Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: ...fortune!grw's gay response response response
Message-ID: <18628@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Sep-83 03:03:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.18628
Posted: Sat Sep  3 03:03:05 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Sep-83 14:47:55 EDT
References: <445@houxz.UUCP>, <622@hou5d.UUCP>, <967@utcsstat.UUCP> <1373@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.
Lines: 24

Damn!  A response like ...fortune!grw's makes me mad!  Where do he get off
making moral judgments about gay men and women??  I'm tired of reading
statements here, which if applied to blacks, women or other minorities
would be deemed completely unacceptable and booted off the net by the
weight of public opinion.  Yet, here, we have someone who wants to lump
homosexuality with incest and "illegitamite children" (sic), not to mention
the scourge of premarital sex.  Well, if gays could marry, I suppose they'd
avoid that last one.  For the other two, remember that we're talking about
a "victimless" association between two consenting adults--incest and
illegitimate children clearly producing victims.  Gays don't have to justify
their existence through biology, sociology or psychology (though we can
attempt to find counter-arguments through any of these field, if pressed.)

METACOMMENT: It's unfortunate that the subject of homosexuality had to be
	     broached in such a way that was guaranteed to stir up the
	     worst fears of the great unwashed.  I found the discussion
	     fascinating, though as frequently disturbing as encouraging.
	     It would have been interesting to see how the discussion
	     had gone if a different question had been asked (though
	     what would it have been?)

/Steve Dyer
decvax!wivax!dyer
sdyer@bbn-unix