Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:46:40 CDT
From:         There is No Answer <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

> KAT,

> You've surpassed Moses!  Eleven rules, and still going!  Incredible.

All based on your groundbreaking work. Don't you feel proud?  B)

> Your last rule, #11, implies that my position on homosexuality has
> something to do with prejudice.  This is not true.  For your claim of
> prejudice to be true, my position would mandatorily come from an
> inadequate basis in fact.  The scripture, I'm afraid, does not lend
> support to your rambling.

Say WHAT?

Let us "deconstruct" what you have said here. Rule #11, which is,
if I recall, something to do with calling people immoral if they
disagree with you. Don't get me wrong, Robert, I really want to
get this right, but considering how, as long as you've been on this
list, you've been dealing with issues on an emotional and self-
centered basis instead of dealing with anything outside of the
Bible, I can't say I've particularly gave a flying fuck what you
have babbled so far, so bear with me.

OK, you position of homosexuality is based on personal preference
and the word of "G"od, as revealed in this translated, retranslated,
changed and imperfect transcription. I can understand the personal
preference part: I don't understand the attraction, myself. Many of
the guys I know are totally insufferable assholes, so the thought of
*ANYONE* getting intimate with most men to be irritating. This
accepted, I don't see what the problem would be, beyond personality
factors, to be intimate with whoever would want to be intimate with
you.

Seeing how the little "objective" evidence you give is of the nature
of "they are dirty, disgusting people who spread diseases and hurt
people."  The fastest rate of AIDS spread today is among herero
females, so the case of "dirty people" is involved with both ends.

As for the "hurt people," let me give you a counter-example: Donald
Moeller. Moeller was just convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-
year-old girl. This was a heterosexual experience. A sick, disgusting,
perverted and horrible experience, but in the sense that we are using,
one of the actors was male, the other was female, and there was sex.

(Repeat: I am by no means condoning the crime or trying to equate
heterosexuality with this kind of behavior. Actually, I told someone
this weekend that I don't believe in the Death Penalty but if I did,
Moeller would be the person most deserving of that penalty.)

My point here is that homosexuals have no monopoly on the little
"objective" defense you have for your position. What is left is
subjective and therefore prejudice.  Prejudice backed by words
in an old book, but prejudice nonetheless.

If you have more facts, bring them out. If you hide facts from the
argument, I can only believe that you are being dishonest with your
position, or with yourself.

You see, many people have come up with versions of the "Inspired Word
of God." Jesus, Moses, Paul, Mohammed, Mary Baker Eddy, Ivan Stang-
they all have versions of what God tells them to do, and some of them
are contradictory.

I have no objections to you disliking homosexuality. I have objections
to you involving yourself in their oppression.

> ---Robert

> "Visit L.A., it's a riot!"

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
LAPD - We'll treat you like a King!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU