Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Clarification of "Homo" "Survey"
Message-ID: <593@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 18:09:34 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.593
Posted: Tue Feb 26 18:09:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 20:04:23 EST
References: <450@ahuta.UUCP> <361@ccice6.UUCP> <3528@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 68

[What's this?  An article from Wingate that didn't automatically
 follow itself up to net.flame?  What ho!!!]

> What I object to about this "questionnaire" is that its purpose is to attempt
> to make people feel guilty about asking some questions about the practice of
> homosexuality, by wrapping inverted versions of the same questions in a cloud
> of spurious statistics.  Evidently, homosexuals apparently don't want to see
> those questions asked.  The reply, however, is dishonest and manipulative.

Once again, the apparent purpose of the questionnaire was to
show how ridiculous the questions are when asked of heterosexuals, thus
showing (at least to some people) that asking the questions of homosexuals
is just as ludicrous.  Not to Charley, though.  He claims that homosexuals
don't want to see the questions asked.  Which questions does Charley mean?
If not the questions that have been shown by the survey to be ludicrous no
matter WHOM they are offered to, which questions?  Since Charley offered
no such questions, I wonder if he really thinks that there are any.  Where did
he got the idea that the questionnaire was designed to make people feel
guilty about asking the "inverted" questions (if not from his own personal
perspective)?  If there are questions to ask, why doesn't he just ask them?
Given this, who is being dishonest and manipulative?

> I'd say that this exchange has a message for net.singles as a whole (besides
> that of putting "/net.motss/h:j" in your kill file).

Funny, I didn't get that message.

> This group and a number of others have seen those who would argue on the side
> of ANY morality which makes demands upon personal conduct be subjected to
> violent opposition and virulent personal attacks.

Also funny.  I agree with the notion that ANY morality which makes demands upon
other people's personal conduct (beyond non-interference in other people's
lives, which is apparently NOT a tenet of such a morality) is quite worthy of
very violent opposition.  As far as virulent personal attacks, I can attest
that many people who would enjoin others to accept their version of morality
find opposition of ANY kind to be equivalent to virulent personal attack.

> Could we attempt a little civility?  Could we resist the urge to try to
> destroy anyone whom we disagree with?

Again, funny.  Apparently that others blatantly and completely disagree with
and tear down certain notions of morality implies "not being civil" and
"destroying" those we disagree with.  With regards to such notions of 
impositional morality, you can expect me (and many others, I'm sure) to be
very vocal in opposition to those who propose such a morality.  If those who
do propose it feel they are being directly attacked personally, it is not them,
it is their beliefs that are being attacked.  If you bind yourself to closely
to a belief, any debunking or disagreeing with it is sure to get you burned.

> I've stayed out of the "living in sin"
> discussion because, as many are doubtless aware, I have certain religious
> convictions on the subject.  Besides, I've come to the sad conclusion that my
> somewhat complex beliefs on the subject would be misunderstood, possibly
> deliberately, in the cause of making personal attacks on someone who might
> suggest that living together isn't the best idea in the world.

Should we be "thankful" that you stayed out?  I'd hope everyone is welcome
in every discussion on this net.  But if all you were going to offer is how
you feel it is wrong and how that personal feeling of wrongness applies to
the lives of other people, then I guess you were wise to stay out.

> Well, I'm tired of this.  I do not intend to reply further on this subject.

I'd say that's to your detriment.  Not necessarily to anyone else's.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr