In article <Apr.20.20.07.19.1993.3220@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.201450.8748@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes: |>  |> > I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, |>  |> What is "SO" supposed to signify?  I prefer the companionship of a |> person, not a euphemism. |>  |> > because if she heard |>  |> Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.  WOW!  Another Clayton wannabe.  Typical response: lack of logic.  Define 'deviant':  someone who deviates from the normal.  Ok, so far. Define 'normal':   erm, umm.  If you define yourself as normal then it is for you to prove that you are (within limits, which then brings in the question, what are the limits?  For you we may have to broaden them to other's intolerance ;-) ) 'normal'.  Difficult to prove.  From what you have posted it must follow that `normal` to you means someone without compassion and a sense of justice. But it does look as if you went to the Clayton school of logic, doesn't it?  |>  |> > how disparaging you are towards political minorities, |>  |> Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".  Again an astounding lack of logic!  Wow!  You must define what you say such that everyone agrees.  Here you have used the phrase "sexual deviant".  How in the hell do you define that?  As someone who does something sexually that _you_ don't?  By this definition you most probably mean the majority of the planet.  How do you know that your next door neighbour doesn't like custard to be spread over his genetalia then have it licked off by his wife?  Is this sexual deviancy?  How do we know that you don't like something sexually which others may find repulsive?  Is  having sex doggy fashion a sexual deviancy?  Please be more specific, and where you do, back up your claims.  Or I may have to go to hospital due to laughing too much at yours and Clayton's postings.  Secondly, if we assume for the moment that the phrase 'sexual deviant' means such people as homosexuals, bisexuals &c. (basically everyone you don't like), I think that your phrase "do not comprise a `political minorit[y]`" (why the brackets?) is a non-sequiteur.  Gay groups exist which lobby their governments. That is a fact.  Prove it false.  Hence they are a politial group.  You  state that they are not a political minority.  Are they therefore a political majority?  I think you boobed really big on this one.  Try thinking about your arguments.  |>  |> > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door. |>  |> I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.  But were |> I to find myself with the sort who would be inclined to head out the |> door on account of my views regarding the aberrant behavior known as |> "homosexuality", I would encourage her to indeed do so, and I would |> further advise her not to let the door whack her on the backside on |> the way out.  Who needs such an airhead? |>  Prove the first statement please.   Dates, phone numbers, &c.  Again your logic fails.  Again you make statements which you cannot (and most probably will not) maintain.  You state that a person (girl, in this context) who considers equal rights for all humans to be an airhead?  As Clayton (your best mate?) would say: it just shows how screwed up you are.    |> >> Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet |> >> where they belong. |>  |> > Don't count on it, sweetheart. |>  |> Oh, I can't do anything _BUT_ count on it.  After all, it is |> inevitable, for it is part of the natural order of things.  Throughout |> history, nature has always asserted itself.  Don't be so arrogant as |> to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the |> nature of man where practically every other generation has failed. |> Greater men than you haven't been able to do this.  The above _MOST_ |> _CERTAINLY_ _WILL_ happen, no matter how much you may wish to pretend |> otherwise.  Proof please.  Proof that homosexuality is not part of the natural order. Proof that nature has always asserted itself.  Are you saying that nature is a conciousness?  Are you pretending that you have the ability to see the future?  Are you god(tm)?  In fact, by your arguement, are you waiting for  the black people to become slaves again?  Because they were reviled as sub-human (nb: *not* my view) at one time?  Again your arguement falls on its ass.   |>  |> Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".  Touchy touchy touchy!  Right.  I have shot holes in each and every one of your arguements.  You are most probably going to put me in your kill file because you have no answers to my questions and challenges.  Since you cannot support your arguments it merely goes to show that what you write is based upon your personal prejudices, and cannot be taken to be fact of any kind.  I await an intelligent response.....   |> --  |>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis |>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu |>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis |>   as this would hold such views??? |