Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4121 alt.romance:5701 soc.men:24210 soc.singles:74743
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!ucsd!nosc!crash!pnet01!rcf
From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <6195@crash.cts.com>
Date: 9 Dec 90 05:56:01 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 54

dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>
>For example, Fundamentalist Christians are one group who seem to play 
>the role of "niggers" on the NET. Whenever the rednecks of the world
>need someone to run down and revile, they talk about the "fairies",
>"faggots", and "homosex-shuls". But on the NET, when we need someone
>to run down and revile, we recruit the Fundamentalist Christians.
>I have a hard time figuring out the basis for considering either
>homosexuals or Christians being more or less deserving to have their
>practices interfered with or insulted. Of course, a devotee of either
>camp would see obvious differences.
>

     Well, for one thing, Dan, I've never known a gay who felt it was their
responsibility to make the rest of the world act the same way they do.  And,
BTW, if you could offer me an example of how fundamentalists are "interfered
with", I'd like to hear it.  Personally I could care less what someone's
religious beliefs are, as long as they offer me the same respect. 
Unfortunately, try telling a bible-thumper you're a Methodist Zen-Taoist who
still believes himself to be a Christian, and see what sort of reaction you
get.

>How many of us with all our wonderful respect for freedom of choice
>and expression would really care to give our lives to guaranteeing
>that Fundamentalist Christians will have the right to practice their
>faith? Many people here will say what a terrible thing it is for a
>homosexual to be insulted in the media, and stand by silently when
>a Fundamentalist Christian gets the same thing.
>

     I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the
press.  What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to
"protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who
thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies.

>Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Organized Religion. But if a 
>person gets on the NET and wants to bash homosexuals, everyone will
>try to stop them. If a person wants to bash Fundamentalists, it's
>open season. Why?
>

     Maybe because they come looking for arguments.  I'll agree that it's an
unfortunate stereotype.  I'm sure there's lots of Christians reading this
conference who have no desire to convert anyone.  Unfortunately, all we see
are those who do want to make everyone believe the same way they do.  Another
example of being damned by association.

>
>--
>Dan Mocsny				Snail:


Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com