Conference quark::mennotes

>Until recently the assumption that homosexuality must be caused
>by upbringing and young experience was shared by most researchers
>who looked at this field. Dominant mothers, hostile fathers, a
>failure to resolve the Oedipus complex, effeminate role models 
>failure to resolve the Oedipus complex, effeminate role models -
>all were suggested as the causes of homosexuality, 

Regardless of whether being gay is genetic and/or the result of the causes 
cited above, it is not a choice. One doesn't wake up one morning and say: Hey, 
I think I'll be gay. 

Mike

    Why does there have to be an explanation..why not just accept
    homosexuality?
    
    It is not genetic
    
    It is not a result of a cause
    
    It is not inherited
    
    It just is!
    

    Re .2
    
    Why not just...?  Because it is human to desire understanding.  And in
    today's highly polarized, rancorous debates it is becoming increasingly
    important to *know* whether people were created gay, in which case the
    "sin" aspect of being gay can be attributed not to the person but to
    the statements of a cruelly vicious religion, or whether being gay is a
    choice, in which case the "sin" aspect of being gay can be attributed
    to the person.
    
    -dick

    
    to answer the basenote title.
    
    No, I think it's not choice.  It just is, like blue eyes, or brown
    hair, or long arms.
    
    -Jody
    

    I think it is different for different people.
    
    For some, it apparently is a choice.  For others (like myself) it is not.  
    
    For those wanting to make moral judgements about homosexuality, all
    they have to do is find a handful of people who "decided" to
    be gay (and another handful who claim to have been "cured").  Armed
    with this evidence they then make the (IMO) ridiculous assumption
    that their "answer" to the "problem" is applicable to everyone.
    This requires ignoring evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't
    seem to bother such people...(having the one, true answer is central
    to their way of thinking).
    
    The same can be said of some gay activists who insist the only
    correct course of action for someone who feels any level of same
    sex attraction is for that person to act on it - regardless of their
    upbringing, religious background, etc...  Sexuality is king and 'anything 
    goes' seems to be the motto...  Again - that may be true for some, but
    not for all.
    
    What I try to do is respect people's choices, so long as those choices 
    don't harm others.
    
    /Greg
    

   If it's a choice you have to be very stone headed or completely insane
   to endure this and not want to change.  How it happens is likely to be 
   from multiple causes.  I for one believe it is what you are born with
   and is unchangable beyond the limits of you own sexual schemata.


   Reposted from .-v1:
================================================================================
Note 851.520      How OPEN-MINDED are you about homosexuality?        520 of 530
VIDSYS::PARENT "a new day, a new woman"              46 lines  22-JAN-1993 15:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   RE: gays born that way.


   While researching a related topic years ago I happend upon information 
   I would describe as frightening.

   Before the late '70s homosexuality was treated as a psychosexual
   disorder and was treated by various means:
   	
   	The most promising was ECT, electroconvulsive shock therapy.
   	This treatment is used to temporarilly erase memory, sometimes
   	this is permanent. Homosexuals were routinely treated this way
   	with treatments of a series of shocks several times a week plus
   	conventional psychotherapy.  It was believed to work.  Frequently
   	the patient was signed in involentarily by relatives.

   	The results over long term were that all reverted back to being
   	homosexual or committed suicide rather than face the treatments.

   	Aversion therapy was also tried and promised hope, the common
   	technique was to use homosexual pornography to arouse the patient
   	and apply a painful shock to the patients penis.  Same results
   	and the last treatment.

   	Drugs were also used, testosterone amoung them none were 
   	effective, or they reduced the sex drive to the point the
   	patient was not interested in sex at all.  Since the desirable
   	outcome was functioning heterosexual patient not a chemically
   	castrated man; that too was abandoned.

   	Of all the theories and case histories I read only homosexual
   	men were considered.

   	Eventually, the scientific community began to realize that this
   	is an unchangeable part of a persons psychosexual construction.
   	It would be unethical to try and create a homosexual person by
   	treating a heterosexual in any way, and it is contemporary belief
   	that would be unsuccessful as well.  Yet to do this to a
   	homosexual male was not considered unethical  Homosexuality has
   	since been removed from diagnostic text as a disorder that can or
   	needs to be corrected or requiring treament in itself.  It does
   	however advise counsuling at aid the patient in accepting
   	themselves so they can cope in an unaccepting society.

