From: keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.scouting,alt.athiesm
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:42:14 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug14.173624.10218@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:

>In article <BsyGBD.66w@acsu.buffalo.edu> omhoward@acsu.buffalo.edu (The God-Bitch Emperor of Snuggle Bunnies) writes:
>>In <1992Aug9.234825.11097@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>>
>>>Excuse me, but why is Levi Strauss stopping their contributions to
>>>BSA?  It's because of pressure put on them by people who are opposed
>>>to fundamental, decent, moral values.  As I've said before and I'll
>>>say again, it's totally pathetic for an organization that stands for
>>>decent standards of morality, as BSA does, to be the group that's

What "indecent" morals does Levis stand for?  What "indecent" morals does
Queer Nation stand for?  Can you take ten seconds to point out specific 
"indecent" morals that either stand for?  It sounds to me like they both
support "decent" morals -- humanism.  Respecting individuals rights to be
themselves. Respecting individuality -- doesn't sound too indecent to me!


>>>under sttack.
>>
>>    No stan, they decided to do it all by themselves...  Is that what
>>you (the people so feverently supporting this campaign against Levi's
>>& Co) are afraid of?  That people are finially looking that this whole
>>issue and dare deciding that you're wrong?

>You know darn well what the issue is.  It's Levi, et.al., succumbing
>to guerrilla warfare being waged against BSA by trying to dry up

"Guerilla warfare"?  Have little terrorists been secrently bombarding the BSA
 with  bombs?  Isn't that the definition of guerilla warfare?  It was a new
definition to the kind of warfare we fought in the revolution where both 
sides faced each other.  It seems both sides are facing each other.. if 
one can even call this a war or determine "sides."


>their sources of funding.  All of a sudden, an organization that is
>based on normal, proper, moral values, is under attack; something

Restricting the freedom of people is proper, normal values?  What happened
to the good ole USA where people's freedoms and right to such freedoms
are guaranteed by a constitution!


>is wrong here, and Levi's or BofA or Wells Fargo succumbing to those
>attacks is a sick statement of the state of our society.


No, what is a sick statement of the state of our society is there are such
bigots in the world as you and John Haugh!



>>      I renmeber this arguement in our mail messages.. Funny you
>>stopped writing when you couldn't prove your point..  Well, I'm going
>>to say something to you stan... Even in being gay was a choice (and
>>it's not.. (try being gay for a week stan.. Go ahead sleep with a man
>>et all)  I'll bet you can't.) anywho even if it was a choice.. IT

A clarification (while I know you weren't saying anything at all above
about what was really and not really a choice.. let me clarify anyway):

I did not choose to be gay!  I did not wake up one morning and decide that
I was bored as a heterosexual and I wanted to be an outcast of society 
instead.  I did not decide that by becoming a lesbian, I would turn on 
more men than I presently was, and so it seemed a fun idea.  I did not wake
up one morning and decide any of this.  

What happened, however, is I realized that my sexual attractions (although
they were far from fully sexual at that point) seemed to point more towards
women than towards men.  I dated a wonderful guy -- sweet, sensitive, and 
willing to pay for the dates out! <smile!> and I couldn't understand why
if he was so great, I didn't get very excited about being with him, or 
dating him, or kissing him.  I began to question.

Then, the summer following, I began working with a woman in a camp, and fell
head over heels in lust with her.  Giving her a backrub excited me twenty 
thousand more times than kissing that guy ever did.  And it caused me 
to continue to quesiton.

The problem with my questioning is there are a lot of ideas floating around,
such as the ones you and John H. are trying to spread around, and I didn't
want to be part of a group that was so hated by a segment of society.  I didn't
want to be hated, or be perverse.  

But I was attracted to, and fell in love with several women, and after having
read very healthy accounts by other people about their coming out process,
and how they had the same fears and questions, and denial that I had, CHOSE
to ACCEPT myself as who I am, and to be PROUD of myself, as I had always 
been.  

Sounds pretty simple, and all of this happened long before I ever lost my 
virginity.  Which seems to indicate that it has nothing to do with John H.s
concept of receiving sexual gratification!  I had not received any "sexual
gratification" before I admitted, accepted, and was aware of who I am.  



>	Actually, I couldn't sleep with anyone other than my wife,
>	and I'm sure that involves an override of animal instincts
>	too.

Oooh.. we're so proud of you.. you're monogamous.  So am I! Surprised!  Someone
gay is monogamous!  Oh, no, wait until the tabloids hear this,  no-one will
ever believe it!


>>WOULD BE MY CHOICE!  You still have no more right to discriminate
>>against me than I have to persecute you because you're christian.  
>>Oh, BTW Morality (as I said in my letters) aren't for you or anyone
>>else to judge.. If it doesn't hurt you or anyone else you should just
>>but out.

>First of all, this discussion is NOT appropriate for rec.scouting.

It is extremely important for rec.scouting.  What isn't appropriate are
the homophobic shit you and John are touting. It is important for people 
involved in the scouting organization to know how people -- particularly 
SCOUTS -- feel about this issue! It belongs more in rec.scouting than 
anywhere else in the world.  Most people who read alt.politics.homosexuality,
know this shit!  You folks are the ones who need some education -- you are 
the ones who are ignorant!


>BSA has it's rules and moral standards; if you CHOOSE not to live by
>them, it's your problem, not BSA's.  Just because you stand on a

Levis has it's rules and moral standards; if you CHOOSE not to live by
them, it's your problem, not Levis.  Just because you stand on a 
soapbox, it doesn't mean that the societal norm (of accepting people) will
change to suit YOU.


>soapbox, it doesn't mean that the societal norm will change to suit
>YOU.   You claim it's "discrimination"; I claim you are misusing that
>word so badly that you mask the legitimate problems and issues of
>minority groups.  God gave us all brains so that we can control our

You're absolutely right. My inability to get a job simply because I have 
a wife and not a husband has absolutely no correlation of someone who 
is white not getting a job because their husband or wife is black, or 
someone who is black not getting a job simply because they are black.  In 
fact, the issue of being discriminated upon based on someone who I am related
to (my lover) seems much more serious than being discriminated upon based
upon who I am!  Don't you think?  How would you like it if you didn't 
get a job because your wife has blonde hair?  What could be more irrelevant
to your job performance?



>behavior and override our animal instincts; there are people who

Well, if my animal instincts come out on the job, please feel free to discipline
me as such.  Just as if any MEN sexually harass any womem, please feel 
free to discipline them.  Until I do such lewd behavior, my job shouldn't
be fucked with!  Nor my banking accounts, nor my mortgage (if I had one..), 
etc., etc., etc.  

(Luckily, I have nothing to worry about with my job.  My boss saw me on the 
news discussing a gay convention we had in town Labor Day weekend on the 
day before she told me she hired me.. mentioned it, too!)



>because of their place of birth or ancestry are discriminated against
>because of factors, such as skin color, that they can't override with
>their brains.  Your lifestyle outside the societal norm is your CHOICE,

I can't override that I am gay with my brain. Nice thought.. I can't 
override that I am monogamous with my brain (although, I guess I could with 
my body..).  I can't over ride that I am a healthy hardworking student, with 
a 3.95 GPA.  That's just a part of who I am.. a damn good person!  And damn
proud of it!  Better watch out!



>and society doesn't have to change for you in the same way that it

No society doesn't have to change.  Just don't try to change me, and I'll
be perfectly fine!

>didn't have to change for hippie communes with their promiscuity and
>illegal drug use.  The situation involving real minority groups, with

Oooh illegal drug use in comparison to choice of person to love.  That's like
equating your marrage to Clinton's use of marijuana!  They have absolutely 
nothing to do with each other, do they?


>legitimate issues of discrimination, is totally different from your
>pathetic attempts to jump on their bandwagon.


Jump on whose bandwagon?  Is there a band in town?  Are they any good?

>Also, ust because I gave you the last word in our mail messages doesn't
>mean that I was unable to refute your points; I was just ignoring
>you because there was nothing more to say.


>-- 
>Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
>AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
>Summit, NJ
>smk@usl.com

Just as my sexuality is my own, and not related to my employement! What
a concept!

-- 
--Karin
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality