In <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.  Oh, do please try not to be ludicrous.  SO=Significant Other, a term I employed to avoid the awkward construction "girlfriend or wife".  >> because if she heard  >Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.  A "deviant" is someone who does not fit an "accepted norm."  By that definition, I would certainly be a deviant, as bisexuality is not an accepted norm in American society so far.  This term, of course, really has no negative aspects inherent in its denotation.  I presume you intended it as a term of abuse.  It's a great pity you feel such tactics to be necessary, but hardly surprising since you have no factual basis for your absurd beliefs.  >> how disparaging you are towards political minorities,  >Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".  May I attempt to emulate your style of discourse with a term of abuse?  Ahem...You addle-pated jellyfish!  The post to which I responded was a highly amusing one in which you belittled homosexuals for having no political clout.  I would be further amused if you would explain to me why having no political clout and constituting a political minority are different.  >> 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  And yet you call them "girls!"  The feminists would be up in arms.  >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?  Cough, cough.  Well, well, you certainly are a fine, upstanding fellow, you are, sir.  And like many "fine, upstanding fellows," you have the reading comprehension of a dyslexic anteater.  Perhaps I should have been more explicit in pointing out that females constitute a political minority in this country when last I checked, and that your obvious lack of respect for these minorities equates to a lack of respect for women.  That is, of course, a conceptual stretch of logic, but given your slow uptake as de     monstrated so far, I figure we should start simple and work up.  Don't worry, you'll get it       ! >>> 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  This is very true, this bit about nature asserting itself.  Homosexuality has always been a part of human society, and always will be, for that is the natural order.  If you're naive enough to believe otherwise, go right ahead; we'll try not to snicker too loudly behind your back.  "Inevitable."  Chortle.  Anyone would think you had some idea what you were talking about.  I haven't seen fact one from you, and until I do you can just dispense with the bullshit, and tell us what we already know, that you're a clueless little slime mold with no concept of reality beyond The Donna Reed Show.  Live a little, and then come back and tell us all about the "natural order of things."  You're in a bubble, and it's really going to rock your world when you come out.  >to assume that this foolish and misguided generation can change the >nature of man where practically every other generation has failed.   "Foolish and misguided."  Oh, this is too much.  So which religious figure do YOU believe you are?  And how do you know so much about the nature of man?  You're almost too amusing to be worth the effort of crushing your pealike brain.       >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.  Gee, you sound awfully sure of yourself.  "Methinks the bigot doth protest too much."  Admit it: you're scared shitless that what you've been spoonfed all your sorry little life was wrong, and you're trying to escape that fear by a blind faith that you know, deep down, is based in nothing, nothing at all.  Go ahead, clutch your unfounded declaratives to your empty breast; ignore the myriad of societies that have accepted homosexuality as equally valid or even mystical.  Ignore the solid, inescapable fact t     hat we've existed as long as humans have.  Fear us.  Go ahead.  Laugh at us if it makes you feel better.  We both know you're just whistling in the dark.  There's one group that's stamped out whenever it appears, in any form, and that's the group of boneheads who fancy themselves morally superior.  You're in that group, and you're slowly and steadily being stamped out.  Preach while you can, little man...it won't be long.  >Moreover, I'm not your "sweetheart".  That's the first truth you've told so far.  I don't hate hets, sir.  I'm bisexual, and I embrace man- and womankind alike.  I have nothing against those who don't understand my love.  But you deny its potency and validity.  You would crush us all, human beings to a one, in your imagined divinity.  It's fools like you that stir my ire...idiots with the small minds, who can't think for themselves, who know nothing about how the real world operates, and who hate because they are told what to do and do it like      sheep, who hate everyone who refuses to be a sheep.  You're not part of the norm.  You're part of a minority--YES, a minority!--with supreme, o'erweening arrogance.  Your hubris will topple, because it always has, because those with intelligence know it to be a clown's costume.  Wow, that was pretentious!  I sometimes wonder why I waste my talents on zeroes like you.  I really have no interest in continuing this effortless discussion; after all, this is for me the proverbial battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  Come back with some swords--i.e. facts--and we shall do battle.  Till then, begone from my sight.  Drewcifer