Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner
From: ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Boy, am I catching it..... - (nf)
Message-ID: <182@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Aug-83 21:55:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.182
Posted: Fri Aug  5 21:55:37 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Aug-83 11:17:53 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley, CAD Group
Lines: 102

#R:sdcrdcf:-42200:ucbesvax:2900015:000:5210
ucbesvax!turner    Aug  5 17:30:00 1983

I thought this had all been thrashed out.  Well, here we go again:

    Well, I disdain "Faggot Pride Week", and I'm not a queer-basher.
    I have had, and still have, friends who are bisexual or homosexual.
    I believe that all of them would agree with my disdain for celebrations
    of homosexuality as portrayed by "Gay Pride Week".

My point was directed toward the use of the word "faggot", not toward
the event itself.  I have never been to the Gay Day Parade, but it's
possible I might disdain it for other reasons.  Sorry if that wasn't
clear.  Perhaps you missed most of the original discussion?  (Your note
is long after the fact.)

    Many, if not most, homosexuals have relationships similar to those
    enjoyed by heterosexuals.

If you mean that they like to live with one person for periods of years,
OK.  However, for many of them, this does not preclude sexual promiscuity.

    However, the "Gay Pride Week" parades, etc.  portray and promote a
    homosexual "life-style" in which promiscuity and public sex are
    commonplace and acceptable.  In this "life-style", the maxim
    "do your own thing and don't discriminate" substitutes for reason;
    in particular, public health is secondary to the presumed right
    of homosexuals to enjoy any desired form of sexual expression.

And do you presume to infringe on this right?  And how, may I ask, is
public health endangered, compared to the prior situation, in which it
was all done in relative secrecy?

    Promiscuous anal and oral sex do a very good job of spreading diseases
    that society has a right to be free of.  This is sufficient reason
    for public condemnation, not of homosexuality, but of the homosexual
    "life-style" as portrayed and promoted by such events as "Gay Pride
    Week".

I am not aware of any *individual* right of my own to be free of any
disease.  If someone knowingly communicates a disabling disease to me,
that person might be subject to criminal charges.  If, on the other hand,
I enter into a liason in which I recognize such an element of risk,
where are anyone's rights endangered?

    As if the "traditional" diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis,
    amoebic dysentery, etc.) weren't bad enough, now we have AIDS to contend
    with.  Having created a public health nightmare, homosexual (and other)
    activists now want the rest of us to spend our money to seek a medical
    cure when all that is required is curtailment of promiscuity.  This is
    another legitimate reason for societal condemnation of the "life-style"
    promoted by "Gay Pride Week".

Please see my note in net.misc on this "public health nightmare".  The
question of whether AIDS sufferers deserve massive federal funding for
research into the disease is another issue.  Perhaps it is true that simple
"curtailment of promiscuity" is all that is necessary to save non-victims;
at the very least, however, a cure for AIDS would represent a significant
contribution to our understanding of the mysterious human immune system.
You might personally benefit by this research someday.

As for societal condemnation: people are free to say whatever they want,
however bigoted or ridiculous.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't get
dumped on a little for being bigoted and ridiculous.  Of course, it's
not very effective, I admit.

    Finally, the correct word for those who are attracted to members of the
    same sex is "homosexual".  I will promise not to substitute the word
    "faggot" when others promise not to substitute the word "gay".  Those of
    us who are gay, but who are not homosexual, object strenuously to the
    attempt to promote the homosexual "life-style" by using the emotionally
    positive word "gay", just as you object to the denigration of homosexuals
    with the emotionally negative word "faggot".

It was my understanding that there is an element of irony in the use of the
word "gay."  There is none in "faggot": it is a term of hatred.  Do you mean
to imply that, whenever I use "gay", you will use "faggot" just to spite me?
You're not going to win many popularity contests that way.

    I'm all for a "more tolerant world" too, but the tolerance must be based
    on reason, not on worship of sacred cows.  All of us have the right and
    obligation to examine societal changes rationally and critically, and to
    condemn those changes we perceive as harmful.

My impression of Gay Pride Week (never having attended, you realize) is that
it is a regular slaughterhouse for sacred cows.  The societal changes you
are so intimidated by will recitify themselves in due course.  In the mean-
time, reflect on homosexuality as possibly being Nature's epidemiological
early-warning system.  Perhaps things have gotten out of hand--but maybe,
in some sense, they were *supposed* to.

On the whole, I agree: things have gone too far.  The local gay community
is rapidly coming to an awareness of that.  Why not think of it as a
transitory stage in their evolution as a community, instead just reacting
negatively.

And please, if you would, show this reply to your gay friends.  I, for one,
would appreciate knowing their reaction.

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner