From: auix@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: RE: Spike Lee
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:55:23 EST
Reply-To: fbmy@vax5.cornell.cit
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: Cornell University

In article <DuPsTB1w163w@peewee>,
peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes: 
> 1.  Over 20 states outlaw sexual intercourse between consenting adult 
>     gay men.
> 
> I oppose any reference to the words "gay" in any statutes.  This would
> mean that gays are protected by the same laws that anyone else is
> protected by.  That goes for job discrimination, housing discrimination,
> assault & battery, and all other individual rights under the Constitution.

So what you are saying here is that you do not want gays to have civil rights. 
And judging from other posts of yours, I would guess you would defend this
position by saying you think no one should have legislated civil rights. 
You seem to think that consistency is in and of itself a defence for your 
opinions.  
> 
> 	>Now you may argue that it's the form of sexual contact being 
> 	>regulated, not homosexuality.  
> 	
> Sex belongs in the bedroom and out of the courts and statutes.        

Here you are once again demonstrating your heterosexism, by ignoring all other
aspects of lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships, the loving, caring,
respect, trust, companionship.... (insert all other aspects of hetero
relationships here).
Legalizing gay sex doesn't legalize gay relationships.
It is not enough.
 
[stuff about Georgia's sodomy law deleted, since deftly refuted by other
netters, much thanks :)]

[Again more stuff about gay marriages, heterosexual marriages, and tax breaks,
where Mr. Stromer tries to defend his point by showing its consistency with his
other views, deleted.]

> 
> There is no law, anywhere, that says it's okay to discriminate against someone
> because he's a homosexual.  Except in the armed forces

Again my thanks to whoever mentioned the Colorado statute :)
But again this just gets back to Mr. Stromer's view that there is no need/
should not be civil rights legislation for anyone.  In another post he uses the
persons with eyeglasses example.  For your info, most civil rights statutes
contain clauses banning discrimination against people with disabilities, of
which poor eyesight is only one.  

Mr. Stromer continually sites the "beloved" constitution as the end-all, be-all
cure for discrimination.  But, he is ignoring several things cheifly amoung
them is who it was written by and in what historical context.  (With Mr.
Stromer's clear aversion to history education this is not suprising.)  As we
all know the answer is white, (at least claiming to be) heterosexual, wealthy,
Christian men.  It is extremely naive to think that they wrote this document
with all of us "others" interests at heart.  It is also ignoring history and
the document itself ("all MEN are created equal" - this is not just semantics,
the clauses equating a black or native american person as legally worth only
part of a white person's worth, the innumerable examples of legalized
discrimination at that time, eg. slavery, wife-battering, etc.).
So the document itself is flawed, and that's why we need all the civil rights
laws, and ammendments specifically legalizing womyn's suffrage and outlawing
slavery.

This is not even mentioning the clear biases of those legally responsible for
upholding this document.  Mr. Stromer, take a good look at the Congress, the
Presidency, the Supreme Court, the state legislatures, the governors, etc...
These institutions are dominated by white, Christian, heterosexual (at least
claiming to be), upper class males.  The last time I checked, self-interest
had not become suddenly unpopular.

  						       
> 
> 	>As to your blatant homophobia (expressed specifically in your post 
> 	>by "allow" and "(Gross!)":
> 
> So I'm a little homopathic, but not homophobic.  "Phobia" refers to having 
> an abnormal fear of something.  I got fired from my $40K job for making AIDS 
> jokes on a newsgroup called "alt.tasteless".  I thought this was protected 
> speech.  The homosexual lobby went after me with a vengeance.  I received 
> public threats on a few gay newsgroups, yet not one reader of the homosexual 
> newsgroup(s) made a public statement in  my favor.  My damn name was dragged
> through the national newspapers and on local television.  So homophobic, most
> definitely not.

Homophobia is the irrational fear of gay people.  The term you used
to express what you claim above is rational fear for gays, is "gross".
This term does NOT express rational fear, but disgust.  It is a term usually
used by homophobes, such as yourself, to express their irrational fear of
womyn-to-womyn or man-to-man sex.

Secondly, I find your logic above very enlightening; it's reminiscent (sp?) of
the 70's (and today?) white feminists' attitude of "I'd fight to end racism and
tolerate your challenging my own, but first the <insert favorite people of
color> community has to get its shit together over sexism."  In your case it's 
"I wouldn't be homophobic, if the lesbian, gay and bisexual community would 
support my view that politically correct speech, and legislated civil rights
is wrong and dangerous and evil."  

Finally to expect a community that you've just insulted and degraded to 
embrace you and come to your defence, and to then justify your irrational fear
and hatred of that community by their lack of sympathy for what you see as your
unjust plight, is trade mark white male.  Nice of you to dictate to an entire
community the political views you care for them to espouse. (Referring to your
example of yourself, as a Jew, defending Nazi "free speech".)
  
[Bullshit about not hating gays, (see above claim to be "homopathic"),
deleted.]
  

> 	>how generous of your liberal, tolerant self to "allow" 10% of the 
> 	>population to exist.
> 
> What do you feel about the 15% or so of the population in jail for drug
> crimes, with no violence whatsoever associated with their cases?  Do they
> deserve to be in trouble?  I vote no.  As usual, I'm in the minority.
> How liberal are YOU?

Once again trying to prove his point of view by demonstrating the consistency
with which he applies it.  Really, this IS getting tired.

A. Kowalchuk (NOT A.Khan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american