From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: More Garbage from Clayton
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:16:45 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Lord, I don't know why I bother.  Oh well, this is a long one, folks, so
you might want to skip it.  On the other hand, I'm going to finally cut
loose, quite possibly for the last time.  I think it'll be entertaining.

Incidentally, my e-mail is running 100% against Clayton.  Is there anyone
out there who supports him?  I promise not to name names.  The only caveat
is that most people who write to me think it's a futile effort to continue
challenging him because his obsession will never allow him to admit he's
wrong.  Give me some feedback on this, people.  I really do plan on dropping
this subject shortly, but I'd appreciate knowing what you think.

[Clayton writes]
>In article <194907@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
># I don't agree with this.  Alcoholism was seen as a sign of weakness and
># an addiction by many people (and still is), but has never been considered
># a moral problem.  I also do not believe that alcholism was ever con-
>
>You missed something in school, didn't you?  The reason the WCTU
>attempted to ban alcohol was because there were lots of people whose
>moral weakness prevented them from staying away from the bottle.  Even
>today, drug rehabilitation sorts are split into several camps about
>drug abuse, and my reading shows that there is s still a "moral
>problem" camp out there.

Actually, we really didn't cover the WCTU too much in my public school
education.  What I do remember, though, is that the moral outrage was
not directed at the alcoholics, but rather at the purveyors of alcohol.
Carrie Nation, in particular, was driven to her crusade by tavern owners
who, despite her pleas, continued to sell to her alcoholic husband.

If you have done some reading that shows that people think drugs or
alcohol are a moral problem, please cite some sources.  I'd be interested
in learning why people believe that.

># sidered a moral problem by the mental health community--a mental illness,
># perhaps, but not a moral one.

In any case, you still didn't answer this part of my response.  Does your
reading also indicate that the mental health community thought that
alcoholism was a moral problem?  Source(s), please?

># Interesting choice of words [afflict], revealing much about your personal
># views.
>
>Sure enough.  The views of myself and many others.

I wasn't arguing that--I was just commenting that your word choice was
quite revealing.  As to the "many others", that is completely irrelevant;
quite a few people still believe the world is flat.

># Sorry Clayton, but you'll have to do better than that.  You have never
># established that homosexuals are more heavily involved in child molesta-
># tion than heterosexuals.  You have quoted only two studies, and mis-
># interpreted the statistics from both.  You have presented no evidence
># in more than a year of this crusade that homosexuals are "disproportion-
># ately" involved in child molestation.  All we have to go on is your
># unsubstantiated word.

>I have certainly demonstrated disproportionality.  Of course, convincing
>a homosexual of that is like convincing a tobacco company tha cigarettes
>are bad for your health.

That's the third time you've assumed I'm gay--an opinion based solely on
my total disagreement with your position.  For the third time, I am
straight and I must take issue with your claim that you have demonstrated
*anything*.  Now, if your evidence isn't enough to convince heterosexuals,
why do you still feel it is adequate?  In the past year and a half, only
about two people have actively joined your crusade.  That's a pretty poor
record, Clayton.  Could it be perhaps that you don't have enough proof?

Your sole "proof" consists of:

1.  The fact that NAMBLA marched in the SF Gay Pride Parade.  (Never mind
that NAMBLA does not march in any of the other gay pride parades.  Never
mind that they were booed along the route and did not finish the parade.
Never mind that a very few number of people actually made the decision
to allow them to march (on freedom of speech grounds).  And never mind
that Clayton didn't even attend or watch the parade, so he has no idea
what he's talking about.)

2.  Selected postings from soc.motss, collected for over a year now.  (Never
mind that the posters to Usenet are not typical of the population as a
whole.  Never mind that all of these postings are from at most a couple
of dozen people.  Never mind that several of these postings simply don't
say what Clayton says they do.  Never mind that all these postings "prove"
is that there are a few people who post to soc.motss who need counselling.)

3.  Two studies on child molestation.  (Never mind that he's had more than
a year with this issue and has yet to go to his library and do some research.
Never mind that, as pointed out by Brian Kane, he misread the statistics
presented in these studies.)

That's it, Clayton.  The sum total of your evidence.  How could you, in
your wildest dreams, believe that this is sufficient evidence to convince
anyone?  Your claims, based solely on the oft-repeated refrain, "Reading
soc.motss convinced me that [fill-in-the-blank]", consist of the following:

1.  Gays are mentally disturbed.
2.  Homosexuality is a disfunctional lifestyle.
3.  The "overwhelming majority" of homosexuals support child molestation
4.  Homosexuals were molested as children.
5.  Homosexuals are promiscuous.
6.  Homosexuals practice deviant sexual practices.
7.  Homosexuals are depraved liars.

And probably others as well.  These are the ones I can remember off the
top of my head.  Let me give this added emphasis:  You have *never*
provided *any* serious evidence to back up *any* of these claims.

Not a single claim you make can be supported by the evidence you have
presented.  What's sad is that you should know this.  When someone posts
something idiotic about gun control, or crime statistics, or the
Constitution, etc., you jump right in with the research necessary to
support the position you take.  Why, after more than a year of being
obsessed with this issue, haven't you done the same for this?

I am amazed that you seem to honestly believe that your evidence is
convincing.  Consider this scenario--I am a peer reviewer for a psy-
chiatry journal: if you submitted a paper to me making the claims
that you have made, do you honestly expect me to find that you have
sufficient evidence?  Is this enough evidence to use in even a high
school debate?  Would a court of law find this sufficient evidence?
The only thing this proves is that your obsession has totally blinded
you to the unreality of your position.

These are not brand-new topics, Clayton.  This is not some overwhelming
world conspiracy that you alone have discovered.  These subjects have
been seriously researched for more than 40 years.  Hell, the basic
questions about homosexuality go all the way back to Freud and even
further.  The information is there; why the hell won't you go look for
it?  A year and a half, Clayton, and more than three postings a day
just about every day.  That's a lot of time--don't you think it's time
you got some facts to support your positions?

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:  all of Clayton's claims
*may* actually be true (I don't think so, but it's certainly possible).
But the only claim he can legitimately make, *based on the evidence he has
presented*,  is that several of the people who post to soc.motss are in
need of counseling.  Get the evidence to back up your claims, Clayton,
and I'll stop needling you.  Hell, if you find the smoking gun that you
claim exists, I'll even join your crusade.  But I want *proof*, or a
reasonable facsimile thereof.

># As a side note, it's awfully big of you to concede that homosexuals are
># not exclusively responsible for child molestation--particularly when you
># consider that homosexual child molestation is such a small fraction of
># the totals.
>
>Of course.  Homosexuals are probably less than 5% of the population.

Like I said, big of you to concede this (something you really didn't do in
your original posting).  Oh, and your source for the <5% figure?

By the way, I think that just about everyone agrees that 3% is a lower
bound on the number of homosexuals in the population.  Assuming that is
correct, this means over 7,000,000 gays in the US alone.  Why do you 
believe that the posters to soc.motss are typical of these 7,000,000 other
people?  And if you accept the upper bound of about 10%, we may actually
have 25,000,000 gay people in the US.

># And another interesting choice of phrases.  Once again, you seem to be
># implying that AIDS "and other STDs" are implicit hazards of homosexuality,
># when the reality is that they have nothing to do with homosexuality.
># Sexually transmitted diseases are just that--diseases that are transmitted
># by sexual activity.  This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality
># vs. heterosexuality.
>
>It is clearly associated with promiscuity, and homosexuality and
>promiscuity are clearly associated -- at least by homosexuals.

Oh, this is going to be fun.  I've been waiting for a chance at this claim.
Okay, let's talk about promiscuity, shall we?  First of all, as before, you
haven't presented any evidence that homosexuals are more promiscuous than
heterosexuals.  Sorry, Clayton, but the phrase, "Reading soc.motss convinced
me that homosexuals are promiscuous," just doesn't cut it.  Interestingly
enough, you have never discussed why homosexuals are promiscuous.  You
have resorted to the circular reasoning that homosexuals are mentally
ill, therefore they are promiscuous.  And homosexuals are promiscuous,
therefore they are mentally ill.

Secondly, why the hell should stories about sexual practices in soc.motss
be enough to convince you of anything?  Let's try an experiment--read
the alt.sex groups; log in to a local BBS and read the XXX public group;
buy any number of men's magazines (e.g., Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler,
etc.) and read the letters sections.  Now, how many of these letters
and postings talk about monogamy?  Missionary, procreational sex with
one's spouse?  None of them?  Hmm...now what should I assume about
heterosexuals based on this?  Nothing you say?  These letters are not
typical of the heterosexual population as a whole?  Oh, of course,
why couldn't I see that?  Could it be perhaps that the stories that
people write, and like to read, are the ones that present something
different?  Something exotic?  Could it even be that the people who post
such stories are perhaps not typical of the population as a whole?  Oh....

Ah, you respond, but homosexuals also go to gay bars specifically for
the purpose of cruising one another to get laid.  Well, gee, I must
be imagining things that there is a group of bars not far from where
I live where heterosexuals meet to dance and cruise--a group so
notorious that it is widely known as "Herpes Triangle".  I know about
it because my roommate is a rather frequent visitor to the area.
Within a five mile radius of my house, I can find over two dozen
straight "meat markets".  Allow me to include all of Los Angeles, and
the number increases to several hundred.  I'll be glad to give you
a tour, Clayton.  Now, what does this tell me about the sexual
practices of heterosexuals?  What? These people are also not typical
of the heterosexual population as a whole?  Oh, damn, another good
argument blown to bits.

Ah, you respond yet again, but homosexuals also have cruising places
such as baths where they get together just to have sex.  Well there
you just might have an argument, except for two things.  One, can
you tell me just what percentage of homosexuals frequent the baths?
Oh, you can't?  Oh, damn, then I guess the argument is weakened
considerably.

The second thing is that the lack of a similar place for heterosexuals
is, I submit, not because of the innate non-promiscuity of heterosexuals,
but because of the lack of cooperation of women.  Now here we have to
divert into personal experience and observation.  Walk into any college
bar at 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday night.  Walk into any of the bars I
mention above at the same time.  Now ask the men still there if they'd
like to go with you to a place where they could go to pick up women
and take them home for sex, no questions asked, and no obligation.  I'll
bet you 10-to-1 you'd find plenty of takers.  Why doesn't stuff like
this happen more often?  Primarily because, in my experience, women are
not as promiscuous as men, and because they have no particular desire
to get raped (which would almost surely happen at such a cruising
place).  I don't know about your college life, but the University of
Missouri sure had a substantial number of men who were looking to get
laid on the weekend nights.

This brings me to my last point.  You have made the claim that homosexuality
and promiscuity are inextricably linked.  And yet, if this were true, you
would also find female homosexuals that are promiscuous.  Since this is
generally not the case, I submit that it is logical to assume that pro-
miscuity is not a function of homosexuality so much as it is a function
of masculinity.  In other words, male homosexuals are more promiscuous
because men in general are more promiscuous, and male homosexuals don't
have to worry about the lack of promiscuity of their partners.  As to
whether this is true, I don't know, but I submit that it is at least as
logical as anything you have come up with.

Now, can we put the promiscuity issue to rest, or are you going to whine
yet again, "But reading soc.motss convinced me that...."

># you aware that fully half the states in this country have some form of
># sodomy laws--many specifically directed at homosexual behavior.  And I'm
># sure you are aware of the current struggle in Oregon.
>
>Yup.  And as long as homosexuals insist on enforcing their morals
>on others, I can't be sure that repealing the sodomy laws was such
>a great idea.  As my wife observed recently, "At least in the closet,
>they can't recruit."

