Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I honestly can't see why the topic can't be reasonably discussed..

Personally, I find it similar to religon.  Different points of view often
lead to hostile results.

speakin of 'Personally' I don't have a problem with a person being gay.
I've a few people I've known in the past who I suspect were, and others
who came forward.  It didn't really change the way I felt about these
people, although, all along, I suspected so I guess I'm saying it was
no big surprise when the fact was confirmed.  They were my friends,
weclomed at my house before, and after..  This was the road they
choose to take...

People have to accept a person for who they are, not who we think they
should be by our own standards...  Obvious ? Sure....  but not a unanimous
opinion...

I can't really say I could ever understand a homosexuals reason for their
choice in mate..  Is it hereditary ?  Is it environment...  I don't know..  
What's more, I don't really care provided the person is one I can trust if 
they are within my circle of friends.

But as far as this  'in your face' "I'm gay and you have to put up with me"..

Be gay,. if that's "you're" choice,  but don't throw it in my face. I can
accecpt you..  

an approach of Reasonable discussion deserves reciprocity...

			as does hostile approach.  (I think...)

    There are times when it seems that Digitals policy for "valuing
    differences" only works for being PC.
    
    If you happen to think a particular group is abnormal and say so
    you're not valuing their differences.  But, in effect, they're
    not valuing your right to object to whatever you want.
    
    And in the end those that crow the loudest get what they want.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

    L.J.
    
    Valuing differences specifically excludes valuing a person's
    right to be a bigot. i.e. to make negative, insulting remarks
    about minority groups. Quite often there is a fine line between
    expressing negative feelings about a minority group and giving
    the impression of being or actually being a bigot. For this reason
    the type of remarks you are talking about are generally discouraged
    or not allowed at all.
    
    Bonnie

    I've read the basenote three times, and it doesn't parse for me, Steve.
    Can you please restate it as one sentence of less than 15 words?

    re:.6
    
       I may not agree with a bigots views...I usually don't.  But I
    do believe they have a right to state their views.  If I don't want
    to hear it or read it I don't.  I ignore that person.
    
    
    
                                  L.J.

    L.J.
    
    I agree with your last note. Funny, sometimes minorities can be the
    biggest bigots ever imagined. 

    I agree that one does not have to be a wasp to be a bigot. However,
    especially in notes files, one has to avoid the appearance of
    bigotry, and that often means restricting negative comments about
    people based on gender, sexual oreintation, race, ethnic
    background or religion. 
    
    Bonnie

    >But I do believe they have a right to state their views.  
    
    Not according to Digital's Policies and Procedures, they don't.
    
    					andrew

    There is one notes file - soapbox - which has a policy of allowing
    far more in the way of negative view points than other files, under
    the 'sunshine' concept, i.e. it is better to get negative material
    out in the open where it can be discussed and shown up for what
    it is, than to bury it. Most conferences have chosen not to take
    that particular path. It is a difficult one, and causes a lot of
    controversy.
    
    BJ

In one sentence, I want people's opinions on whether or not it's possible,
in accordance with company policy, to have an open discussion on the
subject of "being gay".  My view at the moment is that it is not.


Herb, I find your comments rather puzzling, as you seemed to be one of the
most vocal in such arguments in other notes.  

Believe me, I'd like nothing better than to have this particular issue be 
considered so minor as to not warrant extensive discussion, but it has become 
obvious that to some people, it's something that has to be fought for/against 
at every turn.  I'd love to find something else to discuss, but it seems
so important to so many noters that I thought I'd see about "having it
out" here.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    With the newly published information on differences in brian structure
    between heterosexual and homosexual men, it is certainly a topic
    of current importance. Whether such a discussion could be carried
    out without offending at least some people who are either gay/lesbian
    or bi on the one side or very uncomfortable with the subject on the
    other side, I am doubtful. However, I think with firm moderation
    and a strong stand against insulting language it could be possible.
    Part of the question is how do you and the other moderators feel about
    keeping watch on such a topic?
    
    Bonnie

	I wouldn't mind a topic started. I think that would be a great idea. Do
I feel as though there would be arguments? There could be, but I thought the
last topic on gay questions went pretty smoothly, so maybe it would work.

	Herb, no one is carrying any banner. I have been genuinely interested
in how others perceive gays. I have heard many times that we should also value
your differences as well. That was the purpose of the "there's something" note. 
It allowed you to voice your opinion and it helped us see where you are coming
from. One question though, you said in your note to go ahead with it, but you
wouldn't participate. Why say that and then ask others to not participate?


Glen

    MOST of the people here in the U.S. of A. , and through out the World
    are Gay , that's Natural to Mother Nature, and also who ever drinks
    Homo..genized Milk becomes one ( a Gay). Now what else is New?.

    Herb,
    
    The article said that 'there is a *chance* that the disease skewed
    the results.' It was not presented as an 'either this or that'
    hypothesis.
    
    The fact that the hypothalmic nucleii of the gay men were quite
    similar to that of women would mitigate against the difference
    being the result of AIDS. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    I can only speak for myself...
    Yes! Sometimes I have questions, mostly I just read, but I see
    no reason why adults can't discuss different topics/subjects.
    I learned a lot from Ger, and I've enjoyed reading notes
    by Greg and Glen (I think that's the name). 
    
    							Hank

    Since I'm hanging around being sick, I'd like to clarify something...

    When I read Bonnie's .13 and the preceeding notes, I got the impression
    that she was implying that Soapbox (and therefore we - BOXmods) allows
    bigotry.  I don't think that's what she meant, but I'd like to
    just state [calmly] for the record that that is not the case.  

    Since we do not have any 'party line' in the file, there is no
    "negative points of view" to the file's purpose (which is to discuss/
    debate anything and everything of interest).  Most conferences--
    such as Mennotes, Womannotes, BGLAD, Christian, etc.--have a charter 
    to discuss issues pertinent to a particular area (men, women, g/l/b's, 
    Christianity, etc.).  While all files are open to everyone, those who 
    are vehemently anti-<charter> do not exactly receive a warm welcome.

    The "sunshine concept" imho is merely that virtually anything is fair
    game for discussion, as long as it doesn't violate DEC policy or
    Soapbox guidelines.
    
    	deb
    
    P.S.  This has been a personal reply, not an official representation 
          as spokesperson for Soapbox moderators.

    Deb,
    
    thanks for clearing that up. I in no way wanted to imply that
    Soapbox and the Boxmods allow bigotry. I tried to write the note
    so as to not give that impression, and I'm glad that you
    didn't feel that was what I meant.
    
    Bonnie

    I find it amusing that almost 1/3 of the entries in this topic are by someone
    who has 1) said that they won't participate, and 2) urged others not to.
    
    Personally I think this is a fine topic for discussion,
    and would urge those who can't discuss it rationally to use "next unseen."
    
    	-- Charles
    
    

.0> Such a topic would be sure to include replies from people who thought
.0> and said that gays were, for example, abnormal or unhealthy, or some
.0> other negative term.

What's wrong with saying that gays are "abnormal or unhealthy"?  ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING!!! Some people feel that way AND THEY HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO THEIR
OPINION!  I may or may not agree with someone's opinion, but, by all that
is holy they certainly have a right to their opinion and the right to 
express it.

I guess the issue is, from your perspective as a moderator, is: can that
be said using corporate resources.  In the TRUE spirit of valuing differences
(how I hate that phrase) why not?

.0> And the way I interpret corporate policy, I couldn't allow that in this
.0> notesfile...

I disagree.  Just because a person's opinion is, in your words, "negative"
certainly does not negate the validity of that opinion.  I know of one
conference where I was called a "liar and a fool" for continuing to serve
my country in the USMC reserve ... is that a "negative opinion" or just
a difference of opinion?  This comment was directed at me, it was not
veiled or implied ... perhaps they run by the own "corporate policy"?

.1> I honestly can't see why the topic can't be reasonably discussed..

Theoretically, we're all professionals.  If this topic can't be discussed
then let's shut down topics on politics, religion, abortion, gun control,
and, others .. and let's all go put flowers in our hair, smoke some grass,
get some "earth sandals" and look at the world through rose colored glasses.

.3> There are times when it seems that Digitals policy for "valuing
.3> differences" only works for being PC.

I think that this is the essence of our esteemed moderators concern --
if the PC crowd yells loudest ... well ... "in the end those that crow
the loudest get what they want." and in the end we have the beginnings
of thought control and a totalitarian taint to VAX Notes.
    
.10> Funny, sometimes minorities can be the biggest bigots ever imagined. 

No, not funny .. not funny by a long shot, true, but, not funny.

.13> There is one notes file - soapbox - which has a policy of allowing
.13> far more in the way of negative view points...

Well, what's "negative" to one person may be perfectly logical to another
person.  When that day comes when "negative" viewpoints are not allowed,
well, that's my last day/entry in that conference.  I've left other
conferences because differences of opinion ("negative" in their eyes)
were simply not allowed and the suppression was incomprehensible.  Believe
me, you don't want to go that way.

Bubba

    I see no problem with discussions about gays/gay issues, etc. but I
    _DO_ wish that (almost) every topic would not have to degrade into a
    gay/anti-gay bash...   
    
    While I understand the motivation behind answering questions such as
    "do you like it when your mate compliments you" from the gay
    perspective, unfortunately this tends to migrate the note away from the
    original topic.   (NOTE: I am NOT questioning the RIGHT of gay
    individuals from replying to this note, I simply ask that they first
    ask themselves whether they really feel they are adding to the
    discussion, or simply "bashing the stupid hets" with another gay
    reminder.)                                         
    
    Also, if not allowing this discussion IS against "Digital policy" - I
    think the policy stinks...
    
    Dave

I spent the morning rereading various corporate policies regarding my
original question, and have concluded that it is permissible to have such
a discussion, though it would require a great deal of tolerance on everyone's
part.  Of course, personal insults would not be allowed.

So if people are interested, go ahead.   And if you're not interested, you
know where the "next unseen" key is.

				Steve

    IF 
    
.0> Such a topic would be sure to include replies from people who thought
.0> and said that gays were, for example, abnormal or unhealthy, or some
.0> other negative term.
    
    is true. And I believe it is than if
    
.0> And the way I interpret corporate policy, I couldn't allow that in this
.0> notesfile...
    
    is true. Than you can not have a useful discussion on the issue. Are
    you saying that such things *can* be said Steve?
    
    For myself I'm pretty well discussed out on the issue and would NEXT
    UNSEEN though I admit I can see how it might prove useful for many
    people. I'll continue to discuss it from time to time with friends
    but don't feel safe to discuss it here.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .31

It's a hard line to draw, Alfred.  If I was to interpret the policies 
absolutely literally, I'd have to remove about half of what gets written
in this conference.  As I see it, the key policy and subset thereof is:

                      PERSONNEL                       Section 6.03
                                                      Page  1 of 1
               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES                Effective 5-JUL-82

                        Harassment


  It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
  employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
  discrimination and harassment.

  Harassment refers to behavior which is personally offensive,
  impairs morale and interferes with the work effectiveness of
  employees.  Any harassment of employees by other employees will not
  be permitted, regardless of their working relationship.

  This policy refers to, but is not limited to, harassment in the
  following areas:  (1)age, (2)race, (3)color, (4)national origin,
  (5)religion, (6)sex, (7)handicap and (8)veteran status.  Such
  harassment includes unsolicited remarks, gestures or physical
  contact; display or circulation of written materials or pictures
  degrading to either gender or to racial, ethnic, or religious
  groups; and verbal abuse or insults directed at or made in the
  presence of members of a racial, ethnic or minority group.

Now it is true that "sexual orientation" is not in this list, but the list
is not all-inclusive and I have reason to believe that Digital would
consider "harassment" in the area of sexual orientation to be prohibited
by this policy.

It is the clause about "verbal abuse or insults directed at or made in the
presence of members of a racial, ethnic or minority group" which worries
me.  But I think if it is understood up front that this is a discussion
of people's feelings, beliefs and fears, that we could plausibly argue
that such a discussion does not constitute harassment.  Of course, I could
be wrong, and I know that "harassment is in the eye of the beholder".

I really feel strange about this.  I believe it would be useful to have
such a discussion, as long as people behaved themselves and didn't react
out of proportion to perceived insults.  I'd probably have my hands full
policing the note and returning entries I considered out of bounds.  But
it's clear to me that there's an opportunity for something good to come out of
an open discussion of this issue which seems to cause so much tension among
MENNOTES readers.  I hope I'm not mistaken.

			Steve

    .33> "I fold"
    
    Well, in the words of Kenny Rogers .. "you gotta' know when to hold 'em
    and know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to
    run".
    
    Now that Steve deems this discussion acceptable I think that everyone
    has folded ... 
    
    Me to.
    
    Bubba
    
    PS - and I was holding a royal flush!

    >And I was holding a royal flush!
    
        I'll just bet you were!  Just don't do it in public theatres! ;^)
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

    
    
    My noting time is at a premium these days, so this will be short and to
    the point (which might be something new for me!).
    
    ************************************
    
    I, believe it or not, also do not have an issue with people calling gay
    people "disgusting", "abominable", "unhealthy", etc., if those people
    are willing to discuss their reasons for feeling that way.  If a person
    makes a blanket statement which, essentially, classifies an entire
    group of people as "less than" them (the non-gays), and isn't willing
    to discuss those reasons, their opinion doesn't matter to me anyway and
    I will dismiss them with the same ease as they dismissed me.
    
    	Greg

    I'm always happy to step into the breach...
    
    If I were an actuary in a very strange business which required me to
    rate the "degree of civilization" of various demographic segments, I
    would definitely want one of my segmentation variables to be sexual
    orientation. The gay orientation toward the arts is one indicator. I'm
    most impressed by the way the gay community has taken care of their
    HIV-positive members. The openness of gays, their sense of fun, makes me
    wish I could join them. I would like it if straight men could be more
    like gay men.
    
    There are two items which make me feel sad about gay men. First, it's
    so hard for them to parent. Second, the general male tendency to pursue
    every available sexual partner is more pronounced among gays. Straight
    men have the constraints of societal rules and the rules set down by
    the women in their lives. I think fidelity is harder for gays, and
    there's more disruption and heartbreak.
    
    I find myself being homophobic. I'm lifting weights today, and a couple
    of REAL body-builders giggle over the fact that there's a guy among the
    women in the aerobics class. "It's a great excuse to oggle the (female!)
    instructor!" I remark. I was in that aerobics class LAST week. So I
    assert my heterosexuality, reflexively, without malice aforethought.
    I'm not homophobic, really. I'm macho-pricks-who-may-think-I'm-gay-phobic,
    maybe.

    
    
    Great note!  Thanks!
    
    >>I'm most impressed by the way the gay community has taken care of their
    >>HIV-positive members. 
    
    	I can respond to this in two ways.  One -- we had to "take care of
    our own".  Many people (I won't say most or all) thought (still
    think?) of AIDS as an appropriate punishment for the "sin" of being
    gay.  Two -- such care taking has also taken a toll among those of us
    who are HIV-negative and chose to be involved in volunteer work to
    assist those less fortunate.  I chose the route of doing volunteer work
    with AIDS-babies.  (I don't remember whether I told this story here or
    not before, please indulge.)  Last year a friend and I went to
    Chicago's Lutheran General Hospital to spend a couple of hours just
    holding these very, very ill babies.  I watched/heard a baby die in the
    arms of my friend Bill.  He hasn't been the same since.  I stopped
    doing volunteer work for a long time after that and, even now, can't
    bring myself to work directly with those who are sick.  I instead work
    on committees for the AIDS walk, etc.
    
    >>The openness of gays, their sense of fun, makes me wish I could join 
    >>them. 
    
    I do think that many gay men, especially, are much less inhibited than
    the population of men in general.
    
    >>I would like it if straight men could be more like gay men.
    
    Why can't they be?  (This is purely rhetorical in nature.)
    
    
    >>First, it's so hard for them to parent. 
    
    Yes, I would love to have children.  I think I would be a great "dad".
    But as the laws in the state of Illinois stand right now, it is not
    possible.
    
    >>Second, the general male tendency to pursue every available sexual 
    >>partner is more pronounced among gays. Straight men have the constraints 
    >>of societal rules and the rules set down by the women in their lives. 
    >>I think fidelity is harder for gays, and there's more disruption and 
    >>heartbreak.
    
    You've said a mouthful here.  First, I think the first statement is a
    little stereotypical.  Yes, I know gay men who have had hundreds, even
    thousands, of sexual partners.  But, I know non-gay men who have
    behaved similarly.  I also know gay men who have had only one (or a
    very few) sexual partners in their life.  I think in the age of AIDS
    there is a tendency (at least in the gay groups of which I'm a part)
    for relationships to be less open and for monogomy(sp?) to be more the
    norm.
    
    I can also relate to the heartbreak.  Many non-gay people find it hard
    to believe that gay people really do fall in love -- being gay isn't
    just about sex.  The particularly difficult thing I've experienced is
    the lack of someone to talk to when relationships go bad (or when
    they're going well, for that matter).  Think about it, many people,
    whether they realize it or not, make casual statements about the
    difficulties they're having at home or about the great time they had
    with their family over the past weekend, etc.  Gay people frequently,
    depending on the acceptance of the group of which they are a part, have
    to edit their conversation to exclude references to their partner in
    life or their gay friends.  I happen to be a part of an incredible
    group here at Digital and don't have to edit my conversation.  I,
    however, remember how painful and difficult that was in my previous job
    when I was a professor at a small Lutheran liberal arts college where
    my job would have been on the line had my gay-ness be discovered.
    
    
    >>I find myself being homophobic. I'm lifting weights today, and a couple
    >>of REAL body-builders giggle over the fact that there's a guy among the
    >>women in the aerobics class. "It's a great excuse to oggle the (female!)
    >>instructor!" I remark. I was in that aerobics class LAST week. So I
    >>assert my heterosexuality, reflexively, without malice aforethought.
    >>I'm not homophobic, really. I'm macho-pricks-who-may-think-I'm-gay-phobic,
    >>maybe.
    
    	This is a great paragraph.  Knowing nothing more about you than
    what you have written in these few paragraphs, I really doubt you're
    homophobic.  I *DO* understand why you don't want people to think
    you're gay -- until there's no stigma attached to "being gay", such
    thoughts will be very normal.  I just hope for the day when there is no
    such stigma.
    
    	Thanks!
    
          Greg

    
    Hey, Bubba, what you said in .28 was excellent!  I'm certainly in
    agreement!
    
    >>>What's wrong with saying that gays are "abnormal or unhealthy"? 
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Some people feel that way AND THEY HAVE A PERFECT
    RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION!
    
    Accurate.  Worth repeating.
    
    Even an "Archie Bunker" has a right to his own views.  And he has a
    right to state them, without having to defend them, if he so chooses.
    But in most conferences, Archie would be beaten as though he had been
    speeding in L.A.

