From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION IS FUCKING HILARIOUS
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:28:39 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA

In article <L60ViB2w164w@Bogus.COM> punk@Bogus.COM (Jack C. Royce) writes:
>Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>> If you go back in the thread a bit, I believe the picture in question
>> was two men KISSING - a far cry from fucking.  As for seeing straights
>
>Well, if you would bother to take the time to read the fucking message, you
>would see that the message that I followed, the idiot was talking about
>FUCKING (totally naked) on the front page of the news paper.

From article <1992Mar26.199.433211@eos.ncsu.edu>, by
bpasahi@eos.ncsu.edu (B.P Asahi):

] dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) sez:
] 
]>The term is "kissing" not "fucking".  
] 
] When I see a picture of two butt-naked homos frenching each other, it 
] doesn't matter whether they're kissing or fucking. It's still repulsive. 

The idiot in question was in reality talking about KISSING on the
front page of the newspaper.

>I suggest that you read the entire message before you post.

What's sauce for the goose....

>> fucking (or portraying that) - probably 1/2 of the shows on TV portray
>> this vividly - including daytime soaps - right there for the kiddies
>> to watch - BUT that's ok, whereas you see two men lying in bed together,
>> not even touching each other, and that's "fucking sick" - there is
>> something wrong with that picture.
>
>Look, I said, that I don't agree with pornographic matieral in reach of
>children.  And that includes tv.  The day time soaps that you talk about are
>on when the kids are in school anyhow.

Yeah, but ROSEANNE isn't; THIRTYSOMETHING isn't; KNOTS LANDING isn't.

>> Your kids are hardly seeing anything that could "promote" gay sex.
>> See above, your kids are exposed to hours of straight fuck scenes,
>> commercials which promote the same, ad nausium.  Don't even try
>> to tell me that ONE newspaper cover's picture of two men kissing
>> is earth shattering.
>
>Why in the HELL do you people exaggerate so?  Sheesh, tv is too sexually
>oriented.  But the fact is, sex sells, and the advertisers are not likely
>to change that.  Take that up with them.

No, YOU take that up with them, punk.  You're the one who's so
God-awful concerned about your children never learning nor hearing
nor seeing anything about sex -- start with where they're seeing it
every day.  On the nighttime soaps, on the beer commercials, on the
swimsuit ads, on the billboards.  Don't start with a single display of
homosexuality and insist that it's too much for your kids to handle.

You weren't even the one who started this thread, punk -- it was that
Asahi character.  Have YOU ever seen a newspaper like this one, punk?

>You are so against heterosexual sex on tv, but don't care about your type
>of sex.

Hardly.  Rather, you are so terribly against queer sex in the
newspaper, but don't care about "your type of sex."  (Such diction!
Such composition!)

>I'm not for a sex is evil attitude by far, but as you can see, this generation
>hops in the sack all too quick.  I think it is time to get some morals.

So teach your children that.  No one's stopping you from doing so.
Don't go whining about homosexuality in the media.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Xref: sparky alt.flame:7135 rec.music.misc:14539 alt.stupidity:1635 alt.exploding.kibo:207 alt.religion.kibology:1710