From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The usual
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:45:12 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <lglrimINNs65@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >In article <1992Nov18.221925.24979@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Who said anything about rights? Rights are not the issue.
    >>Like and dislike is the issue.
    >>
    >No, truth and lies are the issue. You and Clayton continue to
    >make claims and implications regarding the behavior of
    >homosexuals that are not justified (and sometimes
    >contradicted) by the "statistics" that Clayton presents. You
    >are, of course, free to feel however you wish about
    >homosexuals, and I don't think anyone has any real hope of
    >changing your mind.
    >
    >You are also free to post, print, and speak whatever anti-gay
    >propaganda you feel like. Don't be surprised if people take
    >care to point out that it is propaganda, with all the
    >characteristics of such (truth out of context, little lies,
    >big lies, bad statistics, repetition of unverified claims,
    >misleading analogies, exaggeration of all evils, minimization
    >of all virtues. And, of course, we cannot forget the ad
    >hominem attack).
    >
    >Note that it is all the more important that propaganda like
    >yours and Clayton's be identified in a world where everyone
    >is legally free to discriminate.

1. Clayton went out and posted his information.

2. All you have done is claim that what he posted is all wrong.
   The twisting of what was posted was enormous -- the C men fiasco,
   the claim that hetereosexuals are as promiscous as homosexuals
   with ludicrous figures (froms Kinsey's less than 12 lifetime partners
   to an absurd claim of 20+ a year!)

3. You ignore and decline to discuss the basic issues.


A. People have a right to like and dislike what/who ever they want. Do
   you disagree?

B. The last full listing I saw listed for SF/Oakland/Berkeley 187
   "swing" houses for homosexuals, 4 for hetereosexuals. Interesting
   ratio, no? With a 4% assumed homosexual population, this shows around
   an 800-to-1 overrepresentation.

   Obviously, SOME homosexuals are out there having a lot of fun.

C. The overall picture of homosexuals is that of a much more promiscous
   group, one that has been a MAJOR vector, perhaps THE vector in the US
   of a very deadly disease, a group that is not inherently occupied by
   raising children, as well as the obvious distortion of male/female roles.

In short, most hetereosexuals do not like homosexuals. Period. And they
don't like them for what they ARE, not some set of myths about what they
ain't. Got it?

PEOPLE DON'T LIKE YOU!

It happens. Deal with it.

I don't vote. Never have, never will. Some people don't like that. A lot.
It happens, I deal with it. It obviously limits my employment appeal
with major political parties. I can live with that.


Perhaps what I trip over a lot is that it seems to most people, it MATTERS
what other people think in toto about them. Many people actually derive
their self-esteem from the opinions of others.

If someone says, "you are a homosexual, I don't like homosexuals, I won't
deal with you", what's your problem? Is your self esteem so low that you
must seek COERCIVE LAWS to "FORCE" people to deal with you?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7357 ca.politics:9837