    My own personal opinion is that "valuing diversity" has to work for
    everyone--it's not a one-way street.  Everyone has a right to their
    opinion, not merely those who agree with you (or me, or whoever).
    However, I'm also kind of fond of the expression that "Your freedom
    of speech ends where my nose begins," which merely means that there
    is a line between expressing one's opinions (using the "I" language)
    and lashing out at someone (which can be taken as harassment).

    Where the trouble comes (imho) in touchy topics like AIDS, rape,
    religion and gay issues is that at times people express their opinions 
    in a judgmental, cruel, insensitive and attacking manner...without 
    regard to the fact that the people who read their notes are colleagues 
    - maybe a coworker in the department, a manager, a subordinate, etc.

    I've seen some discussions of sensitive topics deteriorate into
    vicious, hateful name-calling; others have been handled in a 
    reasonable, professional manner.  It's entirely up to the participants
    how they choose to express their opinions (in content and tone), and
    how much work they want to make for moderators Steve and Mike.

	deb

    RE: .36
    
>    I, believe it or not, also do not have an issue with people calling gay
>    people "disgusting", "abominable", "unhealthy", etc., if those people
>    are willing to discuss their reasons for feeling that way.  
    
    Be aware that not being willing to discuss their reasons and not being
    willing to discuss their reasons *with you* are two very different
    things. This is an emotional issue as you are no doubt aware. Open
    and frank discussions can only be productive between people who trust
    one an other. I have in the past and will continue to discuss my
    reasons. But not here.
    
    			Alfred

| >>>What's wrong with saying that gays are "abnormal or unhealthy"?


	
	Bubba! I have a few questions for you? Is it right to say that anyone
is abnormal and unhealthy based on the fact of what they are as oppossed to who
they are? To use a generalization stating that gays are abnormal or unhealthy
for the simple fact that they are gays is puzzling. Why? Well, that would be
like saying <insert favorite minority, gender, etc> is abnormal because of what
they are. Please explain yourself a little more. This could be taken many ways.
I'd like to know just how YOU meant it. I guess what I'm trying to say is this,
should we reject anyone, just for <insert favorite difference> as opposed to
finding out just who this person is? It doesn't matter if the person is gay,
black, woman, white, whatever, should we be putting them into demeaning
catagories because of of their difference? You will never be able to be friends
with everyone, but get to know them as a person first before you come to any
conclusions. We are all different. There may be things about you that
others find strange, should they put you into any sort of demeaning catagory?
Now, regardless of whether this has already happened or not, is it right?

| ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Some people feel that way AND THEY HAVE A PERFECT
| RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION!

	Dwight, you are correct. They have a right to their opinion. But if the
opinion is going to hurt someone else, especially when they really don't know
them as a person, but only as a catagory, then the opinion should be kept
quiet. Take this for example. Say I met your girlfriend/wife. If I made a
comment about her that wasn't to your liking, I would think your words might
include, "Who do you think you are?" or something close to that. And you would
have every right to do just that. It isn't right to put people into demeaning
catagories for the simple reason of they are gay, black, what have you. Get to
know the person, then make a decision on whether this person will fit into your
life. But please, let's not do this because of they're <insert favorite
difference>.



Glen

    RE:.42
    
       Neither of the two people whose quotes you referenced stated that
    they would personally agree with derogatory statements made about
    anyone.  They were simply stating that everyone has the right to make
    them.  
       Sure, it would be a nifty world if people wouldn't say mean, hurtful
    things to each other...but then reality kicks in.
    
       *I* think members of the Ku Klux Klan are slimy toads...this is a
    derogatory statement that I believe I have every right to make.  Just
    as it's their right to down gays, black, etc.  That's what makes
    America a great place to live...the ability to say these things without
    the Govt. stepping in to stop me.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

Re: .43

It's true that, in the outside world, in the United States, your right to
free speech is protected (more or less).  However, when you make such
statements in a notes conference on a system and network owned by
Digital, then Digital's rules on what you can and can't say in such a forum
come into play, and they are more restrictive.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again now.  There is NO SUCH THING
as a "right to free speech" in Digital's notes conferences.  That Digital
is fairly liberal at allowing a wide range of expression is commendable,
but it is foolish to assume that your rights here are the same as if you
were standing on a street corner.

				Steve

    
    I guess what bugs me about this who "discussion" thing is that people
    like Mr. Thompson (and others whose notes have been deleted) feel free
    to make comments like "gays are unhealthy" (which they are entitled to
    do) but don't really participate in the discussion of the issues at
    hand.  My wish is that people who make comments of this sort but then
    won't participate in an open and honest discussion of the issues at
    hand just keep their opinions to themselves.  Of course, this is only
    one person's opinion.  But, I don't feel that "unsupported" comments
    add anything to the discussion and, in fact, take away from it.
    
    I know, "welcome to notes".
    
    	Greg

	Greg, I agree with what you are saying. It would be great if we could
get the reasons why when some make their statements. From what I understand,
it's more that they are afraid of being crucified for explaining themselves.
I hope we can get past this someday and know what they are talking about. I
mean, if someone is afraid of being reemed for explaining themselves, why make
the comment in the first place? It's not like this is the Federal Government,
which is where you would expect that to happen. ;-)


Glen

    	There are some things that we feel or think. We don't even justify
    them to ourselves. We just "have" those feelings and thoughts. Alot of
    folks don't care. They don't want to deal with it and that's that. What
    we have in notes is a buncha people demanding justification, facts, and
    irrefutable evidence from anyone not in their agenda's agreement. Those 
    folks don't want to have to explain and justify. They're comfortable
    with their feelings, it's others who are not. 
    
    	Alfred and Bubba have expressed themselves a number of times in
    other debates and have been under severe attack from gays and pro-gay
    agenda people in the file. They've chosen not expand simply because a 
    comment taken out of context or taken personally could result in the 
    loss of their jobs. I shouldn't really speak for them but that's how I
    feel. 
    
    	My sense of all this is "why do I HAVE to value something?" Because
    DEC says I have to? That makes a lot of sense. If DEC says that all
    people with a mole on their butt are now considered the latest minority
    or select group, is that the standard that all must take up?? Do these 
    Asmoles get to have softer chairs because they're different?? Does
    their difference make them right??? I think not. 
    
    	If some of you chose to be gay....be gay. leave me out of it and
    I'll leave you alone. Stuff it down my throat and now you're treading
    on my space and that's wrong. Why does this thing have to be a constant
    agenda item??? Hets don't make homosexuality a big deal, in many cases
    thay would rather not even discuss it. But nooooooo, we have to bring
    it out in the "open" whether hets want to or not.
    
    	Gays are upset because they're not considered "normal", or they're
    considered "unhealthy". Why do gays have to "come out"?  Why do gays
    have to have an agenda? Having a male/female relationship doesn't
    require a "coming out" because it's considered the norm.
    
    	For many men, homosexuality is bizarre, replusive, and unhealthy.
    Just as snakes, bugs and other animals are to other men. It's not all
    fear, it's a feeling or sense that is self developed and defies
    explanation. To attempt to force someone to explain it would be very
    much like trying to describe the color red to someone blind from birth.
    
    	Why continue to ask why??? Some men don't want to be 'educated' or
    'enlightened". Who requires that they MUST be?  Why would anyone want
    to try force this enlightenedment on them. What good does it serve?
    
    	If it's your desire to be gay..be gay. If not, then don't. But
    don't inflict your values on someone else and expect them to embrace a
    concept they reject. Just leave them alone, once you invade their
    privacy, you can't expect understanding and acceptance.
    
    I ramble......
    
    Ken     

.42> Bubba! I have a few questions for you? Is it right to say that anyone
.42> is abnormal and unhealthy based on the fact of what they are as oppossed
.42> to who they are?  To use a generalization stating that gays are abnormal
.42> or unhealthy for the simple fact that they are gays is puzzling.

Be it "right", "wrong", "puzzling" or crystal clear - no consequence.  The
fact of the matter is that in our society (perhaps not this note conference)
anyone has a perfect right to say what they feel.  Ostensibly enough, this
is one of the reasons why I wear the uniform of a United States Marine.

Whether I like it or not, by God and the Constitution of the United States,
they have a right to say it.

L.J.'s example was perfect!  I despise the KKK and what they stand for,
but, if they want to march and demonstrate, I shall protect their right
to do so.  I despise ACT-UP (and have in fact engaged in ...shall we say
"physical contact" during their demonstrations) but I will defend to the
death their right to look like fools.  I do not believe in God - there
are those who think that I am doomed - a sinner - a failure - an outcast -
a detriment to society ... "unhealthy".  So be it.  They may say that.
Right or wrong is a matter of perspective.

.42> Well, that would be like saying <insert favorite minority, gender, etc>
.42> is abnormal because of what they are. Please explain yourself a little
.42> more. This could be taken many ways. I'd like to know just how YOU meant
.42> it.

Do I make myself clear?  Read on, pilgrim.

.42> I guess what I'm trying to say is this, should we reject anyone, just
.42> for <insert favorite difference> as opposed to finding out just who
.42> this person is?

Of course we shouldn't.  That's not the point.  Where have we seen the
word "reject" anywhere in this string.  Did someone say that they would
"reject" a person for the simple reason that they were gay?  If they did,
I missed it. Point it out to me.

.42>| ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Some people feel that way AND THEY HAVE A PERFECT
.42>| RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION!

.42> Dwight, you are correct. They have a right to their opinion. But if the
.42> opinion is going to hurt someone else, especially when they really don't
.42> know them as a person, but only as a catagory, then the opinion should
.42> be kept quiet.

This is my quote, not Dwight's so I'll answer.



WRONG!! "...should be kept quiet..." reeks of Nazi Germany and a few other
governments come to mind.  Who defines "hurt"?  Let me give you an example
of this ....

A friend and I were discussing the subject of abortion.  He told me that
he and his wife had been trying for two years to have a baby and they were
very VERY sad that it appeared ... impossible.  He related the fact that
every time he saw a pro-abortion note in SOAPBOX it really "hurt" .. deep
down ... a very sad feeling that some would terminate pregnancies and he
and his wife wanted so very bad to have precisely that.  Neither he now
his wife were capable of changing their biological make up so that they
could have a child ... discussions of abortion genuinely "hurt" him, so
in light of that should discussions of abortion be "kept quiet"?  Hardly.

.42> Take this for example. Say I met your girlfriend/wife. If I made a
.42> comment about her that wasn't to your liking, I would think your words
.42> might include, "Who do you think you are?" or something close to that.

No, I'd probably say "I'm sorry that you feel that way" and depending upon
the situation may or may not decide to discuss it.

.42> It isn't right to put people into demeaning catagories for the simple
.42> reason of they are gay, black, what have you.

You seem to take offense at the word "unhealthy" ... therefore consider
the statement that "gays are unhealthy" to be demeaning.  Unhealthy
can mean a lot of things.  I *guarantee* you that some of my best friends
consider the fact that I drink (alcohol), smoke (but I'm trying to quit),
swear like a Marine (which I am), and I don't go to church ... to be ...
"unhealthy".  I've overcome that with my friends ... this has not interfered
with our friendship ... we have our differences and the bond of friendship
has become even stronger because we accept those differences, we've overcome
those differences and built our strengths as opposed to our differences.

See where I'm a commin' from?

Bubba

Hi Ken!

| There are some things that we feel or think. We don't even justify
| them to ourselves. We just "have" those feelings and thoughts. Alot of
| folks don't care. They don't want to deal with it and that's that. What
| we have in notes is a buncha people demanding justification, facts, and
| irrefutable evidence from anyone not in their agenda's agreement. Those
| folks don't want to have to explain and justify. They're comfortable
| with their feelings, it's others who are not.

	Actually, you make a lot of sense. There are some feelings that really
don't need justification. That's fine. But, if the feelings are known, and they
involve other people, and it's demeaning, then there should be some
justification, don't you think?

| Alfred and Bubba have expressed themselves a number of times in
| other debates and have been under severe attack from gays and pro-gay
| agenda people in the file. They've chosen not expand simply because a
| comment taken out of context or taken personally could result in the
| loss of their jobs. I shouldn't really speak for them but that's how I
| feel.

	I believe this to be true as well. I know it has happened. At least in
one of the two people you speak of. But, it still comes down to if you aren't
going to justify something demeaning towards another, why say it? It could be
taken as just a way to 'rile up the crowd'. Not everyone who has attacked (as
you put it) them has done so without reason, or what they thought was a good
reason. Yes, in notes things can be taken out of context (God knows that has
happened to me many a time). Unlike a live audience, you don't have the luxory
to state how you really feel immediately, but only after (usually) someone has 
taken it the wrong way. That's all a part of noting. (at least that's what 
people keep telling me :-).

| My sense of all this is "why do I HAVE to value something?" Because
| DEC says I have to? 

	No, you shouldn't value anything because someone wants you to. You are
the one who has to make that decision. The only thing you need to look at is
are there things about yourself that others find different? Are those things
found to be offensive to them? If so, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else,
should it really matter? Should they give you flack for it? The answer should
be no. Now, you should go back to square one and ask yourself if others should
value your differences, shouldn't you value theirs? If the answer is yes, then
you have answered your own question. If the answer you came up with is no, then
one could perceive you to be one sided on this particular topic.

| That makes a lot of sense. If DEC says that all
| people with a mole on their butt are now considered the latest minority
| or select group, is that the standard that all must take up?? Do these
| Asmoles get to have softer chairs because they're different?? Does
| their difference make them right??? I think not.

	We're talking about people here, not moles. People are very real, with
personalities, feelings and so forth. Moles have none of these. The two don't
compare, they're like apples and oranges.

| If some of you chose to be gay....be gay. leave me out of it and
| I'll leave you alone. Stuff it down my throat and now you're treading
| on my space and that's wrong. Why does this thing have to be a constant
| agenda item??? Hets don't make homosexuality a big deal, in many cases
| thay would rather not even discuss it. But nooooooo, we have to bring
| it out in the "open" whether hets want to or not.

	You've heard this one before, and I guess you'll hear it a million
times. When you talk about your wife, aren't you talking about heterosexuality?
Same with your girlfriend? If you go to a bar and pick up someone and you're
discussing it with someone, aren't you also talking about heterosexuality? When
we talk about being with our boyfriends, we don't jump all over it. What
happens is a lot of people will say they don't want to hear it, this is gross,
we're pushing our agenda. All we are doing is talking about our lives, just as
you are. If you feel that we're pushing our agenda, does that mean you feel you
are pushing yours too?

| Gays are upset because they're not considered "normal", or they're
| considered "unhealthy". Why do gays have to "come out"?  Why do gays
| have to have an agenda? Having a male/female relationship doesn't
| require a "coming out" because it's considered the norm.

	By society's standards you are aboslutely correct. These are the same
standards that thought a white person and a black person shouldn't be dating.
These are the same people who thought witches were evil and burned them at the
stake. These are the same people who thought blacks should be slaves, women
should be treated as second class citizens, and that Russians are the hated
enemy. How does society view all these things now? 

| For many men, homosexuality is bizarre, replusive, and unhealthy.
| Just as snakes, bugs and other animals are to other men. It's not all
| fear, it's a feeling or sense that is self developed and defies
| explanation. 

	One involves a human being, the other an insect/reptile or other
animal. The two just don't seem to go together.

| Why continue to ask why??? Some men don't want to be 'educated' or
| 'enlightened". Who requires that they MUST be?  Why would anyone want
| to try force this enlightenedment on them. What good does it serve?

	If everyone thought the way you just described, would we be as far
along now as we are? We're a much better society now than we were say in the
1700's. We still have a long way to go.

| If it's your desire to be gay..be gay. If not, then don't. But
| don't inflict your values on someone else and expect them to embrace a
| concept they reject. Just leave them alone, once you invade their
| privacy, you can't expect understanding and acceptance.

	You say to not inflict our values onto someone else, but aren't you
doing the same when you say it's disgusting that we are the way we are? I'm
confused.

| I ramble......

	Apparently so don't I. ;-)



Glen

.47> What we have in notes is a buncha people demanding justification,
.47> facts, and irrefutable evidence from anyone not in their agenda's
.47> agreement. Those folks don't want to have to explain and justify.

Correct - more a facet of the medium (electronic communications) than
that of the subject matter at hand.  If you and I were face-to-face and
a sensitive subject were brought up --- I may be prone to say "I'd really
rather not discuss it" and there's no question but that you would more
than graciously comply.  In VAX Notes, it's somewhat easier to keep
"badgering" ...

.47> Alfred and Bubba have expressed themselves a number of times in
.47> other debates and have been under severe attack from gays and pro-gay
.47> agenda people in the file.

Amen!  There's nothing that I like better than a good "political" argument.
The stronger the difference of opinion, but better I like it.  Where *I*
personally draw the line is that of "common courtesy".  I will argue
any point until I'm blue in the face but I will not tolerate the lack of
common courtesy.  That's when I take my Stetson and leave.

As a prime example - take that of the so called (legislated) gay rights.
I will not vote for gay rights - I will vehemently and resolutely oppose
such legislation, and, I don't mind saying so.  The "line" is drawn when
I'm called "homophobic" and told that I should "seek counseling" to deal
with my homophobia.   Horse hockey.  Such statements are the opinion of
the individual making them and they have a perfect right to state their
opinions - I can decide whether or not I want to deal with such a men-
tality.  There are times when I decide not to deal with it - my choice.

Additionally, there are some battles which are not worth winning.  There
are some battles which when won - you lose.  I will decline to participate.

.47> They've chosen not expand simply because a comment taken out of
.47> context or taken personally could result in the loss of their jobs.
.47> I shouldn't really speak for them but that's how I feel. 
    
Well, speaking for myself ... you're not too far off the mark.  I will
*rarely* engage in an emotional discussion - you have everything to lose
and nothing to gain.  I mean what I say and say what I mean, but, when
it get's emotional --- I turn it off.  There are those who will twist
and distort VAXmail (and, notes) to address their own personal agenda.
I know who they are, and, I watch 'em like a hawk.  Fortunately, they
are in the minority.

.47> ..leave me out of it and I'll leave you alone. Stuff it down my throat
.47> and now you're treading on my space and that's wrong. Why does this
.47> thing have to be a constant agenda item???

I'll be the first to admit that I get darned tire of it being shoved down
my throat ... but ... there are some people who simply (as you put it)
have an "agenda" ... OK ... so do some fundamentalists ... fine ... let
'em have at it ... I'll just roll my eyes and say "here we go again".  If
there's a possibility of a good political discussion, I may jump in with
all fours - but, say, the gay perspective on the nuclear arms race really
don't do a hell of a lot for me.

.47> Hets don't make homosexuality a big deal, in many cases thay would
.47> rather not even discuss it.

