Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: My View of it All
Message-ID: <814@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 17:11:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.814
Posted: Fri Jun 29 17:11:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 07:31:24 EDT
References: <846@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 47

T.C.,

	You say you equally dislike gays & heteros who are publicly
assertive or lewd.  Yet you use words like "queers" and "animals" and
even "gays" snidely to classify gay people.  The best label they merit
is the rather priggish "homosexual", not unlike the 50s "N/negro"; and 
considering the contents of your other categories, "homosexuals" sounds 
a lot like well-heeled mostly closeted gays (for whom a form of "tole-
ration" on the part of most heteros existed even in the bad old days
before Stonewall, a "toleration" that wasn't in the least incompatible
with the simultaneous and often proximate existence of vicious abuse
and discrimination).
	What sort of equal regard (for people you dislike) is that?
What are the equivalent slurs for heteros?  There's none for "queers"
(it's the only apt term?  I can think of a dozen others not offensive)
and, when applied to heteros, "animals" is far less derogatory (said
of men it's often a grudging compliment, of women an expression of
wonder at impressive sexual appetite).  And there's none for "gays":
heteros as such have never been victims of bigotry.  Your language
does not suggest you're merely giving a candid expression of your
dislikes.
	Furthermore, the category "animals" is bogus; it fails to
specify a subset of the gay population based on variation of a
characteristic associated with homosexuality but does succeed in
resurrecting the ancient smear of child molesting; its inclusion
is illogical and bizarre.
	It's been my experience that when people decry the "public
lewdness" of gays (looking for sex in a subway john is after all
"being a public nuisance") or even merely gay politicking for basic
rights that still don't exist or casual publicity in a world that
would rather not have homosexuals, they're resorting to a polite
convention for expressing bigotry.  Maybe it's personal taste on
your part and not bigotry, as you say.  But the odds seem to be
against it.
	Would you ever post a similar description of, say, Blacks?
I mean, you could accurately claim that many are poor, too sexual
and otherwise uninhibited by middle class standards, figure more
in the crime statistics, and often express great hostility to whites.
But something makes you hesitate to do that.  What is that "some-
thing"?
	What sort of a reaction do you expect net.motss readers to
have?  That you don't even bother to avoid slurs says a lot.  


			"De gustibus non est disputandum??"

						Ron Rizzo