Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Re.Re. Gettin' Satisfaction, a rebuttal
Message-ID: <1268@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 16:22:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1268
Posted: Fri Nov 22 16:22:55 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 05:16:18 EST
References: <1447@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 70

--
> THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHERWISE FINE YOUNG (AND NOT SO YOUNG) MEN
> AND WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS ABOUT
> 'LIFESTYLE' AND 'SEXUAL PREFERENCE' AND CRAP LIKE THAT WHEN
> SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP AND SAY 'THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES' -
> HOMOSEXUALITY IS SECOND CLASS, DESTRUCTIVE EMOTIONALLY AND
> SPIRITUALLY (I'm not talking religiously here) AND CAUSES THE
> HOMOSEXUAL TO MISS A GREATER PART OF HUMAN FULFULLMENT!!!!

Once again Ken confuses morals with manners.  Just because you
take offense at the "homosexual lifestyle" does not mean it is
immoral.  And Ken, if you really believe that sticking a penis in
a vagina is the alpha and omega of "human fulfillment" I pity you.
No, I pity your wife.

> I reject the notion that you can't resist the pull toward
> homosexuality - any more than I would buy the notion that you
> HAVE to be a mean/kind, warm/cold person or any other such
> personality or moral type.  I'm attracted to stealing, children,
> animals, hurting myself in the shower.  What kind of a rational
> is that?  None really.  Merely having the attraction is NOT a
> reason to DO something!!!! What is the JUSTIFICATION FOR IT?  I
> know, I know, you don't want to have to JUSTIFY your
> homosexuality (you've said so on the net - not you eric -
> before.) What about justifying it to YOURSELF???  Or do you just
> do it because it feels good and it's the easy path? 

You can't have it both ways Ken (pardon the pun).  You argue for
the morality of heterosexuality because it is "natural".  Gays
tell you their same-sex attraction is natural to them, and you
believe them, but now for some reason *they* have to come up with
an additional *rationale* for their behavior.  As for the "easy
path", sure, guy--living in fear of losing your job or your life
feels real good.

> I simply reject your claim to the possession of a fulfilling
> love/sex relationship of the same sex kind.  A man cannot fulfull
> the total needs of another man.  You should be honest and admit
> it at least.  I'd think you were wrong and less than you
> could/should be but at least you wouldn't be trying to convince
> the world up is down and playing mind games with yourself and
> others. 

You don't think many gays haven't tried the "straight" life?  How
can you possibly know what is maximally fulfilling to whom?  If
gays were proselytizing about the superiority of their lifestyle
(you know, Ken, like you do) I could understand taking umbrage.
But the consistent message I hear is only for acceptance--a simple
"please acknowledge that I find fulfillment differently."

Tread lightly with your "what's natural is what's right" dogma.
It implies that sexual abstinence, for example, is immoral, as is
just about any behavior that doesn't spread around the greatest
number of human genes, by force (hey, that's natural too) if necessary.

> Sorry to carry on so.  I'll step down now. 
> Regards,
> Ken Arndt

Oh, an apology.  Let's redirect this discussion to net.philosophy or
religion, please.  I take great offense to YAFB (yet another fag-
bashing) in this newsgroup, but I do not confuse Ken's manners with
his morals.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  22 Nov 85 [2 Frimaire An CXCIV]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***