From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:24:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(vanyel)
/Think of it this way: If it weren't
/for the "outrageous" people who show pride in being comfortable with their
/self-identity, I bet a lot of naturally effeminate males out there would
/feel pretty uncomfortable, since it would look like all society intends to
/ostracize them for a part of their personality.


I think I sent this to you in email.  I am pasting it in here for
everyone else who wasn't privy to those email conversations:

There is a religious group back home called the Shakers.  Similar to 
the Amish, or the Old German Baptist. You may
have heard of them.  During church services they "shake" with 
their conviction, or by the power of God, or whatever.  But because 
they understand that newcomers to the church may not fully understand 
this practice, they use discretion when exhibiting it when newcomers are 
around, so as not to leave the impression that they are unusual or 
mentally unbalanced.  The newcomer eventually finds out what goes on during
the services, but only after he / she has been there for 
several occasions.  This allows the person to get to know some of the 
church members first, and have some other facts to judge the practice by.

They are not ashamed of their religion, but they do not exhibit it for 
public viewing, either.  In an effort to keep their religion's name above 
ridicule, they _voluntarily_use_discretion_in_the_display_of_their_practice.  
They also consider their religious faith  to be a cherished and 
personal thing; not something for tourists (or TV audiences) to gawk 
at.  

This is the model that I am asking we follow.  If we consider our 
sexuality to be a private matter, then the various things we do related 
to it should be private also (private==not up for public consumption 
or gawking at on TV).


(vanyel)
/It doesn't matter if a lot of people privately agree with you, Bob, because
/these are the people who won't come out.  These are the people who hide
/behind what amounts to a rationalization of the bars they place around
/themselves.  

So because they won't come out, to hell with them? We shouldn't try to
help them come out?

Some will never come out; that is just being realistic.  But I don't
think that's true for all of them.


(vanyel)
/To expect them to deny a portion of themselves for *your* sake can
/be, despite the best of intentions, misconstrued as a message alarmingly
/similar to the one sent by the prejudiced in the heterosexual community.

I can see and understand how close my view may appear to the prejudice
of the heterosexual bigots.  It's not the same, though.  I am not talking
about "forcing" people to do anything; I am suggesting it as a course
of action. 

And as I told you in email, these bigots don't support:

  a.  equal rights for gay/bi/lesbian
  b.  nondiscrimination in housing, employment, etc.
  c.  lifting the military ban
  d.  distribution of condoms in schools
  e.  increased public funding of AIDS research
  f.  streamlining the FDA drug approval process to get more experimental
      AIDS drugs to patients NOW
  g.  enactment of "hate crimes" legislation to cover attacks for
      sexual orientation

I support all of these.  If anderson, Arne, or anyone else thinks I'm the
same as some of the religious fundamentalists, then they need to come 
back to reality.
Xref: sparky soc.motss:38026 ba.motss:1519 alt.politics.homosexuality:5646