From: mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:46:15 GMT

kutem@grouper6.Berkeley.EDU (Jon Kutemeier) writes:

>In article <mccalley.715623076@lead16>, mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes:
>|> These are good points.  And salmon do somehow swim all the way up stream,
>|> so I guess there are some amazing feats of reproduction in this ecosystem.
>|> For salmon, you would think they would choose an easier way, but they do
>|> not have the ability to think in the same capacity as we do.  I wonder 
>|> what our excuse is.

>And bigotry and discrimination still exist, even with all this great thinking
>capacity we supposedly have. I *do* wonder what our excuse is. The inability
>to acknowledge the love two people share, whether it is between a man and a
>woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is one of the most saddening
>things I see in this world today.

Or say... A man and his dog?  Or maybe a man and a young boy of say... 
six to twelve years old who is in the Boy Scouts of America.  They didn't
have Boy Scouts, but the Ancient Greeks had no problem with this.  They
used to have it set up whereby an older man, a mentor, would take on one
or several young boys and teach them the ways of the world.  One of the
ways was sodomy and the likes.   Homosexuality was common.  Woman were
treated like second class citizens.  And everything was hunky dori.
That is, until the Romans came and conquered them.  And yes, they all
"loved" each other.  The point is, everyone sees the love.  People just
don't want adults to "love" their children sexually when they go camping.  
Camping... I used that one a few times.  It works real good!  The Black and 
Jewish thing is another story.  So maybe a homosexual and a petafile (sp?) 
are two different things, but HOW different?  I certainly don't know.  They
seem like the same league to me (non-reproductive sexual behavior).
But... I digress.  My original argument was on deselection, not "why people
do not want homosexuals to be scout leaders."  Personally, I never liked
the Boy Scouts.  There were no girls to go camping with.

>|> While it is true that AIDS can strike anyone, gay males have the highest
>|> incidence of the disease, and that is very simply because of the way it
>|> is transmitted.  The risk to a heterosexual male is not very great,
>|> especially if he is monogomous.  Since you seem to know a great deal about
>|> this subject, I am sure you would agree.  When you talk about probability,
>|> gay men get the short end of the stick.  Ooops :)

>I don't care who you are, or what your sexual orientation is. You should
>be very frightened, as long as AIDS exists. Sex is not the only means of
>transmission.

Yes, but it is the primary means.  

>As for risk, why would the risk be any greater for a homosexual monogomous
>couple, or do you still believe AIDS is primarily a "gay" disease, 
>primarily caused by their "behavior"?

It wouldn't.  But now you still have the problem of reproducing.  We look
for success in our mates.  Whether it be good looks, good social skills,
intelligence, or whatever.  That is what attracts us.  That is what will
be carried into the next generation.  Homosexuals do not get this.  What
attracts you is not something that will be carried into the next 
generation.  So suppose you have some kind of good taste in mates despite
your sexual preference (but since you don't have to live with the mate for
a long period of time, you really cant know if they are good), and you 
decide on a surrogate.  I guarentee you will be limited in that such a 
mate would be much harder to find.  The reason for this falls in line with 
the rest of the argument in that a woman who gives up her child does not 
INSURE its survival.  The human offspring requires the most nurturing of 
any animal.  Without a good instinct in the mother, the child does not go 
far.  (It is of course important for the father to do his share as well).

So maybe it is not impossible for homosexuals to reproduce, but it sure
is a whole lot harder.  

And maybe AIDS can strike anyone, but it mainly strikes homosexuals.

So the here are the two main parts of the argument:

	1)  A deadly disease strikes MAINLY one particular group of people.
	2)  This same particular group has a hard time reproducing.

When I add these two up, the future don't look good for gays.

Now, if you were bisexual, you can eliminate #2.

And, if you are biogomous (I saw it on Oprah, or was it Jenny Jones, or
maybe Phil Donahue, oh, I forget), then you're right back in the game.
It all sounds like such a pain in the ass though.  Ooops :)  It must
be a pretty strong conviction for one to go against the bulk of 
society AND be faced with imminent doom (OK, this is controversial).
These two things alone are enough to make me straight.  I guess I
am lucky I do not have such a dilemma

So, I say it is genetic, and it will be deselected.  Of course we will
all be dead by then, so only our offspring will really know the truth.

You all have fun fighting over this one.
-- 
....................................................... Phil McCalley

Disclaimer:  I speak for myself and anyone who agrees with me.
Xref: sparky rec.scouting:3036 rec.radio.amateur.misc:15367