From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:30:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11785@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <193241@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>> 
>> Now how many people march in these various parades?  Certainly, it can be
>> numbered in the thousands, at most.  Are these people representative of the
> 
> The S. F. parade frequently has tens of thousands, and hundreds of
> thousands of spectators.  I understand it is the single largest
> tourist draw that S.F. gets.  I suppose they all came from the Bible
> Belt to watch because it's just so much fun to see everything you
> stand for denigrated. :-)

I said, "march", not "watch".  The somewhat bizarre behavior you cited
comes primarily from various groups that march in the parades.  According
to accounts I've seen, the vast majority of the spectators are perfectly
normal individuals out to have a good time.  Hasn't it occurred to you
yet that bizarre behavior makes more interesting newsbytes?  Your local
media tend to focus on the weird because normal is boring.

Even at a hundred thousand spectators, that's still a very small, probably
atypical, fraction of the number of homosexuals in the United States.

>> By most accounts, the gay pride parades are not so much a formal parade as
>> an excuse to party.  The behavior in those parades is certainly no worse
>> than I've seen at some typical fraternity parties in college.
> 
> Naked men whipping each other in the middle of a public street?
> People simulating sex, while naked?  Men masturbating?

Like I said....

> You aren't reading very carefully, are you?  Go read it again, at
> the top of the posting.  If you spend most of your energy trying 
> to offend people, don't complain about unfairness if you get told,
> "I don't want to associate with homosexuals."  If we accept your
> claims about "normal" homosexuals, maybe the biggest enemy that
> you have is the people marching in the gay parades, enhancing
> stereotypes.  Stephen Fetchit comes immediately to mind.

Ah, there you go again, Clayton, assuming that anyone who opposes you
on this issue is necessarily homosexual.  *I* don't have a "biggest
enemy".  The gay community's biggest enemy is people like you.  This
paragraph is very revealing about your attitudes.  The gay community
does not spend most of its energy trying to offend people.  Like most
other people, they tend to do the things they want to do.  If you, in
your narrow-mindedness, are offended by their activities, that's *your*
problem, not theirs.

You've been advocating for over a year now that the gay community behave
in a CC (Claytonically Correct) manner.  This appears to mean that they
must dress in a fashion that meets your approval; they must not advocate
gay rights; they must not engage in behavior that you find offensive;
they must *all* publicly denounce NAMBLA; they must remain in the back-
ground and not engage in any kind of homosexual behavior where you might
be exposed to it; they must never come close to or talk to a child; they
must never claim that a homosexual lifestyle is normal.  Homosexuals have
been told this before by others like yourself.  They, quite properly,
reject this.

> Read soc.motss.  It's got lots of discussions of the unfairness of
> straight society not accepting homosexuality.  Oh yes, they keep
> saying that to not accept them is a form of stupidity or mental
> retardation.

Well, I would say it's a form of narrow-mindedness and lack of tolerance.
It's got nothing to do with intelligence, although ignorance may play a
part.  I tend to agree that it is unfair that straight society does not
accept homosexuality.  It's a larger problem than homosexuals vs. straights,
though.  Why should *anyone* have to follow a very narrow, rigid standard
of behavior to gain acceptance?  Why can't certain members of society
(e.g., Clayton Cramer) accept people as they are?

> Straight society makes its disapproval of S&M, TVs, and heterosexual
> child molesters very clear.  Gay society can't seem to do that,
> for some reason.

Hmmm.  Judging from the number of S&M magazines, advertisements, etc. that
I've seen, I suspect that straight society doesn't disapprove of S&M nearly
as much as you claim.  Similarly, much of straight society, including me,
doesn't see anything particularly wrong with transvestitism.  Of course
homosexuals are not going to condemn either of these two practices.  They
know what it's like to have their own sexual preferences condemned.

The child molestation issue has been hashed out in nauseating detail in
your other postings and the responses to them.

[re: my impression that there was no specific .sex group for homosexuals]
> Wrong.  There is such a specific group.

I stand corrected.  I was not aware that such a group existed.

> Why don't you read the trash that appears in soc.motss for a month, and
> then come back and talk about how normal that crowd is.

Define "normal" please.  I find your postings exceedingly abnormal by my
standards.  Judging from what I've read here in ca.politics, I'd say that
you need counseling just as much as anyone in soc.motss.  The reason I don't
read soc.motss is that I have no particular interest in the group.  I have
a limited amount of time that I devote to Usenet and I read only about six
groups--one of them being this one.  

One of the reasons I get angry with you is that this group has had very
little to do with California politics in the past year and you are largely
responsible for this.  This never was the place to post all of this crap
and I wish you'd either move it to another forum or drop it altogether.
We all know how you feel on these subjects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics