From: leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is NOT natural
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  9 Nov 92 05:24:47 GMT



[Where necessary, I've "fixed" Deitch's punctation, spelling and line
length in the interests of readability]

> I cannot understand how people can possibly believe that homosexuality is a
> natural and perfectly normal sexual condition. I am not prejudiced against
> homosexuals, and I would not judge a person as being `Diseased' or any
> less human, just because of their sexual orientation, 

BUT!

> but Homosexuality is NOT
> a natural form of intimacy.

"Unnatural" is an insult. It implies -- and I'm only pointing such an
elementary definition out because it's outside the understanding of
your average bigot -- that the unnatural thing is something that should 
not happen, or shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Bigots place great emphasis on "naturalness," as evidenced by the 
recent "KYLIE TIT JOB!" furore. In Deitch's case, I'm betting his 
definition of "natural" is "things which I've seen before, however 
sheltered my childhood may have been."  

> The very make-up of a persons physical anatomy
> is direct proof that homosexuality is unnatural with regards to reproduction,

Your emphasis on "reproduction" as a fulfilling human function (the 
only fulfilling human function is the implicit argument here) is
irrelevant. As an "Oprah" guest once pointed out, if people capable
of reproduction are the only ones considered human -- and therefore
"natural" -- then you've just made impotent men and barren women, and 
those who choose not to reproduce, into sub-humans.

> and therefore is destructive to the evolution of any species ( If it were
> more common ).

I think you may mean "continuation of the species" here. Is this
something that worries you all the time? Or, like most bigots, are
you only worried about species continuation when it suits you?
If so, there *are* other cliches more worrying than a few
people not having 2.4 children, such as "the destruction of the 
environment" and "world war III." Gay-bashing, by the way, is
one way of not continuing the species.

> My point is that homosexuality is a sexual disorder,

"Disorder" and "disease," in this context, have the same meaning. 
I'll quote your first paragraph here: "...and I would not judge a 
person as being `Diseased'" 

> just like
> child molestation and beastiality,

Homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex, which to all 
purposes is hetrosexuality with a different target. Child
molestation is interferring with children. Beastiality is 
interferring with animals.

Why do you see those three as similar?

> so why is it publicised so explicitly
> around the University?

It isn't. There is a page in Vertigo each month, and some posters
and stickers were put up recently (and torn down within two hours.
I wondered who did it: the 1991 first years were too tolerant for 
that kind of stunt). 

> Why do they post up stickers like `Queer until I die'
> `Every woman has the potential to be a lesbian'

They're true - particulary the last. (Of course, you could just 
as easily stick up "Some people have brown hair" or "Person X 
is *very* tall." But no-one -- to my knowledge -- has been
killed by ignorant bigots for having brown hair or being tall.)

>who the fuck wants to read them? 

I was amused -- mostly wondering what the first years would
make of *this*. They're also helpful for people who are 
unsure about their preferences, and may be happy to realise
that the entire of society isn't against them.

> They are just like saying, `Young enough to bleed, young enough to breed'

No, the first stickers you mentioned seemed to make sense.

> We,

You.

>do not want to see them, why can't people just keep their own
> sexual exploits to themselves,

Another common argument. (Please note: wherever I mention the words
"common" or "typical," I really mean "cliched." If I'm ever rude 
enough to say "cliched," I'm really saying "illogical and not 
well thought through. Innappropriate for someone who claims to have 
a brain.") These stickers you're so offended by are not graphic 
illustrations of sexual activity. This is not a matter of "keeping your 
sexual exploits to yourself."

If you can't understand the difference between "asserting your right
to a different life to the norm" and "sticking your penis into a
stranger's mouth," don't worry. Neither can my Mother.

> the GLUTS posters are there, for people who need
> help,

Support, not "help," which implies "problem."

> these other trashy pieces of unnatural 

Whoops! That word again!

> advertising, are both unnecessary
> and disturbing.

Are you *worried*, Mark? So is JACKSON,Chris.

> Disturbing, in that people actually wish to promote this
> sexual disorder.

Disease, disorder, whatever. You're still contradicting your 
little speech about not being prejudiced. If you can't deal
with having gays nearby then you are prejudiced. If you
are prejudiced, you are a bigot. (Are you following so far?)
If you are a bigot, you are therefore not a nice person, and 
are unlikely to impress girls.

> I know they cannot help it, and Ok, allow them to be all they want
> in their own group,

You assume we care whether you'll "allow" gays to be what they want. 

> that's why there is GLUTS,

GLUTS had to fight to be established at UTS -- against the wishes of
bigots such as yourself. Queensland University recently disallowed
the establishment of a gay group, again, because of people like you.

One of the priorites of GLUTS (you'll be pleased to discover) is to 
make the more naive students aware that there is a large gay 
population at UTS. And that they're irritated with people like you.

> but why push it onto
> those people who wish no part of it? 

These stickers are not so persuasive that you can't ignore them. 
An indiviual with your kind of profoundly unshakeable hetrosexuality 
should be able to handle anything! Even orange stickers!

> Also those SICKENING pictures, why does the homosexual society feel that
> it has to show pictures of men kissing, in bed nude, women kissing, etc.

Because, and I can authenticate this personally, a gay person is 
unlikely to see any positive images of gays in love until they're
roughly nineteen. This can, particulary for the unsure such as yourself,
lead you to think that hets are the only people who have "real love."
Bullshit, but most teenagers are embarrasingly naive.

> What is the point?, other than to grab attention?.

"Draw attention to."

> I think some law should be
> imposed on the advertising of these unwarranted portrails of indecency.

And I think people like you should be re-lobotomised and forcibly 
educated. But that would be rude.

> They don't show pictures of Women screwing horses, or 28 year 
> olds buggerising 13 year olds

Is this relevant? Are we arguing about censorship or lifestyle?

> why not?

If you really want to see something like that, I'm sure you can
track *that kind of picture* down. Try the Cross.

>If homosexuality can be deemed natural, because it is the way people
> were born, why are these other exploits deemed unnatural?

There's that word again. When you say "unnatural," you really mean
"not within my experience."

> The point is
> they are all unnatural.

To you, and you don't strike me as open-minded.

> They do not make a person less human, or 
> one who should be looked upon as being evil etc. but the activity
> is not normal,

Again, to you.

> so the details should be kept within their own group, 
> and not be flagrantly advertised all over the place.
 
"Flagrant" (which, to a certain kind of bigot, has connotatons
of "high camp," or whatever) is another typical bigot word. 
A picture of two men (or women) kissing is no more flagrant than 
a picture of a man and a woman kissing. It is more erotic, but 
that could be a personal view.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Deitch           
>One life to live.        

And a lot of other lives to interfere with.

--- G M Heinrich  ( leroy@socs.uts.edu.au )
PSYCHOANALYST [Steps forward]: We don't want to frighten you. I'm a
pyschoanalyst. Here is my pipe [Holds up pipe].
Newsgroups: aus.flame