This is another good one.  Do you know that there is no documented case
where it has been conclusively shown that anyone has ever been "recruited"
into homosexuality?  If they could be "recruited" into it, they could
also be "recruited" out of it.  Do you know that the Kinsey group has had
a standing offer for years offering a substantial reward to any psychiatrist
who was able to produce a patient who had been "cured" of homosexuality.
As of the late 1980's, nobody had successfully claimed this reward.  One
man who tried was very proud of the fact that he wasn't gay any more--he
only thought about men when he masturbated!

As to enforcing their morals on others--well, I'm waiting to hear your
diatribes against women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, and various other
minorities who have all "enforced their morals" on you by requiring
you to associate with them against their will.  Maybe we should come
up with sodomy law equivalents for each of these groups to keep them
in their place.  And how about those heterosexual married couples who
insist on wearing their wedding rings and kissing in public?  Damn, I'd
better pass some laws to protect myself from their enforcing their
morality on me.  Show some consistency, please, Clayton.

># # 6. In both cases, the psychiatric community has modified our under-
># # standing of each behavior from "sin," to "emotional disorder."  Unlike
># # homosexuality, however, the psychiatric community hasn't redefined
># # alcoholism as an alternative lifestyle.
># 
># No, that's not correct.  The psychiatric community does not consider homo-
># sexuality an emotional disorder and has not for many years.  Please do get
># your facts correct, Clayton.
>
>Please work on your reading skills.  I didn't make the statement you
>think.

Oh, then exactly what did you mean?  I certainly see a sentence up there
with the words "psychiatric community" and "emotional disorder".  If the
psychiatric community believes that homosexuality is not an emotional
disorder, then who is the "our" that you are referring to?  If you believe
the psychiatric community that homosexuality is not a sin, then why do
you not believe them when they say it is not an emotional disorder?  This
is an absurd argument.  Incidentally, I'd say the problem with that sen-
tence is its construction, not my reading of it.

># And another strike.  The stereotypes and myths about homosexuality have
># been debunked a long time ago.  You, on the other hand, continue to
>
>Until you read soc.motss, and realize that the stereotypes exist
>because a lot of homosexuals fit them.

And then you look again and realize that the posters to soc.motss can
be numbered in the hundreds and are hardly typical of the millions of
homosexuals in America.  And then you look even further and realize that
it is a tiny minority of posters to soc.motss who account for all of
the more outre postings.  And then you realize that, like every group,
including heterosexuals, homosexuals have their own atypical minorities.
And then you look yet again and realize that the majority of letters
about sex and child molestation and NAMBLA are generated by, or in
response to, Clayton Cramer.  Q.E.D.

Incidentally, Clayton, just what is your definition of "a lot"?  Give me
some percentages, please.  10%, 20%, 50%, 80%?

You will note, Clayton, that your sole evidence (yet again) consists
of the phrase, "Reading soc.motss convinced me that...."  Well, gee,
reading ca.politics has convinced me that you are a homophobic idiot.
I submit that I have far more evidence than you do.  Anyone disagree?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I think that Clayton and
his crusade are far more dangerous to my children than NAMBLA.

The bottom line for me, and the reason I've fought this battle is that
I've known too many gay men to allow this nonsense to go unchallenged.
My primary hobbies are music performance and performing in musical theater.
In both of these professions, a lot of the people you meet are gay--this
is particularly true of musical theater.  The people I've met and become
friends with just don't fit these stereotypes that Clayton keeps trying
to propagate.  They're not child molesters; they're not S&M leather
freaks; they're not even drag queens.  They don't want to molest and/or
"recruit" your children, and they are not mentally ill (although most of
them suffer from low self-esteem caused by a society that rejects them).
They just want the freedom to love whom they choose.  They have my full
support.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------