Good perspective.  Food for thought.

.47> For many men, homosexuality is bizarre, replusive, and unhealthy.
.47> Just as snakes, bugs and other animals are to other men. It's not all
.47> fear, it's a feeling or sense that is self developed and defies
.47> explanation. To attempt to force someone to explain it would be very
.47> much like trying to describe the color red to someone blind from birth.
 
I agree.  I may suggest that a great deal of this inability to "explain"
some things is related to "roots".  I have a great deal of respect
for that and realize that it may take a few generations to change some
things.  Slavery was around for a few hundred years ... no one in their
right mind can possibly think that all of the ill feelings which were
inbred for two hundred years are going to change overnight.

My father - prime example.  I love him dearly, but, he simply had no
countenance whatsoever for anyone that he even *suspected* was gay.
That was his generation, his upbringing, his heritage.  Times are
changing.  I'm different - I like to think that I'm more open minded.
My daughters are DEFINITELY more open minded than I am - I wouldn't even
*think* of dating a person of a different color or different race when
I was in high school ... and those who were suspected of being gay ...
no, they're not my friends.

OK, as I got older and wiser, went to war,  and traveled the world I
changed my perspective, and I'm absolutely positive that that more
"enlightened" perspective has been instilled in my daughters.  I can
see a definite and definitive change over the four generations of my
grandfather, my father, myself, and my daughters.

Some things are going to take time - for some people - more time are
required - for some people - less time is required.

.47> Why continue to ask why??? Some men don't want to be 'educated' or
.47> 'enlightened". Who requires that they MUST be?  Why would anyone want
.47> to try force this enlightenedment on them. What good does it serve?
    
No good whatsoever.  Some people simply don't understand that you cannot
educate with a brick.

.47> I ramble......

I do to.  I hate notes this long and rarely read them but there's (so far)
good propensity for discussion - I like that.

Bubba

| .47> What we have in notes is a buncha people demanding justification,
| .47> facts, and irrefutable evidence from anyone not in their agenda's
| .47> agreement. Those folks don't want to have to explain and justify.

| Correct - more a facet of the medium (electronic communications) than
| that of the subject matter at hand.  If you and I were face-to-face and
| a sensitive subject were brought up --- I may be prone to say "I'd really
| rather not discuss it" and there's no question but that you would more
| than graciously comply.  

	Jerry, you know me. Do you feel that in a face to face discussion, if 
you, or anyone else had said something demeaning about me or <insert favorite
difference> that I would just stop asking you to justify your statements just
because you didn't want to talk about it? I think you know me better than that.
What we were talking about wouldn't matter (any issue in the universe), if you
were to say something demeaning about someone, I would ask you to justify it.

| As a prime example - take that of the so called (legislated) gay rights.
| I will not vote for gay rights - I will vehemently and resolutely oppose
| such legislation, and, I don't mind saying so.  The "line" is drawn when
| I'm called "homophobic" and told that I should "seek counseling" to deal
| with my homophobia.   

	You can send me mail off line, I know we had a simular conversations
about this before, but just why are you not for gay rights? It would make it
easier to see why people may have thought you were homophobic.

| Horse hockey.  

	Bubba! I think they call that Polo! ;-)

| Some things are going to take time - for some people - more time are
| required - for some people - less time is required.

	I agree. But if we just forget about it, then it just never gets
addressed. If blacks and whites didn't feel that it WAS ok for them to get
married, and didn't do anything about it, then where would they be now? The
same can go with many things.




Glen

It really caught my eye when Mr. Silva said "It would make it easier to
see why people may have thought you were homophobic".  Some could easily
interpret this as "you're probably homophobic if you don't vote for
legislated gay rights".  OK, I'll state my case and let the readers
decide if my position is homophobic.

This may start a tangent, I hope not, but, I wanted to make my position
crystal clear on this issue.  Any responses could be pertinent to this
current string of discussions for I have been labeled as "homophobic"
for such seditions thoughts:

I am a FIRM believer in inalienable rights.  When we say that we hold individual
rights to be inalienable, we MUST mean JUST THAT.  Inalienable means that which
we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate - not ever, not
at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

We cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather, and
on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot that "man has inalienable rights
except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannoit be violated except for a
good purpose."

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not.  You cannot say a thing
such as "semi-inalienable".  When you begin making conditions, reservations,
and exceptions, you ADMIT that there is something or someone ABOVE man's
rights, who may violate them at his discretion.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Take a good hard look at Tacoma, Washington and Irvine, California where "gay
rights" was on the books, then, struck down by a majority vote. What the
government giveth, the government can certainly taketh away.  I submit that
you have inalienable rights - fight to maintain those rights as opposed to
admitting that you never had them and asking for ... legislation.

How long before 'x' rights, ad nauseum, are added to the law books?

Not to mention the fact that about 60% of homosexuals are very much against
so called "legislated" gay rights.

Bubba

    re:.52
    
       I agree completely.  The main problem I have with folks that have
    an *agenda* is that they want gay, women, black, etc. rights.  I 
    believe in *equal* rights and I believe there is a difference between
    equal rights and a minorities rights.
    
    
    
                                         L.J.

I consider myself generally pretty capable of understanding what is happening
around me, but I swear by all that may be sacred that I do NOT understand
why homophobia, as in real aggressive-negative reactions to alternate 
sexuality, exists.  Why do you people think that you have the ONE RIGHT 
ANSWER to other people's most private, personal inclinations and desires?
I cannot imagine dictating to another human being whether he/she should lust
after same-sex or opposite sex partners any more than I can tell someone that
he/she should only lust after tall, fat blonds with Hell's Angels tatoos on
both byceps.  I really mean it....think about what you are saying when you
announce that "homosexuals are unnatural"...You are setting yourself up as
THE ONE IN CHARGE of his/her sexuality.  I don't believe you have that right,
nor do I believe that any thinking adult would grant that right to ANYONE
including me...even though I am a pretty sharp player.  It just isn't your
business or my business to decide for someone else.

I know, religeous leaders/ministers are forever railing against homosexuality,
but they also spend a great deal of time hollering about dancing, drinking,
smoking, and any sexual position with any partner other than the missionary
one with your married spouse....can you honestly say that you faithfully 
believe and follow ALL these rules that they dump on you?  Very few would be 
able to claim that...which leads me back to the question of WHY you are so 
willing to grab THIS ONE and wave it around with such enthusiasm.

You have the privilege to NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL, certainly...you get to determine,
in whatever manner such issues are determined, what YOU do or don't do.  Or,
at least, that determination is made and affects you, nobody else.  But folks,
you don't get to decide for anyone else.  Them ain't the rules. 

If you honestly live in constant fear that some ravening homosexual is going
to make a pass at you...well, listen I've been here for almost 45 years and
I've never encountered such a problem...perhaps you are that much more
attractive than I've ever been, but somehow, I still don't think you need to
worry, y'know.  Think about how shy you are/were about approaching a stranger..
Frankly, unless you are sending out very heavy signals, it isn't likely.

Honestly, it seems to me that you feel you can order others how to live their
lives and I just cannot understand why...

    Just a couple of thoughts.
    
    	Hi Jerry, It gives me hope when I read your notes. Hope that
    individuals can and will stand up for what they believe in.
    
    
    	Now for my say. Number one, what I do in my bedroom is my business
    and what a gay person does in theirs is their business. Outside of this
    one aspect of our lives we are pretty much the same.
    
    	Number two, why are some gay people demanding that the government
    visit their bedrooms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
    what will happen. I don't want the government or anyone telling me what
    I can and cannot do in the privacy of my home. 
    
    
    	Gay men have the same rights That I have. What we are talking about
    is sexual freedoms. While I may not agree with the sexual habits of gay
    people ( there are some hets whose sexual habits bother me also) I do
    believe what occurs between consenting adults is their business. 
    
    		What I'm saying is keep your sex in the bedroom and lets
    drop this closet thing ( no one lives in closets ). If sexual preference
    equals 1% of our being then we share 99% of everything else, why can't
    we share that 99%. Boys talk about who they are having sex with, Men
    share more important things with each other.
    
    
    
    			Some thoughts
    
    			Wayne

    RE: .52

    	Jerry, your talk about "inalienable rights" is interesting.
    	
    	I have two questions:

    	1) Do you believe there is an inalienable right to privacy?

    	2) What happens when the inalienable rights of two different
    	   people are in conflict?

    RE: .55

    > why are some gay people demanding that the government visit their 
    > bedrooms.

    	Which gay people are demanding this?  I don't want the
    	government in my bedroom.  But the government insists
    	on being there anyway, making sexual relations between 
    	members of the same sex illegal.  I don't have the 
    	figures in front of me, but something like half(?) the
    	states in this country make "gay sex" illegal.  All the 
    	gay people I know want to repeal such laws, by the way...

    > Gay men have the same rights That I have.

    	Well I suppose this depends on what you mean by "rights."
    	Gay people are not allowed to marry.  We are not allowed to
    	serve in the military.  We are not allowed to be foster
    	parents.  We can, in many states, be fired simply for being
    	gay.  We can, in many states, be evicted simply for being
    	gay.  We can be denied accommodations in hotels and restaurants,
    	again, simply for being gay.  The Supreme Court of the United States 
    	ruled (in the infamous Hardwick decision) that gay people do not have 
    	the same right to privacy that straight people do, thereby justifying 
    	anti-gay laws.  

    	The statement you made, "Gay men have the same rights That I have." 
    	sounds unequivocal - as if you were stating it as a fact.  Where do 
    	you get your information, if you don't mind my asking?

    /Greg

Hi all.  I had originally started reply to these notes, one by one, and it got
silly cause I had so many entries!  So I have tied them all to one note.

The notes were addressed to others, but I threw in my 2 cents any how.

Sorry for the length... but this topic has taken off since the last time I
was here...

>| ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Some people feel that way AND THEY HAVE A PERFECT
>| RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION!
>
>	Dwight, you are correct. They have a right to their opinion. But if the
>opinion is going to hurt someone else, especially when they really don't know
>them as a person, but only as a catagory, then the opinion should be kept
>quiet. Take this for example. Say I met your girlfriend/wife. If I made a
>comment about her that wasn't to your liking, I would think your words might
>include, "Who do you think you are?" or something close to that. And you would
>have every right to do just that. 

Glen,

That wasn't my quote, although I was echoing it.

>It isn't right to put people into demeaning
>catagories for the simple reason of they are gay, black, what have you. Get to
>know the person, then make a decision on whether this person will fit into your
>life. But please, let's not do this because of they're <insert favorite
>difference>.

But Glen, we ALL do that!  And it'll never change.  He's an example...  If
a fellow is found out to be a member of the KKK, he'll put in a demeaning
category by most of those that find him out!  "We" won't socialize with him,
"We" won't want our children playing with his children, "We" won't be happy
working with him, ... etc.

Now who is going to be "PC" enough to stand up and defend the rights of a KKK
member?  Some, yes, but the mass will want to run him out of town.  Is that
right?  Wrong? The KKK member may be a firm believer in his chosen way of life,
and beliefs, just as the gay person is convinced that he is a normal, healthy,
person.  Just as Manson may be convinced that "Helter Skelter" was a message to
him.  Get the point?

Now, I don't support the KKK, nor do I support gays.  I have my own views about
the KKK, as well as the gays.  Two different groups, yes, but don't miss my
point.

And where do we draw the line?  Who is to say, OK, this "name_a_group" is OK,
while this "name_a_group" is not.  This "name_a_group" will be tolerated, while 
"name_a_group" will not be.  Should I be the one to decide?  Should you?  Or
should we allow the government to decide for us?  Can we really live in a world
with no "lines" to cross?  Do we need "lines" to keep us in line?  Can a
society really exist with an attitude of "as long as it ain't hurting me" then
go ahead and knock yourself out?

The way I figure it is... 
If God had wanted man to support a homosexual life style, He would have
created...
                              "Adam and Steve."

Imagine, God saying, "Now guys, go forth... be fruitful and multiply!"

Adam to Steve, "Boy, does this guy have a sense of humor, or what?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:  .42

    Wow.  I was reading and reply and then came to your note... 

    We must have been on the same frequency!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .43
    
    True Steve.  It's like being in the local Radio Shack and running down
    all their merchandise, loudly, claiming we have the right to free
    speech.  As you say, we do, but the manager of the Radio Shack can call
    the town's "finest" and have us removed from his property.
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:  .45
    
>    hand.  My wish is that people who make comments of this sort but then
>    won't participate in an open and honest discussion of the issues at
>    hand just keep their opinions to themselves.  

It's easy to understand.  Obviously, as one "can not speak openly" here due
to policy, it can only lead to real trouble.  If Mr. Thompson held discussion
with you, you'd no doubt attempt to pick him for honest answers... answers that
he simply may not can honestly answer, as they may be "against DEC policy."

Therefore, one can not go into serious dialogue, without taking risk.  The mods
would get too busy, have to write lock the topic, and no doubt... some noter 
would start making personnel threats.... because s/he asked for discussion and
couldn't cope with what they heard.

>    I know, "welcome to notes".

I dig it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:  .46
    
>I hope we can get past this someday and know what they are talking about. I
>mean, if someone is afraid of being reemed for explaining themselves, why make
>the comment in the first place? It's not like this is the Federal Government,
    
    Come on, Glen.  This ain't a discussion in the park or at the pub. 
    This is DEC.  As Steve has said, free speech doesn't exist here.
    
    Don't go about complaining that so-n-so want pour out his soul here. 
    Are you trying to bait someone?  Mr Thompson, perhaps?
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This wasn't to me, but I'll add some thoughts...

>	By society's standards you are aboslutely correct. These are the same
>standards that thought a white person and a black person shouldn't be dating.
>These are the same people who thought witches were evil and burned them at the
>stake. These are the same people who thought blacks should be slaves, women
>should be treated as second class citizens, and that Russians are the hated
>enemy. How does society view all these things now? 

Well, I still know of people that don't think whites and blacks should date,
and they are not the same people that burned witches at the stake.  Hence,
your blanket statement isn't true.

>	If everyone thought the way you just described, would we be as far
>along now as we are? We're a much better society now than we were say in the
>1700's. We still have a long way to go.

Better because gays are coming out???  I don't think so.  In the 1700's,
they didn't have aids to deal with either.  Ever read how many people they
predict will die of aids  by the year 2000?  And don't go into an argument
of how it ain't just a homo illness.  I know that.  But didn't it start
spreading because of the homosexual life style?  I'm no expert in aids, but
I did hear and see some interesting facts on TV on, I think 60 minutes,
about the male lover that went bed-hopping across the world.  And he wasn't
alone.  He sure contributed to the spread of aids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not to me, but...

>	You can send me mail off line, I know we had a simular conversations
>about this before, but just why are you not for gay rights? It would make it
>easier to see why people may have thought you were homophobic.

For his own reasons.  Why must you badger him when he makes it clear of his
stance but doesn't want to showcase it?  And the "homophobic" crapola is a
farce that homosexuals and their "PC" pals use as their shield.

>	I agree. But if we just forget about it, then it just never gets
>addressed. If blacks and whites didn't feel that it WAS ok for them to get
>married, and didn't do anything about it, then where would they be now? The
>same can go with many things.

Many still don't, on BOTH sides.  That one ain't solved either, but that's
another note.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:  .54 

>You have the privilege to NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL, certainly...you get to determine,
>in whatever manner such issues are determined, what YOU do or don't do.  Or,
>at least, that determination is made and affects you, nobody else.  But folks,
>you don't get to decide for anyone else.  Them ain't the rules. 

Even this one is questionable... for example.... parents try to teach their
children morals, to do the right thing... (which is their own preception of
what is decent).  Now if a parent doesn't do so, he/she is setting the child up
for any fool that comes along.  Like the ole saying goes, "if you don't stand
for something, you'll fall for anything."

>Honestly, it seems to me that you feel you can order others how to live their
>lives and I just cannot understand why...

No one is giving orders, I don't think I read that.... If a man wants to take
his boyfriend out to dinner, a movie, and then the motel 6, hey... go for it. 
Now I can have my own views on it... and I might even joke about it.  My right.
I can't do it here, but I might be down at the gym and engage in homo jokes
with my pals.  Our right.  And it ain't agin the law that I know of.  I can't
order a man how to live... but I won't have him order me how to view the world
around me either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not to me...

re:  .56

>    	Gay people are not allowed to marry.  We are not allowed to
>    	serve in the military.  We are not allowed to be foster
>    	parents.  We can, in many states, be fired simply for being
>    	gay.  We can, in many states, be evicted simply for being
>    	gay.  We can be denied accommodations in hotels and restaurants,
>    	again, simply for being gay.  The Supreme Court of the United States 
>    	ruled (in the infamous Hardwick decision) that gay people do not have 
>    	the same right to privacy that straight people do, thereby justifying 
>    	anti-gay laws.  

Obviously, the majority finds the gay life style, unhealth and unfit.  If not,
the laws would have been turned.  I'm divorced.  If my "X" couldn't keep my
child, and for some reason I was not allowed to have him, I know I wouldn't
want him raised in a house with homosexuals.

.42> They have a right to their opinion. But if the opinion is going to
.42> hurt someone else, especially when they really don't know them as a
.42> person, but only as a catagory, then the opinion should be kept
.42> quiet.

Mr. Silva, this still bothers the Hell out of me.  Do you honestly believe
that someone's opinion would be "kept quiet"? Did you mean here in
VAX Notes or outside of work?  Here using Digital resources, perhaps,
but, outside of work ... never in a million years.  NEVER.

.55> Hi Jerry, It gives me hope when I read your notes. Hope that
.55> individuals can and will stand up for what they believe in.
    
Thank you.  I get knocked down some times - but - I call "medic!",
get back up and keep going.  I'm going to keep fighting until I
drop - until they nail the lid on the pine box - then I'm going to
kick it open and keep fighting.

.56> Do you believe there is an inalienable right to privacy?

I'm always leery of "do you" type questions (many times it ends up
as bait).  Why don't you go ahead and ask the rest of the question,
or make your statement.

.56> What happens when the inalienable rights of two different
.56> people are in conflict?

As I said, I don't want this string to take such a tangent to "rights"
or Constitutional law.  My position statement was made to demonstrate
that which is considered by some people to be "homophobic".  This
subject has been discussed many times in many conferences.  If I'm
wrong, I'm sure the readers will let me know.  Perhaps off-line
would be best.

> Gay men have the same rights That I have.

I agree.  [However, you should include 'gay women' and 'bisexuals'
or you're gonna' step in some deep PC do-do]

.56> Well I suppose this depends on what you mean by "rights."

In a way you're correct.  In the examples... you are confusing "rights"
with "contractual obligations".  There is a big difference.  Another
thing bothers me with your examples.  A 'right' is a sanction of independent
action.  A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist ... you are a a
slave - a permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of
society (a 'gay rights law') - you are not free, whether such permission
is granted or not.  Only a slave acts on permission.  A permission is not
a right.  We tried slavery as a country.  It didn't work.  I, for one,
don't want to return to it.

Your mileage may differ.

Good grief!  What am I doing up a this time of the night (morning)!!
THE END!
    
Bubba

    
    Well,the way its stands,most of my opinion,would be just expect people the
    they way are.So, why if a man decides he did not want to elaberate on
    his opinion,do this mean he do not understand homosexuality.Well,people
    have the right to keep to them selves Don,t they.
            Bye the way,some of my close freinds resently,ask why I was not 
    going out on dates latly,considering they know a few shale we say close
    female friends who well realy like my stile.Why was the first ? brang
    up that maybe I have come out the closet,and decided I was gay.I just 
    decided to take a brake.I think I do have that right,don,t I.
    

    
	In 640.54, the writer asks why there is homophobia. I think you can
    get an answer to that question if you can determine why Catholics and
    Protestants are at war in Northern Ireland, if you can figure out why
    there is black / white prejudice in the U.S., if you can understand the
    'distaste' that is experienced between rich and poor, if you have a
    feeling for the difficulties that exist between Arab and Jew, if you
    know the causes of conflict between Turk and Greek, if you feel the
    animosity between 'cowboy' and 'Indian', if you sense the difficulty
    between French and English Quebecois, if you know how New Hampshire
    drivers feel about their Massachusetts counterparts, if you can see the
    positions of the Big-endians and Little-endians in Lilliput! 

    In sum, prejudice seems to be inherent in the human psyche. Gays aren't
    being singled out for "special attention". They're just getting the
    same treatment that is accorded any minority by the majority. 

    ALL of the above examples of prejudice MAY have some instance of basis
    in fact. Some Catholic undoubtedly killed some Protestant in Northern
    Ireland, some white person certainly hanged some black man, some rich
    person undoubtedly sneered at a poor urchin in the gutter, some
    'cowboy' was undoubtedly scalped by some "Indian", some sexual pervert
    (perhaps inappropriately identified as gay) undoubtedly molested some
    child. 

    Each instance, whether or not we understand the cause, contributes to
    the development of a gestalt, an image not characteristic of any single
    instance, but still representing society's view of the whole. If that
    image is 'different' from the norm, there is an overwhelming
    probability that there will be negative prejudice employed against the
    members of the groups. 

    No, I can't quote you 'chapter and verse' with proper bibliographic
    reference, it's just my view of the situation. 

    I can see the possibility of an uninformed parent worrying that a gay
    person might 'drag their child into a gay lifestyle' or might 'convince
    their child to be a lesbian'. In that case, there might be real FEAR,
    fear for the welfare of the child. It's my opinion that that fear is
    unfounded because I believe that either you ARE gay or you AREN'T. Just
    as champions are made and not born (Wheaties ad?), I believe gays are
    born and not made. And that belief removes the only possible source of
    fear that I can imagine. 

    So, as I say, I think "homophobia" is the wrong word, it's NOT a matter
    of FEAR implied by the term 'phobia', but instead it's a matter of
    DISTASTE or a matter of HATRED depending on where the member of the
    majority is on the possible scale of feeling about the issue. And I'd
    suggest that this particular prejudice is no more unusual nor any more
    onerous than many OTHER prejudices directed against some minority of
    the population for whatever cause. 

    I actively try to remove whatever prejudice I find cropping up in my
    own behavior, but I must admit that I still feel "funny" around midgets
    and the severely physically disabled. Look at your own feelings to see
    if you can find a source for what you call homophobia. If you ever
    sense some 'unjustified' feeling of ill-ease in dealing with another
    person, try to figure out where it comes from - it may be your
    'majority position value system' colliding with a minority member's
    stereotype. 

| >It isn't right to put people into demeaning
| >catagories for the simple reason of they are gay, black, what have you. Get to
| >know the person, then make a decision on whether this person will fit into your
| >life. But please, let's not do this because of they're <insert favorite
| >difference>.

| But Glen, we ALL do that!  

	Dwight, read the first line of what I said. I didn't say we didn't do
it, but it isn't right.

| And it'll never change.  

	Maybe not for you, but for me it has changed a lot.

| He's an example...  If
| a fellow is found out to be a member of the KKK, he'll put in a demeaning
| category by most of those that find him out!  

	There's a MAJOR difference between the two. One group has been known to
go out and hurt, even kill people for being black, gay, different religion,
etc. Are gay people known for that? One part you seemed to have left out was
the fact that any group I was talking about was a group that DIDN'T go out and
hurt other people. That's where the big difference lies. How could anyone be
expected to trust a someone who is involved in a group that hurts other people?

| The way I figure it is...
| If God had wanted man to support a homosexual life style, He would have
| created...
| "Adam and Steve."

	Were Adam and Eve white? Where did blacks come into play? Using your
theory we shouldn't have any blacks, Asians, etc. Can you see where that
doesn't work?

| >I hope we can get past this someday and know what they are talking about. I
| >mean, if someone is afraid of being reemed for explaining themselves, why make
| >the comment in the first place? It's not like this is the Federal Government,

| Come on, Glen.  This ain't a discussion in the park or at the pub.
| This is DEC.  As Steve has said, free speech doesn't exist here.

| Don't go about complaining that so-n-so want pour out his soul here.
| Are you trying to bait someone?  Mr Thompson, perhaps?

	No baiting is being done. When someone makes a comment that's
demeaning, all I would like is for them to clarify it. That's all. Nothing
more, nothing less.

| >	By society's standards you are aboslutely correct. These are the same
| >standards that thought a white person and a black person shouldn't be dating.
| >These are the same people who thought witches were evil and burned them at the
| >stake. These are the same people who thought blacks should be slaves, women
| >should be treated as second class citizens, and that Russians are the hated
| >enemy. How does society view all these things now?

| Well, I still know of people that don't think whites and blacks should date,
| and they are not the same people that burned witches at the stake.  Hence,
| your blanket statement isn't true.

	Dwight, the majority of people in this world don't find a problem with
blacks marrying whites. Plain and simple. The whole point is it doesn't matter
if the same people were around for the burning of witches or for thinking
blacks and whites should/n't marry, the end result is this, they were wrong
before with how they felt towards others, and they are wrong now.

| >	If everyone thought the way you just described, would we be as far
| >along now as we are? We're a much better society now than we were say in the
| >1700's. We still have a long way to go.

| Better because gays are coming out???  I don't think so.  

	Better because society has found their impressions of groups were
wrong. That they are the same as the rest of us. Like it or not, in time it
will include gays.

| In the 1700's,
| they didn't have aids to deal with either.  Ever read how many people they
| predict will die of aids  by the year 2000?  And don't go into an argument
| of how it ain't just a homo illness.  I know that.  But didn't it start
| spreading because of the homosexual life style?  I'm no expert in aids, but
| I did hear and see some interesting facts on TV on, I think 60 minutes,
| about the male lover that went bed-hopping across the world.  And he wasn't
| alone.  He sure contributed to the spread of aids.

	So hasn't many hets. I would suggest you read the aids/hiv topic in
this notesfile. I think you will find all of the information you need in there. 
Deb Arch has done a great job providing statistical data for us.

| >	You can send me mail off line, I know we had a simular conversations
| >about this before, but just why are you not for gay rights? It would make it
| >easier to see why people may have thought you were homophobic.

| For his own reasons.  Why must you badger him when he makes it clear of his
| stance but doesn't want to showcase it?  And the "homophobic" crapola is a
| farce that homosexuals and their "PC" pals use as their shield.

	I asked him because we had similar conversations before. I had
forgotten what he said. BTW, Jerry did send me mail explaining his position to
me. You see Dwight, not everyone is out to get you hets. I asked a question, I
got an answer, and it was quite easy. No badgering has persued. No need for it.



Glen

| Not to mention the fact that about 60% of homosexuals are very much against
| so called "legislated" gay rights.

	Jerry, where did you come up with this figure? I'm curious. Is that 60%
of all gays, just in one area..... please let me know.


Glen

	
	Bubba, your .52 was very persuading as far as it went, but it
    would have been more effective if you'd later answered Greg's three
    .56 questions instead of dodging 'em.

	Since I'm feeling so magnanimous today, I won't even rip you to 
    shreds for the "PC do-do" crack in .58.
    
    	re .61 - Thanks for the encouraging words about my AIDS notes,
    Glen!
    
    	deb

    
    
    re:  gay rights
    
    Is it possible that semantics are getting in the way of discussion of
    the real issue here?
    
    About 3 years ago, Chicago passed its "gay rights" ordinance, or so it
    was called.  But, it isn't, I don't thinkg really a "rights".  What was
    really done was to add the words "sexual orientation" to the list of
    groups in the nondiscrimination clause of the human rights ordinance.
    This doesn't had gay people any "new rights", it simply states, on the
    record, that discrimination based on sexual orientation (translation:
    when our inalienable rights have been infringed upon) will not be
    tolerated.
    
    	Greg

    
    RE: .64
    
    Precisely, Greg.  Some would have you believe that "gay rights"
    laws are actually granting us some kind of new right.  At least
    that seems to be what's being said in all the talk about 
    inalienable rights, etc....
    
    "Gay rights" laws don't grant new rights.  Gay people do have the
    same "inalienable" rights as every one else.  (Jerry, whether
    society grants me "permission" to be intimate with my partner or
    not, I'm going to do what I want.  I'm not a slave nor to I behave 
    as a slave, nor will anti-discrimination laws make me a slave.)
    
    What we don't have are the same *practical* rights (for want of
    a better term) as straights. What "gay rights" laws do is allow gays 
    legal recourse should someone decided not to honor the inalienable 
    rights we all have.
    
    My questions regarding the right to privacy are quite relevent
    here.  For if you believe there is an inalienable right to privacy
    than how can you support the violations of privacy often necessary
    to fire a gay employee or evict a gay tennent?  Or to declare the
    private acts of adults, illegal (and I'm not just talking about
    sexual acts here)?  Firm support of "inalienable rights" is all
    well and good.  But you have to look down the line to see where
    unwavering support of those rights will take you.
    
    /Greg

.65> ...you have to look down the line to see where unwavering
.65> support of those [inalienable] rights will take you.

Precisely what I have tried to do.  We haven't (as a country)
done all that bad for the last 200+ years.

End of tangent?

Bubba

    RE: .57
    
    Dwight - two things:
    
    1) There is no such thing as a single "homosexual lifestyle."
    	AIDS was not spread by "the homosexual lifestyle" - it was
    	spread mainly through a sub-culture of promiscuous gay men
    	and is still spread by men and women (gay and straight) who 
    	don't play safe.
    	
    	Any discussion of homosexuality that turns to AIDS as a means 
    	to argue against homosexuals is questionable for one very simple 
    	reason.  It ignores far too many people - namely lesbians.
    
    2) >Obviously, the majority finds the gay life style, unhealth and unfit.
    
    	Obviously.  I believe the majority is wrong.  For one thing,
    	the majority doesn't even know what it means when it talks
    	about the "gay lifestyle"  For another, the majority can't
    	point to any evidence that proves gay people are inherently
    	unhealthly or unfit.  The only semi-valid argument I've heard
    	so far is a religious one - and that's only from those who
    	believe the Bible is 100% true and correct in all ways (and
    	even then I'm skeptical because it seems to me, even those
    	who claim to believe the Bible is 100% true ignore parts of
    	it where it is convenient to do so).  So you'll have to do
    	a lot more than mention "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" to
    	give your appeal to religion any weight.
    
    
    What it boils down to is gut reaction.  But a gut reaction based
    on bigotry and a lack of information.  Mr. Griffin gave several
    similar examples (racism, sexism, classism, etc....)  Who here is
    prepared to argue that blatent racism should be tolerated because,
    well, just because they feel like a racist?  Or what about sexism?
    Clearly when the men here hear about the 1-in-100 glass chewing, 
    lesbian, feminist man-hater, they are not prepared to accept her 
    vision of how society should treat men.  And I haven't heard 
    recently that the poor, because they are poor, should rightly be 
    denied the ability to improve themselves (i.e. rise from one class
    to the next) or that one who is wealthy should never associate with 
    the poor.
    
    But apparently it is still OK to hate gays because, "well just
    because they make me uncomfortable."
    
    Is this right?
    
    /Greg

    RE: .66

    > Precisely what I have tried to do.  We haven't (as a country)
    > done all that bad for the last 200+ years.

    The framer's belief in inalienable rights did not protect
    slaves (and later, African Americans) or women or gays or 
    Japanese Americans or Native Americans....

    I'll be the first in line to praise the form of government we
    have in this country and to revere the men and women who made
    America what it is.  But that doesn't mean I can't complain
    when I see something out of whack.  When the Supreme Court
    of the Unites States can decided that I *DON'T* have the same
    rights as the guy in the next cube because of a difference
    in our innate sexuality, all is not well.

    Your support of and belief in inalienable rights, as you have
    argued here, does not protect the minority from the tyranny of 
    the majority.  The Framer's knew this and wrote provisions into
    the Constitution to protect "all men [who] are created equal."

    Sadly, it has taken us 200+ years and we are still not there yet.

    /Greg

.68> The framer's belief in inalienable rights did not protect
.68> slaves (and later, African Americans) or women or gays or 
.68> Japanese Americans or Native Americans....

Incredible.  At this rate I wonder why the United States has
historically become the "melting pot" for people of all races,
creeds, religions, national origins, and, yes, sexual orientation(s).

.68> Sadly, it has taken us 200+ years and we are still not there yet.

"Democracy" was/is an experiment of incomprehensible proportions.  It is
still an experiment and still evolving.

Bubba

IMO, what discomforts heterosexuals when discussing homosexuality is the
thought of personal participation in homosexual activity....that is repelling
to a heterosexual, and the het reacts to that feeling, and at the same time,
to others who participate in these activities.  I think we all need to
remember that homosexuals probably find our heterosexual behaviors just as
repelling.  Hence, what you have is "different wiring".  Homosexual activity,
to a heterosexual, is unnatural.  To a homosexual, heterosexual activity is
unnatural.  And before you start throwing bibles at me, again, let us remember
the bible also makes it clear that we, as mere mortals, face a dreadful 
punishment for presuming to take on the tasks that God has determined are
HIS work.  "Judge not lest YE be judged" is a wise piece of advice.  It is time
for us to stop saying, "YOU ARE BAD BECAUSE YOU ARE HOMOSEXUAL" and
start saying "HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT NATURAL OR RIGHT FOR ME".  In this statement,
you are not presuming to condemn the person...you are, rightfully, rejecting
the activity that is unacceptable FOR YOU.  And you can expect to hear the
same rejection of heterosexual activity from homosexuals.

Re: raising our children to have a sexual orientation.  

Yes, parents should raise their children to be healthy, strong, well-centered
adults.  However, the presumption that a parent can, in some manner, decide
who his/her child will love or desire is way out in left field.  You don't
OWN your children, you are simply the parent.  A child will choose his/her
partners with or without your blessing....in the same manner which drives you
to choose YOUR partners.  You know that no one can dictate to you whom you
find desirable.  Can you remember any time in your life when someone
could?  Of course not.  To assume that you have this kind of control over
your own children presumes them to be some different creature than you...not
human.  This is a very unhealthy way to approach parenting, in my opinion,
and it will undoubtably doom you and your children to a great deal of
unhappiness.

    RE: .69
    
    >Incredible.
    
    Why?  The fact that the Framer's believed in inalienable rights
    did not prevent the people of this country from holding slaves,
    "owning" women, taking land from its rightful owners or from
    putting Japanese Americans in "internment" camps during WWII.
    That is a fact, Jerry.  Supreme Court rulings are also facts.
    Patriotic appeals do not make facts go away. 
    
    I don't deny that even with these faults, the US is a far better
    place than many other nations - even some other western industrial
    democracies - when it comes to the ability of a diverse citizenry
    to live together in relative peace.  As I've indicated before.  You
    seem to have overlooked this.  
    
    In any event, we can do better.  That is my point.
    
    /Greg

    
    
    re:  .70
    
    Fabulous note!!!!  I'd nominate for the "hall-of-fame" note, but this
    conference doesn't have one!  8-)
    
    	Greg -- on the way to DVO for a week

    RE: .71
    
    $EOJ
    $EOD

    >Who here is prepared to argue that blatent racism should be tolerated
    >because, well, just because they feel like a racist?
    
        Let's alter the above sentence just a tad...
    
    Who here is prepared to argue that blatant homosexuality should be
    tolerated because, well, just because they feel like a gay?
    
        My personal beliefs aside on either racism or homosexuality, I
    would agrue that either group(racists or gays) can say what they want,
    where they want in America.  If I don't like it, I simply won't listen.
    
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    > Who here is prepared to argue that blatant homosexuality should be
    > tolerated because, well, just because they feel like a gay?

    	Precisely my point.  I'm not arguing for anything because
    	I just feel like it.  If I did, I'd expect my arguments
    	would be thought of as silly and ignorant. 
    	
    >  My personal beliefs aside on either racism or homosexuality, I
    > would agrue that either group(racists or gays) can say what they want,
    > where they want in America.  If I don't like it, I simply won't listen.

    	I can't disagree with that, L.J.  But I think it implies
    	an offensive connection between racism and homosexuality.

    	Whether you believe being gay is a choice or is inherent,
    	gay people "being gay" do not harm anyone.  Racists being
    	racist clearly do.

    	Acts that affect the rights of other people shouldn't be
    	based on gut feel - there should be reasons.  We outlaw
    	racist discrimination not only for subjective philosophical
    	reasons but also because of the objective and measurable
    	harm it causes other human beings. 

    	Likewise, it is my hope that society's treatment of gay
    	people reflect rational thought on how that treatment
    	affects the rights of the people in question, and not only
    	be the result of gut reaction, or abstract philosophy.

    /Greg

    >...gay people "being gay" do not harm anyone.  Racist being racist
    >clearly do.
    
        This is incorrect in my opinion.  It all depends on your idea of
    harm.  My cousin coming out of the closet hurt several family members
    and friends who felt he had *lied* to them for quite some time.
        Some people with certain religious beliefs would be hurt and
    angered by someone being openly gay...they would say it is against
    Gods will.
    
        And not all racists consider a fun night to be gay-bashing or
    burning crosses on peoples lawns. To even hint at that is to generalize
    and I believe that is wrong.
        Just as it is a small fringe element that are radically for gay
    rights and sometimes resort to violence, it is also (IMHO) a fringe
    of bigots that are card carrying KKK members.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

If we, as humans, can learn to just accept that there are differences in
the way others around us live their lives, and stop trying to force others
to "follow my rules", I think we can begin focusing on the ways in which we
are ALIKE.  We are all members of the same "tribe", the human race.  We all
feel love, fear, lonliness, loss, and pain.  We all aspire to live a life
in which we can feel loved, and love in return.  We are all subject to lust
for other humans from time to time.  We all want to be allowed
to live our life without fear of persecution because of what we feel.

I don't feel this should be an issue of "toleration" because that
word implies that you have some investment in the fact that another feels
differently than you about choice of a sexual partner.  Unless you are the
target of the other's interest, you don't have any investment, nor is that
choice any of your business.

I want to caution us all against the presumption of heterosexuality in those 
who act "manly" (or, for women, "feminine"), or the presumption of 
homosexuality in those men who are more flamboyant in their expressiveness, 
or colorful in their dress....or in women who do not wear makeup or dress up 
in classically feminine style.  This is very sterotypical thinking, and 
humans are seldom prone to reliably live up to sterotypes.  Perhaps we should
all focus on one another's humanity...and leave the issue of sexuality to
those who "need to know"...when they need to know it.

re: religeon and hostility to homosexuality

This is one of MY hot buttons.  If you choose to believe that huge purple cows
are the prime source of all that is good in this world it is your choice to
believe that....BUT I DON'T HAVE TO.  It's the law of this land.  It's in the
Bill Of Rights, one of the most basic premises on which this "grand experiment
called democracy" is built.  I can NOT BELIEVE in your religeon if I so choose.

I don't feel one whit of sympathy for a religeous person who feels "hurt"
because someone is not following the rules of that person's religeon.  In
order for that person to be "hurt", he/she must feel privileged to tell others
how and what to believe....and that is clearly AGAINST THE LAW.  Nobody has
the right to force anyone to BE homosexual.  Conversely, nobody has the right
to tell someone else he/she CANNOT be homosexual.

    
    is it ok for homosexuals to hit on young teens, then?
    
    don't tell me this doesn't happen, either..

>    is it ok for homosexuals to hit on young teens, then?
    
    Guess it depends how hard they hit. It's doubtful that it's ever as
    hard as groups of teenagers sometimes hit those they think are
    homosexual.
    
    Y'know, I'm really starting to think that homophobia has so much power
    just because the occasional pick-up attempt by a gay is the only time
    most men get to find out what it's like to be annoyed sexually. A lot
    of these same guys think nothing of catcalls or other rudenesses
    directed at girls and women -- then it's supposed to be "flattering".
    So, hey, let your "young teen" be flattered...
    
    Ray

    re:.80
    
        I agree.  It is no more or less acceptable to have a older
    person of any gender and persuasion hit on a minor.  Period.
    
    
    
                                L.J.

.75> 	Whether you believe being gay is a choice or is inherent,
.75> 	gay people "being gay" do not harm anyone.  Racists being
.75> 	racist clearly do.

I'm with L.J. on this - I, for one, don't buy this statement.  What
you may consider to be perfectly "natural" in homosexuality may seriously
offend/hurt others.  That "hurt" is very real and just as significant
as any other hurt.  More often than not the response is well, they'll
just have to ... "get used to it".  Well, horse hockey [the fertilizer,
not the game].

There are those who think that I am the most vile person on the face
of the earth because I drink, smoke, swear, hunt, have killed (humans
and animals).  I *know* that it genuinely hurts some people for me to
be around them ... so be it ... it's their problem, not mine.  I'll not
keep bringing up any of the same subjects, not continue to "hurt" these
individuals, and, may even opt to not associate with those people.  That's
life. That's reality.

There are some people/things that I can change and there are some
people/things that I cannot change.  For the most part I'm damned
fortunate to be able to recognize the difference.

Let's take a tangent for a moment to race relations - what you consider
to be "racist" may by your (or my) definition be "racist" but the fact
of the matter remains that to *them* it is a "natural" order of things.

I have a great aunt (approaching 100) who will not allow a black person
to sit at her table - she will not watch the "Crosby Show" and doesn't
like to watch commercials where blacks are the predominate characters.
			Is she a "racist"?

Let's add a little more to the story ...I guarantee you that if that
same black person is hungry, she will in fact share her last morsel
of food with them ... if they are cold, she will make sure that they
have clothes ... if they are hurt she will insure that they have medical
attention (at her expense) ... if they are without shelter, she will (at
her expense) make sure that they have shelter.
			Is she a "racist"?

Enough of this ... on to one of the more serious contests of the year ... 
the score just went to Redskins 10 and Cowboys 14, and I've got to give
this game my undivided attention.

Bubba

    	There seems to be a contradiction in .76.
    
>        This is incorrect in my opinion.  It all depends on your idea of
>    harm.  My cousin coming out of the closet hurt several family members
>    and friends who felt he had *lied* to them for quite some time.
>        Some people with certain religious beliefs would be hurt and
>    angered by someone being openly gay...they would say it is against
>    Gods will.
    
    	In the first paragraph people are harmed because he "lied", which
    presumably means that he did not reveal that he was homosexual as soon
    as he knew himself.
    
    	In the second paragraph "people with certain religious beliefs"
    are depicted as being hurt if he does not continue to lie.
    
    	I suppose a homosexual should take a majority vote amongst his
    friends and relations about whether he should lie or not?

    The whole question here is where do YOU draw the line? Peoples and
    societies draw the lines in different places.
    
    			For example
    
    Do you believe stealing is wrong? some stealing, or all stealing?
    Some people think certain kinds of stealing are OK (givmt, from the
    rich, etc)
    
    Do you believe that having sex with a minor is wrong? Why? Some people
    think it is OK?
    
    
    RE hitting on minors:
    
    As I recall, Gerry Studds is the ONLY member of congress to have
    admitted to having had sex (raped) a minor and is still serving. To
    many, myself included, he would not be there (i.e. in jail) had he
    raped a female. It was not PC to throw him out (as a minimum) or
    prosecute him (as was correct). Yes he is only one person, but he is
    also just one member of an elite club of elected, supposedly
    responsible officials who are supposed to look out for the good of all
    the people of this country. If this causes you to label me homophobic,
    then I can probably come up with a label (assuming that you think this
    action is appropiate) for you also, and it would not be kind.
    
    Steve

| For example

| Do you believe stealing is wrong? some stealing, or all stealing?
| Some people think certain kinds of stealing are OK (givmt, from the
| rich, etc)

	Stealing is wrong regardless of the reason. The ends don't justify the
means.

| Do you believe that having sex with a minor is wrong? Why? Some people
| think it is OK?

	Of course it's wrong. But let's remember your question, sex with minors
is wrong. This includes all minors, not just little boys. I will never
understand why people always associate gays with little minor boys. Yes, there
are some who do, but they are a minority. Just like het men who go after little
minor girls. If you feel that gay men are always going after little boys, and
you feel that this is the norm, then the only logical way of thinking is that
you feel het men do the same and it is the norm for them. Why do I say this?
It's because the only difference between gay/het men is that we like a
different gender. Other than that, there is no difference.

| As I recall, Gerry Studds is the ONLY member of congress to have
| admitted to having had sex (raped) a minor and is still serving. 

	And Ted Kennedy is still in office after Chapaquidick. What's your
point. It's all in who you know. Also, can you give specifics on this? I kind
of remember him having sex with a paige, but I don't recall the rape part.



Glen

| is it ok for homosexuals to hit on young teens, then?

| don't tell me this doesn't happen, either..

	Oh, it happens. It happens in BOTH the het and gay worlds. I know it's
pretty easy to just go after something that you don't like, but we should all
look at the whole picture. Both gays/hets are wrong in doing this. What else is
there to say?


Glen

.85> Stealing is wrong regardless of the reason. The ends don't justify the
.85> means.            ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^

I stole food and weapons from the VC and the NVA.  Reason being, I wanted
to stay alive.  In my humble estimation, the ends justified the means.
"Regardless" is a very broad word.

Do not judge me by some abstract principle and tell me that I'm "wrong".
Get to know me as a person and understand my reasons for these actions.

You're doing precisely what you ask others not to do?

Bubba

    I tend to think stealing is wrong.  I also believe the ends justify
    the means.  I know I would steal to keep me and mine alive and well.
    I also know I wouldn't steal if I didn't need the money to "survive".
    
    I would be doing something I believe is wrong...but I *would* do it.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

    What is "harm?"

    That's a very good question.  If you are offended because you
    find out I'm gay and you get very upset because of it, that 
    is NOT my fault.  I did not *harm* you.  I did not fill your
    head with your ideas and opinions about gays.  You and society
    did that.  So be mad at yourself.  Be mad at society.  But I will
    not accept you being mad at me because *I* didn't make you hate
    gays. Sure, you may nevertheless *be* mad at me.  If you are
    friend/family, I'll deal with it. If not, tough.

    Your *feelings* (which are the only things affected by my coming 
    out) are YOUR responsibility, not mine. 

    Racism on the other hand causes clear and visible harm.  I'm
    talking about the kind of racism that denies people homes,
    jobs, etc... Tell me how a gay person being honest about
    themselves harms anyone.  Specifically.  I want to know exactly
    what this harm is and how it is caused.

    I can't believe people are trying to compare being openly
    racist with being openly gay.  An openly gay person is only
    trying to live their life in peace, with a little dignity
    and self-respect. The gay activists are loud and obnoxious
    to get media attention and break the silence - to get people
    thinking - it certainly isn't the way the average gay person
    wants to live their life.  But these activist are people who
    have grown sick and tired of homophobia/homohatred/gay bashings,
    etc... If society would allow gay people to live as equal 
    members, the activists would, for the most part, go away.

    In contrast, a racist, by definition, lives his or
    her life by systematically judging people on the basis of
    the color of their skin and taking *ACTION* based upon that
    judgment.  If the person is only racist in thought, I still
    wouldn't say that's a desirable situation because the
    potential exists for that person to act in a racist manner,
    not to mention influence other people to be racist. 

    Now certainly we each have a right to think racist thoughts
    and say racist things (and I would fight to keep that right
    to my dying breath) - it is only racist actions that are
    illegal (due to anti-discrimination laws).  
    
    Speaking of actions - I think two people mentioned sexual
    advances towards minors.  The problem is with child molesters,
    not with gays.  Something like 90% of child molesters are
    heterosexual males anyway so I don't know why people seem to
    always bring up the subject in a discussion about homosexuality.


    /Greg

>>    is it ok for homosexuals to hit on young teens, then?
>>    
>>    don't tell me this doesn't happen, either..

NO.  Nor is it okay for heterosexual men and women to hit on young teens!!!!
This is an example of predatory sexual behavior that is a form of child abuse.
It is NOT alright for any adult to prey on young teens, regardless of sexual
orientation....however, I wonder just how much outrage would be generated
by a 21 year old man dating a 17 year old girl.  

In spite of the urban legends to the contrary, predatory adult homosexuals
DO NOT turn teenage boys into homosexuals.  By the time a boy gets into his
teens, HE KNOWS which way his interests lie.  Didn't YOU know by the time
you were fifteen whether you wanted to have sex with girls or boys?  If you
did not, you are certainly in a minority...quite possibly a minority of 1.
According to all I've read on the subject, homosexuals KNOW they are 
"different" in their sexual interests at a very early age, far before teenage
years.  Many tried very hard to force themselves to be interested in "the
right sex" during their teens and young adulthoods, but they KNEW what they
felt.

Young prostitutes who are forced to sell themselves to survive are another
ugly story...and there are just as many young girls selling themselves to
heterosexual males as there are young boys selling themselves to homosexual
men, so that is certainly NOT a problem centered on, or caused by, 
homosexuality.

A reader has asked, in VAXmail, for clarification on some of my comments
in this string.  I perhaps incorrectly assumed that there were no probems
as there was no correspondence - yet a few compliments in the conference.

Please allow me to clarify some earlier notes.  I am not a homophobe.


Note 640.28	What's wrong with saying that gays are "abnormal or
		unhealthy"?  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! 

I'm not agreeing with the statement, but, the fact that others may
feel that way and that they have a perfect right to their opinion.


Note 640.48	I despise ACT-UP (and have in fact engaged in ...shall we
		say "physical contact" during their demonstrations) but
		I will defend to the death their right to look like fools. 

I agree with some of the goals of ACT-UP but think that their tactics
are at best odious.  At one time I became involved in an unfortunate
situation where it became necessary to physially resist their advances
during a demonstration in the Los Angeles area.


Note 640.50	As a prime example - take that of the so called (legislated)
		gay rights.

I attempted to explain this in a later note.  I am not against "rights"
for any minority group, but, am adamately opposed to such *legislation*
for the reasons stated.

		I'll be the first to admit that I get darned tire of it
		being shoved down my throat ... 

Simply a tacit statment that I, personally,  get tired of the "agenda"
some times.  Some people have an agenda, some don't, that's all there
is to it.  Similarly, I get tired of the fundamentalist agenda, the
Democratic Party agenda, the femininst agenda, and so on.   It *does*
make for good discussion at time, and, I love a good political discussion,
and some times participate ... 


	For many men, homosexuality is bizarre, replusive, and unhealthy.
		:
	I agree.  

I'm simply stating that some people (men and women) think that way -
I agree that they think that way.  I'm not agreeing with the statment.


Note 640.82	What you may consider to be perfectly "natural" in
		homosexuality may seriously offend/hurt others.  That
		"hurt" is very real and just as significant as any
		other hurt.

A simple statement of putting myself in the shoes of the other person.
I know for a FACT that my sainted grandmother would be DEVASTATED and
genuinely HURT if I told here that I do not believe in "God" and reject
the church.  I didn't agree with my grandmother but I didn't bring up
the subject because I know that it would have *really* hurt her.  I
didn't tell her to "get used to it" or anything of the kind.  I put
myself in her shoes and understood how she felt.


There may be others out there who were afraid to write me (for whatever
reason) and this clarification may help.  I hope it does.

Bubba

>I didn't agree with my grandmother but I didn't bring up
>the subject because I know that it would have *really* hurt her.  I
>didn't tell her to "get used to it" or anything of the kind.  I put
>myself in her shoes and understood how she felt.
    
    But she never understood how you felt.  In order to "save her feelings"
    you made her think you were something you weren't.  I certainly do that
    a lot myself, but I don't think it's really the most healthy way to 
    relate to the people you love.  I applaud people who have the courage
    to present themselves as they really are.  In the end -- and I have
    read this in many books, so I know it's true :^) -- you are not
    responsible for other people's feelings.
    
    						- Vick

.92> But she never understood how you felt.  In order to "save her feelings"
.92> you made her think you were something you weren't.

Quite the contrary - sorry I didn't make this clear - when I came home
from the USMC I stopped attending church ... when she asked me why -
I (gently!) told her.  I could almost "feel" the hurt in her ... it
really bothered me.  It's just one of those things that we never brought
up again.  She loved me dearly and I loved her dearly and that love was
there until the day that she passed away.

.92> I certainly do that a lot myself, but I don't think it's really
.92> the most healthy way to  relate to the people you love.

Yes, I'm sure that to some extent we all may do it.  It's because I
love someone that I will some times not discuss sensitive issues.

.92> I applaud people who have the courage to present themselves
.92> as they really are.

Interesting.  How *you* perceive someone may not be the same way that
*they* perceive their self (i.e., "as they really are").

I also agree (patting myself on the back) - it took an ENORMOUS amount
of courage to tell grandmother exactly why I no longer attend church.
That was a long time ago, but, believe me, that moment in my life is
just as vivid today as it was back then.

Bubba

    In re Gary Studds, the page that he had relations with (not rape)
    was on the order of 17, not a child, tho still a minor. Can we
    guarantee that there are *no* congressmen who have ever, once
    they were over 21, had any sort of relationship with a female
    under 18?
    
    

    Inquiring mindless that needs to know. Where is the minor and the child
    cross over in age? As in when is a child a minor or a minor a child?
    This should be a double digit answer and nothing more in remarks or nit
    picking.

	Jerry. First you said:


|A simple statement of putting myself in the shoes of the other person.
|I know for a FACT that my sainted grandmother would be DEVASTATED and
|genuinely HURT if I told here that I do not believe in "God" and reject
|the church.  I didn't agree with my grandmother but I didn't bring up
|the subject because I know that it would have *really* hurt her.  I
|didn't tell her to "get used to it" or anything of the kind.  I put
|myself in her shoes and understood how she felt.

	Then you said:

|Quite the contrary - sorry I didn't make this clear - when I came home
|from the USMC I stopped attending church ... when she asked me why -
|I (gently!) told her.  


	Which was it? You used it to make a point in the first part as to why
you wouldn't push your agenda. It was because it would have hurt her if she
knew. In the second part you said you did tell her. This kind of kills off the
first part, doesn't it? 

	As far as you being a homophobe goes, we view things differently on a
lot of subjects. We have had countless discussions in mail about how you feel
about things. It is true that we will never agree with each other on a lot of
these things, but from what I have seen so far of you, you aren't a homophobe.
Just because we can't agree with everything about this lifestyle, I haven't
really seen any malice towards gays on your part, just a different
understanding and different way of approaching things. 


Glen

    Well, I'm certainly glad that you had such a good relationship with
    your grandmother.  I'm glad that she loved you even after the
    "DEVASTATION" and "HURT" she must have suffered when you told her you
    didn't believe in God.  She dealt with her feelings on the matter, 
    because that was her job.  You were not responsible for her feelings.
    
    If someone feels offended or hurt when another person talks about
    homosexuality, then I say fine, be offended or hurt.  Those are your
    feelings.  But the person talking about homosexuality is not
    responsible for those feelings.  It is not his problem.  He is not
    obliged to remain silent because the other person has problems with
    his feelings.  He can if he wants, but he is not wrong if he doesn't.
    
    					- Vick

RE: .98


	I like what you wrote Vick. :-)



Glen

    George,
    
    That is a hard question to answer. In the past people were considered
    of marriageable age by 13 or 14 for females and able to leave home
    and be apprentices, or ships boys etc. by that age for males. In
    20th century America we've extended childhood well beyond the age
    of sexual maturity and then encounter problems when the inevitable
    conflict between bodily maturity and societal maturity come into
    conflict.
    
    A person who is 17, however, is generally a high school graduate and
    is either holding a job or heading off to college. So while they
    are not of legal age yet, they are also no longer a child. Further
    more, a male of 17 is quite likely well aware of what his sexual
    orientation is. So I find the seduction of a 17 year old male by
    and older man to be no more reprehensible than the seduction of
    a 17 year old female by an older man, and far less reprehensible
    than the seduction of either gender below the age of statutory rape.
    As to where I'd make the cross over as to whether it is child abuse
    or simply inappropriate due to age and experience, somewhere in the
    late teens, and it would depend to a degree on the individuals
    involved and the amount of coercion involved. For example my 17 year
    old son is retarded. I would regard any one who tried to have
    anything sexual to do with him to be a child abuser. 
    
