From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: An Anonymous Reader's Comments on the Big Flame War
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:54:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

[I received this from someone who wishes to remain anonymous in order to
protect his career:]

================================================================================

In ca.politics you [kane@buast7.bu.edu] write:

>Oh, I forgot...you're the one who would prefer to delude himself by believing
>that gay teens who attempt suicide do so not to escape what they think will be
>a miserable life dealing with bigoted people, but because they were all abused
>as children and have selectively forgotten these events.

While listening to my "favorite" evangelical Christian radio show, I have heard
the "illustrious" "Dr." D. James Kennedy state that one-third of gays commit
suicide in their teens, because of their homosexuality, and that this is
certainly not a "gay" lifestyle to be enjoyed, but rather avoided, due to its
inherent "sinfullness", and lack of (spiritual) fulfillment.  I fully expected
him to further conclude that rape victims ought to be condemned as well, for
their abnormally high levels of depression.

Re: this (seemingly endless) debate, one point that I have *not* seen stressed,
is the percentage of closeted homosexuals, and how this might skew any sort of
statistical analysis.  It should be obvious that it is impossible to measure the
extent of homosexuals who will not admit to being homosexuals; I firmly believe
that the actual number of gays *is* 10%, give or take an order of magnitude.
(For the subtlety-impaired, please re-read the last sentence, or ask someone to
interpret it for you).  I also firmly believe that this silent majority would
render *any* sort of statistical analysis or any conclusions derived from such
analysis *completely* meaningless; and that certainly includes the surveys that
Clayton refers to, and any spurious conclusions he may have come up with,
regarding homosexual "promiscuity", and any imagined correlation with child
molestation.  An example of the meaninglessness of such surveys is in the
apparent disparity between average incomes of gays and straights, with a
complete disregard for the fact that lower income homosexuals can not *afford*
to come out of the closet.

Other points that would seem to render Clayton's position utterly groundless
is the cause and effect relationship between homosexual *behaviour* and
condemnation thereof.  Persecution of homosexuals has existed for *centuries*
before the emergence of the "homosexual fascist lobby".  Given that society has
refused acceptance of gays, and refused them the *special* priveleges granted to
*straights*, why should Clayton expect (insist!) that gays to conform to a
society that has rejected them?  And why should he be surprised that a "fascist
lobby" has emerged to fight *back*.  The temporal relation is a *very* good
indicator of cause and effect; it is the prolonged abuse of gays that has caused
a vocal minority to retaliate with a "fuck you! we don't care what you think
anymore" attitude.  Why should *anyone* expect a statistical analysis of this
vocal minority to be meaningful, or correlated in *any* way with the concept of
homosexuality in general.  I believe that Clayton, and people like him, have
caused *far* more damage, and are a *far* greater threat, to society than child
molestors.  (Don't get me wrong; raping children *is* a bad thing.  But Clayton
is even worse.)  Perhaps this is why he has recieved *no* support at all for his
agenda, as reported by Paul Bartholomew.

[except for Phil Ronzone. June Genis, who used to argue for him a year and
half ago, has since disavowed association with Clayton due to his heterosexism.]

Although Clayton *claims* to be opposed to *any* form of anti-discrimination
laws, as an affront to *his* civil liberties, and he singles out the "homosexual
fascist lobby" as the single worst offender, I have never heard him utter the
terms "religious fascist lobby", "black fascist lobby", "women's fascist lobby",
"cerbral palsy fascist lobby", "senior citizens fascist lobby", etc.  Of course,
Clayton has a history of posting threads to the *wrong* newsgroups; perhaps he
has complained about these multitudinous other "fascist lobbies" on newsgroups
that I don't read.  According to the current California Dept. of Fair Employment
and Housing Policies, employers and landlords may not discriminate on the basis
of race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, sex, physical
handicap, medical condition, age, or marital status.  I would further contend
that the "homosexual fascist lobby" is not the worst offender of Clayton's civil
liberties, as they have not yet successfully attained *any* civil rights, even
after the passage of AB 2601, which did so little, yet Clayton hated so much.
I do not understand how Clayton (or anyone) can be opposed to civil rights
protections for homosexuality on the grounds that it is a "chosen" lifestyle,
yet *not* be opposed to protecting religions, even though that is *also* a
chosen lifestyle.

I would further contend that the only reason that anti-discrimination laws exist
*now*, is due to the *only* "fascist lobby" that Clayton has ever expressed
support for:  the "religious fascist lobby".  (I do not seek to condemn religion
in general, here; only the portion of it which has sought to enforce its views
on non-congregational members by means of coersive legislation; I use the term
"fascist lobby" because it is a concept with Clayton is familiar with and has
espoused to death in his postings).  Clayton himself has stated that the reason
for anti-discrimination laws concerning blacks are a direct result of government
enforced discrimination;  where does he think that the lobbying for this
government enforcement came from???  Regardless of the merits of the existing
anti-discrimination laws, the political reality is:  it is far easier to ammend
existing laws, then to *repeal* them.  And the "homosexual fascist lobby" is
*not* to blame for the current *existence* of anti-discrimination laws.  The
existing "fascist" laws are, regretably, the only effective tools available.

Brian:  Please feel free to anonymously post any or all of this on my behalf.
Or not.  (I am currently a closeted homosexual, and I've known this since I was
4.  I have also *never* been molested as a child, never been recruited by a
homosexual, have never recruited young homosexuals, and at the age af 27, I am
still a virgin, so I have never been promiscuous, unlike my straight friends.
One reason I am still closeted after this past NCOD is that I will soon be
looking for a new employer, and I do not trust the passage of AB 2601 to protect
me ...)
================================================================================

[Interesting. I, too, remained a virgin until a late age (22), while many of
my straight peers in high school were having sex at age 16. I may have been
part of a tiny minority of college students who never had sex while in
university!]

[Brian]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51117 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6693 alt.politics.elections:16250 alt.politics.clinton:9872 alt.politics.bush:8737 talk.bizarre:33812