological
>studies that have been done and take them as concrete and unbending evidence
>that sexual orientation is not a choice, then how does a society deal with
>the pedophiles that fuck our children (should they be put in jail because
>of their preference, should they see psychiatric help for their sickness?)

First off, homosexuality and pedophilia are in no sense comparable.
Most pedophiles essentially rape the children they have sex with,
since most children can't give consent.  Homosexual partners have
mutually consensual sex, just like heterosexual partners.  Homo-
sexuality is not rape nor pedophilia, any more than heterosexuality
is.  This is obvious to anyone with a mostly functioning brain.

Second, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

>So maybe I do know what the FUCK I am talking about and
>that you do not have the FUCKING foresight to see what ramifications YOUR
>perverse ANTI-HETERO stance has!!!

What ramifications, Zekey me boyo?  Spell 'em right out for me step
by step.  I can't wait.

>>And whether or _not_ homosexuality is a choice for any particular person,
>>why _should_ they choose not to be homosexual?  What are the _exact
>>reasons_ homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality as a sexual
>>orientation?
>     See above rebuttal!

Uh, Zeke, in the "above rebuttal" you merely failed to show that
homosexuality and pedophilia were comparable.  Would you like to try
again?  Having this discussion with you is pretty maddening, but at
least I know every move you're likely to make.

>You have accused me of being a biggotttteedd, republican, member of the K.K.K.
>while being a homophobic, ignorant, anti-jew, anti-black puckered asshole.

No, Zeke.  No, no, no.  I accused you of being bigoted, yes.  I did
draw a comparison between your anti-gay attitudes and the anti-black
attitudes of the KKK or the anti-Jew attitudes of the Nazis.  But I
did not call you a KKK member or a Nazi.  And I certainly did not call
you a "puckered asshole".  That would seem to be your anal fetish
talking.  Your spiritual cousin, djk, used to rant about shit all the
time; I wonder if you will too.

>I really can respect YOUR PRO HOMO stance based on the fact that I just
>might be a Jewish, Libertarian, man of Afro-American origins or none of
>the above.

Um, my "PRO HOMO" stance seems to consist of being against the KKK, the
CFV, and the OCA.  Why would this make you lose respect for me, if you
were black or Jewish or libertarian?

>I pity you for it! (you should seek some therapy!!!)

Oh, OK.  I'll keep that in mind.

>     No you stupid silly boy, I said that assuming religious persecution and
>and sexual discrimination should not be equated.

And you gave no reasons why not, save some vague claim that "Jews had
a religious moral code; therefore anti-gay discrimination is not
equivalent to anti-Jewish discrimination."  Once again, Zeke old chum,
_why not_?  Be specific.

>My answer is "I am the one that decides my values" if you are intolerant
>of them, you are a bigot.

No, Zeke.  Someone who is prejudiced against someone else because of
some characteristic that makes no difference to the person with the
prejudice is a bigot.  You are prejudiced against gays because of what
their sexual orientation (which has no effect on your life) happens to
be.  Therefore you are a bigot.

I am prejudiced against you because of what you are saying and
claiming, not because of what your skin color or sexual orientation
happens to be.  Therefore I am not a bigot.  Have we got it straight
now?  Oh, if you want to find some reasons why the mere existence of
gay people in the world has an intolerable effect on you and therefore
gays should be discriminated against, go ahead.  We've heard it all
before and we'll rebut it this time too.

>When you have picked my arguments to pieces, you will have picked your own
>arguments to pieces.

If you _had_ any arguments, maybe that might be true.  But so far
every fact you've used to support your case has been utterly bogus.
You can spew rhetoric all you want, pal, but it's not that easy.

A merry Christmas to you.

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_