    Bonnie

In some of these messages, I get the feeling that there is an attitude of
"fine if you're gay, but don't make anyone DEAL with it".  I have several
homosexual friends and I know the pain they go through because their families
and friends seem to expect them to deny they have ANY sexuality.  It isn't
reasonable for parents to expect their son or daughter to deny this aspect
of his/her life because it "bothers" parents/siblings...and, in attempting to 
comply with such unrealistic demands, the homosexual is bound to become 
alienated from the family anyway.  It is absolutely debilitating to be 
around people with whom you must watch your every word and gesture.  You tend 
to avoid such encounters at all costs.  It is incredibly painful when those
people you avoid are your family.

No family is ever completely comfortable dealing with awareness of sexuality
in their young.  This is the human condition.  As we aren't very graceful
about it, we humans tend to botch whole relationships up far too often because
we won't recognize that the "child" in front of us has sexual feelings and
a body that is, biologically, "adult" somewhere around the age of 13/14.  We
demand that our children remain "pure and innocent" - when their bodies are
clamoring for them to get into the mating game for real.  The only way we
can help our children survive their sexually-awakened adolescence is to
recognize that it exists, and to accept our own discomfort with the situation..
and to provide the child with the knowlege that he/she is loved and accepted
by his/her family, regardless of the sexual orientation the child experiences.
When we can accept that, and let the child TALK when he/she needs to talk, we
have the foundation necessary to help the child grow into a healthy "adult".

    re:.98
    
       I'm still not quite clear on this subject.
    
       If someone were to tell me they were gay I could then say "I think
    that's disgusting and because of it don't consider you an equal human
    being", it's their problem to deal with the hurt I caused.
    
       But I can't substitute black for gay in the above sentence because
    then I'll immediately want to go out and lynch a few?
    
    
                                    L.J.

    LJ, since I've agreed with everything Vick has said so far (and maybe 
    read the same books??), I'll take a stab at what he's talking about
    (feel free to correct me if I'm off base, Vick)...

    You are responsible for your feelings, not the feelings of others.
    You can control your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc., but *not*
    those of anyone else.  

    If <hypothetically> you told your parents you were gay, and they felt
    hurt, angry, confused, ashamed, etc., it is not your fault...*they*
    own those feelings.  You are simply being yourself.  If they try to 
    push it back onto you as some sort of guilt trip, that is when you 
    have to stand firm and refuse to own their feelings.  They have every 
    right to feel whatever they want to, but *they* own those feelings, 
    not you.  Their feelings don't have to poison you unless you *choose*
    to take ownership of them.

    I'm not advocating intentionally trying to hurt parents who want to
    marry you off or 100-year old grandmothers who love their church; I'm
    merely saying that there is a line between what you control and are
    responsible for, and what *they* control and are responsible for.

	deb

.98> I'm glad that she loved you even after the "DEVASTATION" and
.98> "HURT" she must have suffered when you told her you didn't
.98> believe in God.

There may have been some neglect in recognizing that the "hurt"
that the other person feels is a very real pain - I used this as
an example in that I know that even though *I* think that she
is wrong I recognize and empathize with her feelings.

.98> You were not responsible for her feelings.

Yes, I fully recognize that I'm not responsible for her feelings but
I most assuredly recognize and respect the nature of those feelings.
That is the only point that I was trying to make.  We are in violent
agreement on this.
 
.98> It is not his problem.  He is not obliged to remain silent because
.98> the other person has problems with his feelings.  He can if he wants,
.98> but he is not wrong if he doesn't.

Yes, we are again in violent agreement.  No one is "obliged to remain
silent".  Some people may choose to do so.  Some people may not choose
to do so.  It is a matter of personal preference.  There is no "right" or
wrong" and the only "right" or "wrong" that matters is in the eye of those
involved.   To me, it was a matter of respect in that I am a product of
my environment and the Texas_dirt_farmer_mentality part of me simply
held my grand parents in respect.  This was our only "difference" and
I'll be damned if I'd let that destroy the rest of our relationship.  It
simply wasn't worth it (to me).

I submit that out of respect, civility, honor, duty or any other number
of adjectives that I elect ... I, as an individual, recognize and respect
the fact that I may 'hurt' someone and therefore choose to not discuss
certain issues.  I alone must live with my feelings and I'm certainly
not doing any harm to anyone else therefore "right" or "wrong" truly
belongs to me.

I submit for discussion the observation that a similar scenario with respect
to the discussion of homosexuality is no more or no less valid that the
above.

Bubba

.96> Which was it? You used it to make a point in the first part as to why
.96> you wouldn't push your agenda. It was because it would have hurt her if
.96> she knew. In the second part you said you did tell her. This kind of
.96> kills off the first part, doesn't it? 

No, just a matter of not watching my words close enough.  California State
University has a branch here in Beelersield ... I'm going to have one of
the English professors review my notes for posting ...

I knew (she's quite dead now) that *continued discussion* of my religious
beliefs (or lack thereof) would really hurt the ol' gal.  Yes, I knew
in ADVANCE of her asking me what the result would be ... she asked me
and I very politely and gently told her what the story was.  I saw much
more hurt that I every really expected .. as far as she and I was concerned
the subject was "closed" after that.  No 'agenda' pushing on her part or
mine.

.98> As far as you being a homophobe goes...you aren't a homophobe.

Thank you.  Every once in a while it's nice to hear that.

.98> Just because we can't agree with everything about this lifestyle..
.98> ...just a different understanding and different way of approaching
.98> things. 

Nothing wrong with that.  You have your lifestyle, I have mine.  They are
different.  From what I've seen we respect each other's lifestyle.  That's
all that matters to me ... and to most people (I think).  We may never agree
on some subjects, and that's fine.  Keeps life interesting. (It *must* be
interesting or I wouldn't be entering notes at this time of the morning!)

Bubba

(.103)

Sometimes, silence is the wisest choice.
                          ^^^^^^

>    You are responsible for your feelings, not the feelings of others.
>    You can control your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc., but *not*
>    those of anyone else.  
>    If <hypothetically> you told your parents you were gay, and they felt
>    hurt, angry, confused, ashamed, etc., it is not your fault...*they*
>    own those feelings.  You are simply being yourself.  If they try to 
>    push it back onto you as some sort of guilt trip, that is when you 
>    have to stand firm and refuse to own their feelings.

>I'm merely saying that there is a line between what you control and are
>responsible for, and what *they* control and are responsible for.

Hey, I agree.  I *can* control what I say.  If I were a homosexual, and I told
my parents, I'd know the hurt and pain they'd suffer.  I would be responsible
for that suffering.  Why?  Because I could have avoided it by keeping my mouth
shut.  And for what reason would I have had?

If I went by your advice, I could say anything I pleased to anyone with an "I
don't care what you think" attitude, because "I can't control your feelings."

I don't really believe you believe that.  

Any body knows you can't be responsible for "how" someone feels, but common
sense ought to tell a fellow that it ain't worth it in the end.  There's a time
to know when to let it ride...

I have the right to "feel" any way I choose about homosexuals.  If I feel they
are disgusting sicko's, that's fine for me.  If I feel their conduct is
abnormal, fine.  If I sit with my friends, (whom express the same feelings),
and we swapp homo jokes, no harm done, (a tree in the forest...).  We all
"feel" the same way.  Now, if I direct my verbal slander directly at a
homosexual, then I know I will probably upset that person.  However, he he
throws it up to me, I might make him eat his lunch, and like it!

Here's a scenario for ya.  Where does it all stop???  If you believe we need
"lines," then where do you draw them.  Do "lines" keep us in order?  Or are
they just obstacles to keep us from being free... from being ourselves.

Today, the paragraph below is a hypothetical storyline, but remember... many of
the hypothetical stories of yesterday, are reality, today.  This is meant to
provoke thought.

If homosexual's start "dating" collies next, perhaps they'll want to come out
of the closet on that too, and try to tell the world that it's in their genes,
that they can't control the urge to ignore a fine "Lassie" or "Larry."  They'll
be breeding fine collie dogs for their own satisfaction.  Dog owners will be up
in arms.  There would be marches in Washington.  Some illness will no doubt
spring up among both... people and dogs.  It'll be very contagious and
eventually, innocent children will become a victim of it.  Of course then, the
homosexuals will shout that it ain't a homosexual disease, that they ain't
responsible for it, and that they are responsible people, taking great safety
precautions in using condoms with their *pets.*  They'll look to the government
to find a cure for their plight, and expect to be treated *fairly.*  Digital
will fire people for making an issue out of "Collie Love" at work, and even
support a notes conference called "Love Your Dog" on node MUZZLE_HIM:: and of
course, anyone can be a member.

I ask again, where do you/we draw the line?

RE .85
    >| For example

>| Do you believe stealing is wrong? some stealing, or all stealing?
>| Some people think certain kinds of stealing are OK (givmt, from the
>| rich, etc)

>	Stealing is wrong regardless of the reason. The ends don't justify the
>means.

    This again is your opinion, your belief. Examples were given after your
    note explaining times when stealing might be acceptable
    
>| Do you believe that having sex with a minor is wrong? Why? Some people
>| think it is OK?

>	Of course it's wrong. But let's remember your question, sex with minors
>is wrong. This includes all minors, not just little boys. I will never
>understand why people always associate gays with little minor boys. Yes, there
>are some who do, but they are a minority. Just like het men who go after little
>minor girls. If you feel that gay men are always going after little boys, and
>you feel that this is the norm, then the only logical way of thinking is that
>you feel het men do the same and it is the norm for them. Why do I say this?
>It's because the only difference between gay/het men is that we like a
>different gender. Other than that, there is no difference.
>
    My point was not targeted at Gays as I believe that you are correct that
    more het men attack little girls then gays attack little boys. My point
    was how do you know that this is wrong (either sex)? It is something
    that you feel or believe, nothing more. 
    
>| As I recall, Gerry Studds is the ONLY member of congress to have
>| admitted to having had sex (raped) a minor and is still serving. 
>
    >
    >
>	And Ted Kennedy is still in office after Chapaquidick. What's your
>point. It's all in who you know. Also, can you give specifics on this? I kind
>of remember him having sex with a paige, but I don't recall the rape part.
>
    Teddy is a different subject. Gerry took a minor (according to your
    above explaination the genders involved should not matter, I agree) and
    gave him liquoir to make him more willing. He then had sex with a
    minor. I believe the term statutory rape applies. He is STILL in
    congress

>Glen
    
    
    Steve

    RE .107 Dwight Berry
    
    You hit the nail on the head. I was trying to be more subtle, but some
    people take a more direct example I guess.
    
    The question here folks is:
    
    "Where do YOU draw the line and WHY and what PROOF do you YOU use to
    JUSTIFY that position?"
    
    Steve

    in re .107 and .109
    
    Homosexuality is considered by most modern researchers to be part
    of the normal continum of human sexuality. Having sexual relations
    with minor children, collies, and sheep or dead people or any of
    the other straw men that people throw out is not.
    
    I'd draw the line at allowing adults to love each other with out
    being denied housing, or jobs or beaten up for it.
    
    Bonnie

(.110)

>    Homosexuality is considered by most modern researchers to be part
>    of the normal continum of human sexuality. Having sexual relations
>    with minor children, collies, and sheep or dead people or any of
>    the other straw men that people throw out is not.

I understand that.  And note, you said "modern."  Well tomorrow's MODERN
RESEARCHERS may hold even wilder views!  We all know this line of thought. 
And I don't believe everything I hear or read from *modern anything.*

You're missing my point.

Yes, today we deem sexual acts with dogs as taboo... but it or similar things
might me considered healthy, some day... if we don't draw lines somewhere.

If homosexuals adopt children, and when the children get to be teenagers, they
convince them to join them in their acts... and say that they're not hurting
anyone, that the teenager is willing and wants to participate... well there you
go.

And I have nothing against love, btw, just what I feel are unhealthy acts.

    Dwight
    
    I *know* homosexuals who have children and they'd no more have
    sex with them as teenagers than you or I would with our children.
    
    Further, if you read anything on the historical incidence of
    homosexuality, such as John Boswell's Christianity, Social
    Tolerance and Homosexuality you will find ample evidence of
    societies where homoseuxality was tolerated or even wildly
    accepted without people turning en mass to beastiality, necrophilia,
    pedastry or any of the other straw people...
    
    In general homosexuality has  been acceptable in more urban societies,
    organized in political units, rather than by kinship ties. Places
    where rule by law rather than custom predominates.
    
    Bonnie

    .99
    Bonnie,
    
    	I wasn't asking for a detailed personal feeling of personal opions.
    I was asking what is the law. That was all.

    Again, Bonnie... you're talking about yesterday/today.  You're
    dismissing "tomorrow."  You're citing modern studies.
    
    And I'm sure you do know some great homosexuals who have children. 
    The ones you know don't deny the points that I'm bringing up.
    
    Plus, we often think we know someone, when we really don't.  You don't
    really know what goes on behind "locked doors."
    
    Agree?

    In re .113

    The law refers to the age of consent, below which sexual relations
    with a minor of either sex is statutory rape. I assumed that you
    knew that. The legal 'age of consent' varies from state to state.
    However, the page that had relations with the congressman was
    over the age of consent.

    in re .114

    Yes I was talking about the past. If, however, we want to
    get some idea of how a particular change will affect the society
    of the future, we can look at the lessons history teaches us.
    If we can point to societies where x occurred in the past but
    not y or z, then we can postulate what a future society would
    be like if x occurs again.

    What I get an under current of here, is the use of 'strawmen', bizarre
    sorts of behavior that might happen 'if', to deny basic civil rights
    to gays and lesbians. I countered that by saying that in the past
    when there were societies where gays and lesbians had a high degree
    of acceptance those things did not happen. 

    Yes, they *could* happen, but I don't think the vague likelihood
    that such obscure behaviors could happen should be used to deny
    the humanity of gays and lesbians. Nor (for that matter) do I think
    that those behaviors have anything in particular to do with being
    gay or lesbian.

    Further, if you are going to use the arguement that gays or lesbians
    should not be parents because a small percent might seduce their
    children, then by the same logic, no heterosexuals should be parents
    because a small percent committ incest.
    
    Bonnie

    There simply is no evidence that homosexuals who adopt are any more
    likely to abuse their children than heterosexuals who adopt.  This
    is all wild bigoted speculation.  
    					- Vick

    RE: .110
    
>    Homosexuality is considered by most modern researchers to be part
>    of the normal continum of human sexuality. Having sexual relations
>    with minor children, collies, and sheep or dead people or any of
>    the other straw men that people throw out is not.
    
    	Why are the other examples not concidered part of the normal
    continum of human sexuality by most modern researchers?
    
    			Alfred

    re:  dog lovers
    
    Dwight,  There is no universal "normal".  And I could envision a
    society (on some planet of a distant star) where lower animals are bred 
    to be the sexual partners of members of the society and where that is
    considered normal and perhaps owning a good sex animal is a status
    symbol.  I could envision it even happening here.  In fact, sex between
    human and beasty isn't that uncommon, as you probably know.  I had a 
    teenage friend who confessed to me that he had had conjugal relations 
    with a cow at his uncle's farm.  Shepherds, as we know, were very 
    familiar with their flocks.  But I suppose bestiality is "abnormal" in
    that it isn't practiced by a large percent of the population.  Beyond
    that I can't say that I'm certain having sex with a cow is any worse 
    than killing it and eating it's meat.  I'm sure if you gave the cow the
    choice, it would sign on the sexual consent form.  Now if a sizeable
    block of the American citizenry became enamored of having sexual
    relations with animals, then yes, I'm sure the government would have to
    respond by providing guidance on disease control, abuse control, 
    protection of the indulgees from various bigot types in the country.
    I don't think a behavior has to be justified on the basis of genetics
    (i.e., "I have no choice being what I am because it's in my genes.")
    to become considered normal.  Much of our behavior is simply learned,
    conditioned.  That doesn't make it "abnormal", necessarily.  I assume
    that if a large block of people began having sex with animals that it
    would be because they enjoy it, because that's just the way they are.
    If it isn't hurting the animal (and perhaps it is, maybe there is the
    line) then what's the big deal.  Why do we have to spend so much energy 
    looking outside ourselves and saying "Boy, what that guy is doing makes 
    me sick"?  Isn't the sickness in you?  That guy over there doesn't feel 
    sick, unless you go over and beat him up.  You're the one who feels sick.  
    Why?  What is it inside you that is making you feel sick?  Well, I
    can't believe I just wrote a note defending bestiality.  But it's a 
    tough job, somebody has to do it.
    
    						- Vick
    

    Dwight, your homophobic hypotheses are truly preposterous; I'd get 
    a kick out of your bigoted diatribe if they weren't so pathetically 
    absurd.

    I give Bonnie a lot of credit for responding to your tripe in such
    a rational manner; but I'm sure her competence results in no small
    measure from her years of experience with children and mentally 
    retarded people.

    Oh btw, please be sure to keep your 'homo jokes' - as well as any
    other types of bigoted ones - out of my earshot, especially if you
    plan to try and make me "eat my lunch" for expressing my displeasure 
    with them...No one has succeeded yet.  Oh but I forgot, you macho
    he-men probably wouldn't dream of getting violent with 'helpless' 
    females, would you...

	deb

    >Vick, there are laws agianst doing it with beasties.
    
    Not on Baldacron.
    				- Vick

>    deteriorate to name-calling, crudities, and irrelevances.
    
    As started by whom???
    
    >Are you proud of yourself?
    
    If she isn't, I am.  Keep it up, Deb.  (You might unruffle a bit,
    though, not that I blame you).  
    
    						- Vick

Well, I'd prefer that everyone back away from name-calling.  It really
gets you nowhere, fast.  Folks have been well-behaved in this topic so far,
and I'd rather not have to start returning notes again.

Please see if you can make your point without personal insults.  If you
can't, then perhaps you don't have a point to make.

				Steve

    Steve, if you'll notice, I did not attack anyone personally; the 
    subject of my adjectives were the hypotheses and the reply itself.  

    Also, you might want to look up who began the "name-calling" with
    such items as "disgusting sicko's" and "abnormal" which *were*
    referring to people, *not* notes.  And, who ended their note with a
    threat to anyone who objected to "homo-jokes" that he "might make
    him eat his lunch, and like it!"  Them's fightin' words, son...

    Thanks Vick, but methinks you misconstrued my emotional state (if
    indeed I even have one)... In any case, 'twasn't an overabundance of 
    ruffles, really.  ;^)

	deb

>              <<< Note 640.107 by IMTDEV::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>
>                 -< humorous, yes... but it does make a point >-
    
    Wrong on both counts.
    
    Ray

    Alfred,
    
    I can't answer for modern researchers, but my own answer would
    involve mutual informed consent among equals and absence of
    abuse/cruelty to another. 
    
    Herb,
    
    Actually my only reason for replying to this topic was to educate.
    
    Bonnie

| Here's a scenario for ya.  Where does it all stop???  If you believe we need
| "lines," then where do you draw them.  Do "lines" keep us in order?  Or are
| they just obstacles to keep us from being free... from being ourselves.

	One question Dwight. What is it that you want to draw a line on? (being
serious on this one)

| Today, the paragraph below is a hypothetical storyline, but remember... many of
| the hypothetical stories of yesterday, are reality, today.  This is meant to
| provoke thought.

	Just thought? ;-)

| If homosexual's start "dating" collies next, 

	Are we talking miniature collies or the full bred kind? Hmmmmm....
Lassie was a guy in reality. Maybe she/he should have been called Lolla?

| perhaps they'll want to come out
| of the closet on that too, and try to tell the world that it's in their genes,

	Or out of our genes.......

| that they can't control the urge to ignore a fine "Lassie" or "Larry."  They'll
| be breeding fine collie dogs for their own satisfaction.  

	Dwight, with the above sarcasm out of the way, I do see where you're
headed with this, but the use of dogs is rather repulsive. Remember, if it is
found to be in their genes, then remember who did the research. A heterosexual
scientist. One of your lot. :-)

| Dog owners will be up
| in arms.  There would be marches in Washington.  Some illness will no doubt
| spring up among both... people and dogs.  

	With no doubt at least venerial disease.

| It'll be very contagious and eventually, innocent children will become a 
| victim of it.  Of course then, the
| homosexuals will shout that it ain't a homosexual disease, that they ain't
| responsible for it, and that they are responsible people, taking great safety
| precautions in using condoms with their *pets.*  

	Dwight, the analogy you're making here shows your true feelings for
homosexuals, right? The only difference is you put Lassie in place of the other
man. From this one can see how you feel about it, but now the question is why?
You are entitled to how you wish to feel, that's not a problem. What is a
potential problem is it looks like you have a grudge with homosexuals without
really ever knowing them. Let me ask you, if someone came out to you who was a
good friend, would you still feel the same way? Would you still look at your
friend the same way you did before he came out? Would you tell your friend the
same story you have put here?

| They'll look to the government
| to find a cure for their plight, and expect to be treated *fairly.*  Digital
| will fire people for making an issue out of "Collie Love" at work, and even
| support a notes conference called "Love Your Dog" on node MUZZLE_HIM:: and of
| course, anyone can be a member.

	You forgot that they would have to contact someone first to gain
access. There would be a special keyboard set up so the dogs could write as
well. Millions of $$$$ will be spent to educate dogs to read and write in
english. Dogs will then score higher on the SAT's than the humans. One day,
yes, we will have our first DOG president! Sound familiar? It's as far off base
as your note is.

| I ask again, where do you/we draw the line?

	If you draw the line at reality, at something serious, then we can
talk. If you want to draw a line over this collie stuff, then why talk? You're
far from being serious about it, why should we�


Glen

    I moved this in response to Herb moving his original note and
    (I believe) changing it to make it slightly less offensive.
    
    The answer still stands.
    
          -< what of arrogance of presumption of another's motives? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, I will not allow you to make any modification to my statement.
    
    Further more, that modification is not *minor* it is insulting to
    the people here, and is entirely false to fact.
    
    Perhaps naively I presumed that most prejudice is the result of
    ignorance. I continue to hope that if people are presented with
    facts in a reasonable fashion that they will become more tolerant.
    
    Bonnie

    Herb
    
    I like to hope that people aren't that narrow minded. That when
    they realize that gays and lesbians are people just like they
    are, that they don't choose a life style any more than you
    or I choose to be heterosexual, and that there is a great deal
    of prejudice against gays in the department of jobs, housing,
    gay bashing, etc. that some of them, not those most strongly
    anti gay, perhaps, but some of them will reconsider their stance.
    
    Bonnie

    Not everyone. and it is a real shame that when people find out
    that the facts about group X are not what they had supposed that
    they get angry. To my mind a mature individual is one who has
    the grace to say that they were wrong and to continue to learn.
    
    I think about how I've gradually learned about homosexuality and
    am aware that other people can chose to learn to over come their
    prejudices, ignorance, etc. on that and many other subjects if
    they want to.
    
    That strikes me as a much healthier response than anger. I guess
    I retain enough faith in the human race to hope that it is also
    more common.
    
    Bonnie

    > i dis-approve of (what I consider to be) the puerile motives of the
    > "we'll show em crowd" even more than i disapprove of (what I consider to
    > be) the puerile reactions of the targets.

    Well I have to disagree that my motives for noting here are childish.
    I'm motivated by rather adult concerns for fair and equitable 
    treatment under the law, and a desire to live my life openly without
    threat of physical harm.  The so-called "puerile reactionaries" stand
    in the way, supporting inequitable laws and maintaining an oppressive
    social atmosphere.  And motivated by what?  A heart felt disapproval
    of what goes on behind OTHER people's closed doors?  That's "big-
    brotherism" at its worst.

    I am rather surprised to hear people arguing that immature outbursts
    of bigotry are, in fact, uncontrollable (and that therefore
    controversial subjects should not be discussed?). 
    One would hope that in a notesfile at a major computer company, the 
    maturity of the average noter would allow for a more acceptable level 
    of discourse.
    
    Apparently the topic of homosexuality is enough to inspire otherwise
    intelligent and adult professionals to truly ignorant levels of
    offensive rhetoric.

    And I thought gays were supposed to be the ones with the problem.

    Well FWIW, no one is an angel in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

    /Greg

    > Well FWIW, no one is an angel in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.
    
    	Except maybe, Bonnie.
    
    	:-)
    
    /Greg

    re.129
    
    >...mutual informed consent among equals *and* absensce of abuse
                                                   ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^
    
    Does this mean no more S & M sessions?  ;^)
    
    
    
                                   L.J.

    >.121 Vick, not very funny. 
    
    Why not?  Seemed funny to me.  Maybe you had to be there.  On
    Baldacron, I mean.
    
    					- Vick

    in re .142
    
    Herb I thought we were having a conversation? I am at a loss to
    understand why you object to education anyway. But do as you please.
    
    in re .143
    
    Thank you /Greg but appearances can be deceiving. ;-)
    
    in re .144
    
    :-) L.J. I *knew* someone would pick up on that... only I thought it
    might be Charles.
    
    Bonnie

    re .145
    
    Yes, spaceman, guess I had to be there.

    Well that's what I thought I was doing, how ever I'm never quite
    sure how you take things.
    
    Bonnie

| When people are told things they don't want to hear, they just get
| angry.
| When people are told things they don't want to hear, and can't refute
| it, they get even angrier.

	Herb. You say your interested in education? Fine. Here's something you
can do on your own. In fact, you're the only one who has to know the outcome.
If you don't feel like sharing it, then don't. Why not put down everything you 
feel that upsets you about gays on a piece of paper. Then put down why you feel 
this way. Pretty simple, huh?

	Then replace your name in the gay slot. How does it look to you now?
Do you feel any of the reasons you have put could also be used by other people
when they think of you? Do you feel this is right to think like this?

	Do you find the reasons you dislike gays have to do with individuals 
or with the group as a whole? 

	One last question, do you feel your reasons are this way because you 
have actually gotten to know gays individually (not over the computer, but in 
real life) or because you feel from your conclusions they have to be this way, 
without ever really getting to know them?

	I don't know if you'll do it or not. That is your choice. But, at least
it is a way that will get you thinking about it without anyone ragging on you.
It may be that your position doesn't change in the slightest. That is also your
choice. 


Glen

    Glenn
    
    I get the impression that Herb is definitely *not* interested in
    education and is upset with me, and apparently feels it is wrong
    of me, to try and educate.
    
    Bonnie

    It is a shame that some men aren't willing to be more open minded
    and learn more about homosexuality. Maybe then they would not
    be so upset about it. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    One of the things that distinguishes "us" as a species is our ability
    and capability to "learn" new things -- life is a never constant
    experience.  Persons who have, evidently, voluntarily put a hold on
    that ability are, in my opinion, to be pitied.
    
         Greg

>    It is a shame that some men aren't willing to be more open minded
>    and learn more about homosexuality. Maybe then they would not
>    be so upset about it. 
    
yes, but even if they didn't choose to learn more about it....they need to stop
trying to tell others how to live their lives.  It seems to me that the rule
oughta be:

If homosexuality upsets you, don't hang out with homosexuals - I'd bet they 
don't want you to, anyway.  And don't try to tell anyone how they should live
their lives....let them figure it out for themselves.

    RE: .154

    I agree, Bonnie...

    And this is fair?  This is right?

    We are accused of being sick and disgusting and all manner of
    vile comparisons are made and then we are told we can't
    expect any real explanation from the accusers because they
    "don't want to be educated" and are afraid of getting their 
    feelings hurt?!?

    This is really too much.  Apparently it is wrong for a group
    of people who are in many ways oppressed, to do anything about
    that oppression.  Well excuse me, but I didn't realize your
    personal comfort level is the highest priority.  I accept 
    the right of a person to remain ignorant.  But so long as that 
    ignorance and bigotry continues to lead to violence and blatant 
    discrimination against gays(*), I am going to be countering that
    ignorance with reason, logic and a plea for human compassion.

    /Greg

    (*) Please note I am NOT accusing anyone here of violence or
    	blatant discrimination.  I do feel, however, that some of
    	the attitudes expressed here are similar to the speeches
    	and public rhetoric that breed such action on the part of 
    	others.

    
    
>>If homosexuality upsets you, don't hang out with homosexuals - I'd bet they 
>>don't want you to, anyway.  And don't try to tell anyone how they should live
>>their lives....let them figure it out for themselves.
    
    	BINGO!!!!  And add to that, "use next unseen if you don't want to
    participate in the discussion here!"
    
    	Herb, it's really that simple!  Do you mean to tell me that you
    read EVERY reply to EVERY other topic in this conference (or others)?
    I'd be surpised if you did.  
    
        It's very interesting to "hear" you want people to "go away".  Such
    an opinion, to me, is indeed "terroristic" in nature.  Well, Herb ol'
    boy, you're right in that it ain't going to happen.  I value your
    opinion on that subject of this particular note about as much as that
    which grade school students tend to wipe on the underside of their
    desks.  You, yourself, have said repeatedly that you refuse to
    participate in this note string, but you repeatedly show up?  What
    gives?  There is something about the "gay" thing that obviously (am I
    right other readers) bugs the living crap out of you.  I just don't
    think even you have figured out what it is yet.
    
        *********************************************
    
    Bonnie:  kudos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    GJD

    
    
    Well, at least you admit that your feelings are primitive.  But as has
    been said many, many times.  YOU own those feelings.  I feel little or
    no remorse when an opinion that I express hurts you given THAT YOU HAVE
    THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT "LISTEN".  Get it??????  
    
    	GJD

    Herb, none of the poor "primitives" (your word not mine) who you're so
    worried about has expresed deep hurt (or even shock) about being argued
    with (or gratitude for being called nasty and primitive).
    
    We're NOT in the Navy together. We're not even living together, thank
    goodness. We're VOLUNTARILY participating in a notes conference. Anyone
    who participates should expect a response, and if they don't want one
    WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THEY WRITE INFLAMMATORY STUFF?
    
    While the testosterone rages, I might as well ask what the guy who
    compares men to collies thinks of women who marry 'em.
    
    Ray

    640.2 is an interesting note.
    
    		Steve

    Can anyone explain what happened on 11 September between note .106 and
    .163 in this string?

    Nah....forget it ... I never like to interfere when the vultures are
    going for the kill ...
    
    Y'all have fun rippin' others apart.

    Bubba

    in re .163
    
    Agreed
    
    Bonnie

    in re 640.156
    
    So, Herb, you appear to be saying that rather than combat ignorance
    and injustice and prejudice, people should be silent so that they
    won't hurt other people?
    
    I'm sorry, but I won't do that. I made myself  promise years ago
    never to stand silent in the face of bigotry and I do my very best
    to keep it.
    
    Bonnie

    
     >>And I don't like the alternative of going away.
    
    	But yet, you made a similar suggestion yesterday, did you not?
    
    	I'm through with this "path" of discussion.
    
               GJD

Herb, don't you think it rather presumptuous of you to be telling OTHER
people that THEY are not allowed to discuss something which interests
THEM but may not interest YOU?  You know where the NEXT UNSEEN key is,
don't you?

Your entries here seem to be focused on trying to get other people to stop
talking about a certain topic; a topic which is well within the scope
of this conference's charter.  Why not do what you originally promised
to do and just ignore the whole thing?

				Steve

    Quick question ... then I gotta' go out and "do my thing" (selling) so
    that people in 'corporate' can continue to live in the manner to which
    they are accustomed ....:-)

    Why is it that if a person asks for "men's space" ... there may be some
    discussion but no real problem ....

    A person can ask for "women's space" and there may be some discussion
    but no real problem ....

    A person can ask for "<whatever> space" and there may be some
    discussion but no real problem ...

    But if a person ask's for "straight space"  ... WWIII starts because
    someone's obviously a ... homophobe and there's a tendency to want to
    rip a person to shreads.

    Men are men ... women are women ... gay is gay ... straight is straight.
    None of these groups can control what they "are".  We all seek, to some
    degree, our own "space".

    This is a *serious* question and I'll anticipate that it will be
    answered in a *serious* manner without name calling or personal
    attacks.

    Bubba

    Perhaps streight space people assoc with WASP's, Nazi's, KKK, and young
    republicans. And perhaps we should value this area as well with no
    connections to the above mention factions. 

    Re .171: Seems to me that the people who wanted "n-space" have, so far,
    started (or joined) conferences for that purpose. Those who want a
    conference in which no reference to homosexuality takes place could
    simply start one, couldn't they?
    
    -b

    re: .171
    >A person can ask for "<whatever> space" and there may be some        
    >discussion but no real problem ...                                   
                                                                         
    >But if a person ask's for "straight space"  ... WWIII starts because 
    >someone's obviously a ... homophobe and there's a tendency to want to
    >rip a person to shreads.
    
    	Why not start a notes file of your own? I have done this several
    times when I could not find an existing one that met what I needed, and
    I have also shouted people out of notes files because they were
    ignoring the notes file objectives as stated in notes 1.*. If you think
    this notes file is not meeting its 1.* objectives then you can shout
    too.
    
    	The "<whatever> space" is just the amount of disk space you can
    agree with your cost centre manager.

    RE: .172
    
    So if a person wants "straight" space ... he/she is associated with
    WASP, Nazi or KKK?
    
    Bubba

    re:.175
    
        He worded it poorly, but I believe a lot of people in these
    conferences do think it's related.  "He wants just a *het* space...
    oh, he/she must be a homophobe."  It's along the same lines of
    "He's gay...he must be very feminine."  Neither is correct, but
    both are often assumed.
    
    
                                    L.J.

    I agree, who cares, its what the mass's percieve to be good and evil.
    And who is on the marter list for the month/week/year. Besides, I
    really never liked to be assoc with the 'Young Replicans'. :-)

    
    "Perception is all there is."
    
    	- Tom Peters

Re: .171

Jerry, you must not have been paying much attention to the various
"discussions" for "woman's space" that have occurred over the years.
"No real problem" is NOT how I'd characterize it.


It certainly wouldn't ruffle any of my feathers if someone wanted to
go off and start a "het men's space" notes conference; after all, this
very conference was started by several men who were unhappy with the
direction a different men's conference was taking.  But the people who
do so cannot exclude anyone from participating, in keeping with
corporate policy.  Perhaps such a conference would draw away the people who
seem to go ballistic anytime the word "gay" is mentioned, and thus allow
this conference to go back to discussions about men in general without
having to fight the same battle each time.

				Steve

    
    	Jerry,
    
    	This is mennotes, ie, a conference for men. The problem comes when
    	people (perhaps including you?) confuse men's space for 'straight-only'
    	space. 
    
    	Big difference there, n'est ce pas?
    
    	Start you're own straights-only notesfile if you are so inclined
    	and straight (don't recall you saying here either way). 
    
    	I'm no expert in religion but I believe that the CHRISTIAN notesfile 
    	may be the sort of 'non-gay_traditional' place you're looking for, no? 
    
    	-Erik

================================================================================
Note 640.168              On being gay - "Can we talk?"               168 of 181
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"          47 lines  12-SEP-1991 09:31
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    My intent was to stop the discussion. That didn't work. But it didn't
>    change my feelings.
 
    
    
    Herb, Steve's note seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation
    of what you wrote in .168. However, since you are continually
    misinterpreting my notes and my intentions, I would like to ask you
    to explain what you did mean in the above quote if it was
    not what Steve (and I, and I presume others) assumed on reading it.
    
    Bonnie

    re Herb (.156 and others),

    I'm not going to suggest that you "go away" as you have demanded of all 
    g/l/b people, women and 'friends of the family.'

    As others have indicated, you are perfectly welcome to reply to 
    whatever topics interest you, or next-unseen to topics that don't 
    interest you, instead of going off on rampage to rid the conference 
    of whomever you find undesirable (which, also as others have said, is 
    the only "terrorist" activity I've seen so far).

.156> What you have accomplished -in my opinion- is to take the noses of a
.156> bunch of not terribly well informed but certainly typical men and rub
.156> their noses in a pile of shit.

    I really think it would better if you speak for yourself.  (Unless you 
    have been appointed the official conference spokesperson.)  From what 
    I've seen (recently and in past years), the men who write here are 
    quite intelligent, coherent and capable of speaking for themselves.  
    Why do you have such a low opinion of them?

.156> You are telling us that we cannot participate in this conference unless
.156> we are willing to swallow your opinions on how we should feel about
.156> gays and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY swallow your opinions on what we should
.156> be talking about.

    Herb, how about a sanity check here?  I've read every note in this
    string, and imh[onest]o no one has said anything remotely like that.
    In fact, if you read the replies, I believe you'll find just the 
    opposite is true.

    Obviously you (or anyone else) can start another notesfile on any 
    subject that interests you.  However, no matter what you name it, or
    whether it's public or members-only, it will be open to *all* Digital
    employees.  The CHRISTIAN files contain non-Christians, WOMANNOTES
    contains men, straight people are in the 'gay' files, etc.  I really
    don't know of any cubbyhole here at Digital where one could have their
    own utopia of *only* 'desirable-people-exactly-like-me' to associate 
    with.  

	deb

RE: .170

   FINALLY!! THANK YOU STEVE.

   Sorry for  shouting  but I've been waiting *months* for somebody to finally
   say this without it being me.

   Mr.  Herb   has   derailed,   accused,   and  flat-out  stopped  worthwhile
   conversations  that  men  were  having  together.   And  he  has done it by
   attacking a person who finally gets up enough energy and Courage to start a
   discussion here (no easy task for men to do with other men) and by shouting
   about what-he-sees-in-paranoia are "secret agendas."

   When in  reality  it  seemed  to  be apparent that the only agenda that was
   going on was his - the desire to keep men in the old-fashioned strict rules
   (as HE sees them) for what men _can_ and _cannot_ talk to each other about.
   Who is it for him to say!

   Who is  it  for  him  to  censor other people's conversations.  To STOP any
   discussion  they are having.  If men are having a discussion with other men
   about  something,  great!,  there's an obvious need for it by at least some
   men to talk about it...  WITH OTHER MEN!

   If I  want  to have a conversation about something with other men because I
   just  want  to  talk  about it with them, men, I don't want to have to pass
   Herb's  agenda  and his frightened screaming "STOP!" if it doesn't pass his
   agenda.   There are things I just want to talk to men about.  Why? I dunno.
   I  just  want to talk to men about it.  No agenda.  Not to educate.  Just a
   "So, what do you guys think?".  Is that so hard to understand? 

   I don't  care  who  wants to shut men's conversation with other men down, a
   man-hating  woman  or  a  diversity-hating  man.   Let  men talk! About the
   marines, about war battles, about who likes what football teams, about what
   they  think  of  women,  about  how  their  relationships work, about their
   feelings  toward  the  men's movement.  WHATEVER it is, let them talk about
   it!  If  no  one  wants  to talk about it, then no talking will take place.
   N'est ce pas?

   Herb never seems to start a conversation of his own, he is just out to stop
   other's.   I  feel this "attack the conversation starter" habit has drained
   the  energy  of many of our formerly prolific and sharing noters here, some
   have  even  left mennotes feeling drained.  I feel the loss, personally.  I
   could  never  be as prolific and sharing as these men were...  we need rare
   men like that.  (Rare in my mind, it is hard for me as man to be that way).

   There are  many  diverse  men  (_straight_  men,  and gay men) who DID have
   conservations  together  about  things not just limited to the old rules of
   "men only talk sports together" (etc) as can be seen in some of older notes
   in here (the house buying one is such an example in my mind).  But the only
   men  seemingly  willing  to  take  the  risks  today  after  this one man's
   STOP-THIS-NOTE  antics  are  gay  men  (to their courage) to talk about gay
   issues.   Great!  But  there  has been silence by all men about other men's
   stuff too.  Let's talk about them.  I don't feel men have been free to talk
   here  in  the last few months.  At least I didn't feel it, so I left, also.
   Maybe I'm back, I dunno. I just want to be able to feel like we can talk.

   Let men  TALK  Herb! They _already_ don't get chances to do it enough as it
   is...   and  you  ain't helping any guy.  Let them talk.  Participate if it
   interests you, don't if it does not. 

    	-Erik

    Herb,
    I have never entered a note related to homosexuality in this or
    any other conference that wasn't in response to something offensive
    said by someone against gays (not that I wouldn't, if I had something
    to say).  Though it's sometimes hard to determine who starts a fight,
    my own perception is that the most insistent, nastiest, agression in 
    these verbal battles comes from the homophobes and their sympathizers.  
    Or a homophobe just out of the blue will enter a gay-baiting note.
    If you can get those people to stop doing that, Herb, then you might
    not get caught up in these battles.  But you always weigh in on their
    side.  One would have to assume that if the homophobes started a note
    of mean nasty disgusting gay-baiting diatribes and no one said anything
    in defense, that you would be quiet.  Presumably you would be afraid
    that if you did tell them to stop that one of them would come and beat
    you up in the middle of the night.  Or... It was not uncommon in the old
    South (oh, heck probably North too) for police to let the bully-boys
    start a fight with blacks so they (the cops) could come in and beat up
    the blacks.  That seems to me to be kind of the way things work around
    here too.  
    
    						- Vick

>  <<< Note 640.184 by CYCLST::DEBRIAE "What a glorious summer that was..." >>>
>          -< to borrow: On Being Men, In General - "Can we _TALK_?" >-

>   I don't  care  who  wants to shut men's conversation with other men down, a
>   man-hating  woman  or  a  diversity-hating  man.   Let  men talk! About the
>   marines, about war battles, about who likes what football teams, about what
>   they  think  of  women,  about  how  their  relationships work, about their
>   feelings  toward  the  men's movement.  WHATEVER it is, let them talk about
>   it!  If  no  one  wants  to talk about it, then no talking will take place.

It seems to me that the essence of Herb's message is that when some men try
to discuss things in a het way, that gays are quick to enter the
conversation and attempt to 'heighten our awareness' of how they were
(likely unintentionally) excluded. It seems very difficult for men to talk
het here, without the constant reminder that there are some men that are
not het noting here also.

So to be fair - yes, I like you idea - let men talk! But maybe we could
talk more if we had our 'awareness heightened' a little less often! Some of
us don't note here much for just this reason. We don't look forward to
having our notes dissected and analyzed and critiqued and fed back to us
with 'heightened awareness' of how little we 'value differences' and
(likely unintentionally) 'offend others', and the ensuing questions and
questions and questions about our reasons, motives, values, and intentions.

Perhaps if there was some agreement to allow some 'blatantly het' notes to
be entered here without the above cross-examination, the 'blatantly gay'
notes could also be left alone. And on those notes that are some of each
.... live and let live (without the above cross-examinations!)!

Re: .188

Ok, Herb.  Thanks for your opinion.  We hear you.  However, I regret to inform
you that the decision has been made (and was announced earlier) that this
topic WOULD be permitted.  Sorry if you don't like it. 

However, I'll now ask you to please refrain from continuing to try to stop
the discussion.  Please take this as notice that I will view further such
attempts as offensive behavior and will delete such notes from the conference.
Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

				Steve - co-moderator

    .189
    
    Thats the problem, that there was some 'blatantly het' comments writen
    and someone got upset and did the usual flap of the arms and said that
    they were offended. And when a 'blatantly gay' note has been entered
    the blatent hets are to roll over with it and the blatent gays are to
    agian teach us lower_order_of_the_food_chain_hets a lesson on the 
    Orange book.

    Actaully, George,
    
    One gay man protested that most of the conversations excluded gays.
    Things sort of took off from there.
    
    Bonnie

    I would appreciate it if someone who feels that the gays in this
    conference are impeding the flow of discussion in various topics to
    please document it for me.  I've only been noting in here for about
    six months, and I've only seen one occasion where a gay said something
    in such a way to make it clear that the original noter had excluded
    gays in his wording but that he wanted to respond anyway.  That's the
    only single example I can remember, and it was pretty damn tame.
    Some topics have been started concerning gays, but that is legitimate
    and anyone can hit the NEXT UNSEEN key if he/she doesn't want to read
    topics concerning gays.  I must also say that noone has jumped all over
    me for impeding discussion on those occasions where I objected because
    someone said something that I considered anti-bald.  Are there no
    baldiphobes out there????  Don't you think I'm ramming the bald agenda
    down your throats because I won't let a comment pass that is negative
    toward bald people?  Are bald people so unimportant that they deserve
    such unequal treatment?  I haven't heard anyone saying "I'm sick of
    hearing about bald people.  Almost everyone here has hair and we don't
    want to have to always worry that we might say something that offends 
    you because you're bald.  Just shut-up about it and let us have our
    hiresuit space.  Just go away and let us talk about things that real
    men (with hair) want to talk about."
    
    						- Vick
    

    Bonnie,
    
    	Not to start nuking'em till they glow, but, didn't you ask me to
    remove a joke? That is heard around the world? Gee, guess its the side
    of fence your standing on....

    George,
    
    You put in a note with a joke that I felt was offensive to blind
    people. Having a legally blind son I told you I found the joke
    offensive. You explained that you'd heard the joke from a blind
    relative and I withdrew my complaint.
    
    Bonnie

	I guess I have some catching up to do! ;-)

| I wish to hell you people would just stop lobbying us. We don't want to
| hear what you feel you need to say;
| Many of us are going to get angry when you presume to educate us.

	Herb, you keep saying we this, us that, many of another, just how
"many" are there? There does seem to be overwelming support, but not a lot on
the negative (but then agin I haven't read past .160 yet) side.

| I want all gay people who insist on foisting their gayness upon me to
| just go away. I want all hets who feel the need to defend them to just
| go away. I want all women who feel the need to defend them to just go
| away.

	From what you have said, it seems as though if someone doesn't agree
with your view, they should go away. I guess then it would become the world
according to..... nah.

| Obviously this is not going to happen.

	I am glad you realize this. Herb, you have your own viewpoints. That's
fine. Do you ever think that people would rather see you go away? In BOTH cases
it isn't going to happen, and in both cases it shouldn't. People shouldn't be
tossed aside because they don't agree with you (as long as it brings no harm to
anyone else). Can't you see this?

| I strongly feel that you have been behaving like a bunch of terrorists,
| saboutaging this conference.

	No one is saboutaging this conference. It was brought up by a moderator
about whether we could discuss gay issues in here. For the most part we have
been able to. You don't wish to discuss the subject, (although by the amount of 
notes you have in here one would wonder) that's fine. Not every subject is for
every person. But if you don't want to discuss it, then why continue to note in
that particular topic? Wouldn't next unseen do the trick?

| What you have accomplished -in my opinion- is to take the noses of a
| bunch of not terribly well informed but certainly typical men and rub
| their noses in a pile of shit.

	In what way. You can send me mail if you like.

| You are telling us that we cannot participate in this conference unless
| we are willing to swallow your opinions on how we should feel about
| gays and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY swallow your opinions on what we should
| be talking about.

	Herb. Start a topic. No one is telling you that can't be done.


Glen

RE: .160


| I blame myself for that! He had primitive feelings no doubt. But I knew
| he had those primitive feelings and I KNEW that those primitive
| feelings were not amenable to argumentation, and I SHOULD have known
| how primitive his reactions would have been. And for me to bait him
| into those arguments as I did was TRULY to wipe his nose in shit.

	Herb, do you really think it was baiting? You expressed how you felt
about it. What is so wrong with that? You mean to tell me you would rather let
someone spout off their predjudice views even though you know it's wrong, and
you know it upsets you to hear them? True, his actions may be primative, but
why must you also do the same now? Besides, no one is baiting you. I wish you
would believe that, because baiting you is a waste of time. No one will get
anywhere with it.


Glen

| Hopefully, I would have the courage to express to them that they are
| behaving like shitheads for trying to bait people.

	Actually, I have seen in the past where Herb has stepped in and tried
to stay on track with the notestring, and not to have it derailed. One I
remember was when the question was brought up about Jeffery Daumer being a gay
serial killer. How he could represent gays (or something to that effect). I
remember Herb stepping in and reminding the author of the origional note that
sexual orientation has nothing to do why people kill in that fashion, it has to
do with a sick mind. 



Glen

| So to be fair - yes, I like you idea - let men talk! But maybe we could
| talk more if we had our 'awareness heightened' a little less often! Some of
| us don't note here much for just this reason. 

	There are a lot of instinces where someone will be talking about their
date. In most cases it's about their girlfriend. When we mention how we handled
the same situation, but with our boyfriend, we get the same old story of how we
are pushing our agenda. In cases such as these, I can't see why there should be
a problem, but there is. This isn't pushing our agenda, but just relating to
you what happened to us in X circumstance. If we are pushing our agenda for
mentioning our boyfriend, then wouldn't you also be pushing yours when
mentioning your girlfriend?



Glen

    in re .198
    
    thankyou, George
    
    in re .202
    
    Sorry, but people can have other motives for speaking up when they
    see ignorance and prejudice. The motives that you ascribe are not
    mine. I would not/do not get any pleasure out of behaving in the
    fashion that you describe and would do it only if extremely provoked
    or angry, neither of which I have been in this notes string.
    
    Bonnie

| And people can scream until they are blue in the face, I will NEVER
| believe that people who pounce on irrational statements about
| homosexuals are unaware that by getting people to talk about the
| subject, by getting people to try to defend their irrational feelings
| they are engaged on a campaign to embarrass and hurt the "defendants".

	Really Herb? Have you ever had a conversation with someone where you
had to dig to find out what was bothering them? They could have been embarrased
by telling you, but was that your intention, or was it only that you wanted to
help? Even though you will never believe this, it is true.

| And they are doing it precisely because they feel hurt by the
| irrational statements and feel vindictive.

	Herb, vindictive? Come on! Let's be real.

| And the people who happen along with their fine sounding moral yet
| sensible and rational statements know full well that they are providing
| fodder for the revenge.

	Can you please explain?

Glen

    Since Herb won't explain it, I'll take a crack at it.  It means that
    he just can't stand it when someone makes an intelligent statement in 
    support of something he doesn't agree with.  It also means that to him
    the motives of a person are more important than what that person has
    to say.  If the motives are wrong then the argument can be ignored.
    People who don't agree with him have the wrong motives.  ERGO, anyone
    who disagrees with him can safely be ignored.
    							- Vick
    
    

    re:.208
    
    
       Smirk   :^)
    
    
                                         L.J.

    Embarrassed about what???  Spelling, maybe?  Nah, not me.  I always
    thought it should be spelled "hairsuit" anyway.
    
    					- Vick

.179> Jerry, you must not have been paying much attention to the various
.179> "discussions" for "woman's space" that have occurred over the years.
.179> "No real problem" is NOT how I'd characterize it.

Bad choice of words on my part ... in any case .. I was speaking in the
more abstract sense about different people wanting different "spaces"
depending upon some criterion ... and the perception of those people
for simply wanting that "space".

.179> It certainly wouldn't ruffle any of my feathers if someone wanted to
.179> go off and start a "het men's space" notes conference; after all, this
.179> very conference was started by several men who were unhappy with the
.179> direction a different men's conference was taking.  But the people who
.179> do so cannot exclude anyone from participating, in keeping with
.179> corporate policy.

Agreed - anyone must be allowed to enter and participate.  I wonder if
our personnel organization would allow a "Straight Men's Forum" to even
*EXIST* and be advertised on easynet, even in keeping with guidelines
with respect to participation?  Wanna' take bets?

The substance of this is ... would the participants be perceived as
"homophobes"?  As Deb said ...                         ^^^^^^^^^

.179> Perhaps such a conference would draw away the people who
.179> seem to go ballistic anytime the word "gay" is mentioned, and thus allow
.179> this conference to go back to discussions about men in general without
.179> having to fight the same battle each time.

Hummmmm......I should have my VAX here in the office very shortly ...
I *may* just give this a try ... perhaps I'll take a poll and see if
there's any interest.

.181> 	This is mennotes, ie, a conference for men. The problem comes when
.181>   people (perhaps including you?) confuse men's space for 'straight-only'
.181>   space. 

I have made no such "mistake".   There has been no statement, either express
or implied, which would indicate (on my part) such.
    
.181> 	Start you're own straights-only notesfile if you are so inclined

See above.  I may be "so inclined".  Gotta think about it.  It would
be (to my estimation) somewhat of a unique experiment in this world
of electronic conferencing.

.181>	I'm no expert in religion but I believe that the CHRISTIAN notesfile 
.181>   may be the sort of 'non-gay_traditional' place you're looking for, no? 

I'm not a "Christian" and therefore will not enter the Christian "space"
with my non-christian remarks.  Discussing "Christian" this/that/other
holds no interest for me.

The "Straight Men's Forum" would allow anyone of any sex or any sexual
orientation to participate ... it's just that notes of this nature wouldn't
be discussed ... oh .. they may be entered, but, no one should be embarrassed
if they were ignored.

The real issue that I was addressing was ... is it so *bad* for a person
to want "straight men's space", any more than 'gay' space, or 'women's'
space or 'Christian' space, or ... etc...  I'm not sure that anyone has
said that it would be "bad" .... ... 

Bubba

    FWIW - I don't think "X-only" space is inherently bad at all.

    It's only when the X's use their power/influence/economic
    advantage to disadvantage O's that we have a problem.

    I think historically, men are perceived as having abused
    their men-only space (at least in the form of men's clubs),
    hence the acute reaction to the idea.

    In mainstream society, the "default" continues to be straight,
    white and male.  That's why racial minorities, women and gays
    have created their own "space."   More and more, people aren't
    taking the default for granted in mainstream society.  I think
    that's good.  However, in some cases, they are going overboard 
    and excluding straight white men.  I think that's wrong.  Men
    affected by this might understandably want "safe space" similar
    to that sought by other excluded groups in the past.

    Even removing issues such as racism, sexism, homohatred, etc...
    I still think there's reason to want X-only space.  I can't
    put it into words, but it's just a feeling, being someplace
    where everyone is just like you are.  If someone were to ask,
    I'd suggest they not spend *all* their time in such space.  It
    could stunt your intellectual growth and narrow your vision.  But 
    I'd never claim wanting such space is wrong.

    /Greg

I finally did a directory of my NEWMAIL folder this morning and
discovered that there were 27 pieces of mail relating to this
new "conference" mentioned.

First, I simply don't have the time, personally or professionally,
to answer that much mail - but thank you for your interest.

Second, I started this as strictly a "thought experiment" about
different spaces ... just a different "twist" - that is to say,
is there anything wrong with "straight" discussion without notes
the likes of 640 in MENNOTES.

Third, under no circumstances, in any shape, manner or form, is there
any expressed or implied, in the past, present, or future, any intent
to DISCRIMINATE against any member of the DECcommunity with respect to
participation in such a thought-experiment conference.  The realization
was simply that some subjects have been discussed many times in many
different existing conferences and those subjects would not be discussed
in any perceived new "conference".

As it should be, in Digital or anywhere else - in ANY conference - ANY
member of the community of Digital employees is WELCOME to participate
in ANY conference.  The name "Straight Men's Forum" may sound discriminatory,
but, certainly is not meant to be.  Then again, perhaps the title of the
men's or women's or black's or gay's conferences IMPLY some type of
discrimination but we certainly all know that this is not the case. It
is simply a realization that certain subjects are not discussed.

Fourth, I simply don't have the personal/professional time to host such
a conference at this point in time.  Things may change, but, we'll just
have to wait and see.  I've (not by choice, I'm a Note-a-holic) limited
my notes to about one per day.

Fifth, thanks again for the interest - I thought from a number of
perspectives that it would be an interesting experiment and was sort
of 1/2 seriously toying with the idea but for the moment, just keep
the discussion to different "spaces" to this conference and this
note.  I had visions of a "great leveling ground" that gay/straight
could participate and no one knows anything about anyone's orientation
(or cares about their orientation!) - and PERHAPS it would be possible
to destroy some stereotypes ... difficult to explain, but, maybe you
get the idea.

Sixth, thanks again, for the suggestions.  Accept this as my response,
I simply don't have the time to respond individually.

Jerry