   Allison

| <<< Note 18.3 by SMURF::BINDER "Qui scire uelit ipse debet discere" >>>




| Why not just...?  Because it is human to desire understanding.  

	OK, then explain why you're heterosexual. Explain when you first chose
this. When you have finished with that exercise you will see that it isn't a
choice. As someone else stated, it just is. :-)




Glen

| <<< Note 18.3 by SMURF::BINDER "Qui scire uelit ipse debet discere" >>>



| today's highly polarized, rancorous debates it is becoming increasingly
| important to *know* whether people were created gay, in which case the
| "sin" aspect of being gay can be attributed not to the person but to
| the statements of a cruelly vicious religion, 

	I think you are talking about "born gay" when you use the words "created
gay"? If that's the case then I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't say
that these are statements from a cruelly vicious religion, but more of a
misunderstanding of what Scripture actually says. True, the actions can seem
cruel, but it's based on their beliefs. I think inside most actually believe
they are being loving. If the correct interpretation were given, we'd have no
problems. You are seeing more and more churches opening up to gays as they do
realize the interpretation they had of gays was the wrong one.




Glen

>	OK, then explain why you're heterosexual. Explain when you first chose
>this. When you have finished with that exercise you will see that it isn't a
>choice. As someone else stated, it just is. :-)

Yes, but that doesn't quell the desire some people have to explain aspects of
human behavior.  It's hard to find an evolutionary explanation for homo-
sexuality, afterall, it doesn't promote the propogation of the species!!

So that's where scientific curiosity comes in:  How can you explain this?
We've already tried the behavioral sciences, now geneticists are trying to 
find an explanation.  "It just is" is not an adequate answer to the question
of homosexuality.  

It's easy to explain heterosexuality in general, but you're right, it is 
difficult to explain why *I* am heterosexual.  That's a metaphysical question 
as much as it is scientific.

It's so complicated compared to asexual reproduction!

Jon

    
    RE: .9
    
>Yes, but that doesn't quell the desire some people have to explain aspects of
>human behavior.  It's hard to find an evolutionary explanation for homo-
>sexuality, afterall, it doesn't promote the propogation of the species!!
    
    
    The propogation of the species arguement does not hold water.  Many
    homosexual people have children, want children and know how to go about
    it.  
    
    Another evolutionary explanation for homosexuality could be population
    control.  
    
    
    Ken

   The consideration applied to being gay as an evoloutionary turn is
   interesting as it may be genetic.  I suggest that the arguement that
   homosexuality is not evolutionarily viable is valid but it neglects
   that as a species it doesn't have to be.  Few evolutionary tracks
   are successful, none are guarenteed.  Either way homosexuality does 
   exist and it is a recurrent thing.  It is not the only twist that
   occurs and it may not be evolution at all but instead a genetic error.

   Allison

    Re .7
    
    Glen, I used the term "created gay" as opposed to "born gay" because I
    don't believe that the actions involved with being born are what cause
    a gay person to be gay.  I believe it's inherent in the person's genes,
    which means that it proceeds from the creation of the zygote that has
    become the person.  The next step backward is a twofold possibility:
    
    o	The genetic makeup of one or both parents includes a gene for
    	homosexuality.
    
    o	The gamete(s) provided by either or both parents experienced a
    	mutation during its creation in the testes or ovaries such that it
    	included a gene for homosexuality that its parent did not possess.
    
    In either case, the gay person's zygote is from the moment of its
    conception homosexually oriented.  Hence, gays (in my opinion) are
    created the way they are, not born that way.
    
    I explain heterosexuality in the same way.  If I were to speculate,
    which in fact I am doing, I'd suggest that homosexuality is the result
    of a recessive gene like that for left-handedness; similar percentages
    of the population seem to prevail for both.
    
    -dick

	Dick, I understand completely where you're coming from on the
born/created gay thing. What you say does make a lot of sense.



Glen

| <<< Note 18.9 by COMET::BRONCO::TANGUY "Armchair Rocket Scientist" >>>



| Yes, but that doesn't quell the desire some people have to explain aspects of
| human behavior.  It's hard to find an evolutionary explanation for homo-
| sexuality, afterall, it doesn't promote the propogation of the species!!

	You're right that there are times where propogation doesn't occur. But
as someone else had stated, it does for many people. But that aside, people,
will evolve whether EVERYONE reproduces or not (but won't if no one does). Just
look at how women have evolved. Look at how gays have evolved. Look at how men
have evolved. Not every women, gay or man reproduces. They still evolve. Look
at the different ethnics. They too have evolved. 

| "It just is" is not an adequate answer to the question of homosexuality.

	Would you say it's an adequate answer to the question of why people are
heterosexual?

| It's easy to explain heterosexuality in general, but you're right, it is
| difficult to explain why *I* am heterosexual.  

	Insert homosexual in their and you have your answer. 




Glen

    <<< Note 18.12 by SMURF::BINDER "Qui scire uelit ipse debet discere" >>>
                       -< Creation, the real story  :-) >-

Dick,
    
   This is a verified and but not commonplace occurance.  It is possible
   that the zygote is conceived and does contain correct genetic
   information for a nominal male or female fetus.  There is also a
   requirement that that at the correct time the hormonal triggers occur
   to cause both physical and mental differentation.  We know this fails
   occasionally because there are such people as XY females and XX males
   that are normal in every respect save for possible sterility, yet
   their genetic information was reverse coded or not acted upon.  It
   seems both are possible.  The timing of the event is also important as
   the brain and body mature at different rates.  The theory suggests that
   that timing dependent failure may account for people like tomboy girls,
   gays, transsexuals, effeminate men and most other possibilities.  
   This is only the lightest overview of several researchers such as Money
   and Gorski.  

   There is also the theory that postnatally there is a small window that
   also allows for some modification of sexual identity.

   There are three possible sourses, preconception genetics, prenatel
   modification, and postnatel shaping diring the first months of life.

   Easy concrete answers to the cause (as if it were a disease) are not 
   likely or soon forthcomming.  I only say that because every time 
   science yells eurika, they'll find there's more to it.

   I sometimes wonder why it's just not easier to accept somebodys
   heartfelt belief that they simply are what they say they are.


   Allison

     <<< Note 18.14 by JURAN::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>
    
>	You're right that there are times where propogation doesn't occur. But
>as someone else had stated, it does for many people. But that aside, people,
>will evolve whether EVERYONE reproduces or not (but won't if no one does). Just
>look at how women have evolved. Look at how gays have evolved. Look at how men
>have evolved. Not every women, gay or man reproduces. They still evolve. Look
>at the different ethnics. They too have evolved. 
    
    
    Okay, okay!  You're right.  But find me a child who was conceived via
    homosexual intercourse. 
    
    Evolution, as Darwin saw it, is based on (of course) survival of the
    fittest.  Evolution is not a phenomenon of a population, but rather of
    individuals.  Each individual organism strives to get its genes propagated
    into the next generation, and stronger individuals pass on their genes
    more successfully.  100% homosexuality implies that an organism will
    not be able to pass on those genes.  An organism cannot aid in the 
    evolution of the species if its sexual behavior is strictly homosexual 
    (and remember, "evolving" is not the same as "improving"; there are 
    plenty of examples of animals which evolved themselves right into 
    extinction).
    
    I've heard the argument that homosexuality may be a method of
    population control, but that flies in the face of the essential self-
    ishnessof organisms.  It's hard to imagine that an organism would adopt 
    a behavior which will help propagate its cohorts' genes!!!
    
>	Would you say it's an adequate answer to the question of why people are
>heterosexual?
    
    Evolution (if you believe it) is a convenient answer to the question of
    why people are heterosexual.  Heterosexual intercourse is the only way
    I know of to create a new being, and hence pass on your genes.
    
    Now, homosexuality may be a method of improving "camaraderie" among a
    survival group (pack, troop, tribe, city-state), so that members of a 
    group feel a strong bond to all the individuals within the group,
    regardless of gender.  But then, how do you explain, in evolutionary
    terms, why so many members of the human species feel inately
    uncomfortable about homosexuality?
    
    Listen, I'm not disagreeing with you on the issue brought up by the 
    basenote.  I believe that being a homosexual (or any ****sexual) is 
    NOT a choice.  But I think that the answer to why homosexuality occurs 
    homo sapiens and other species is an open question.
    
    Nobody on earth knows the real answer (well, at least I don't).  All 
    I'm trying to say is that there will always be someone who wants to
    try to find the answer to "Why?"  "Just because" is not an answer!! 
    Ask any 2nd grader!!  ;-)
    
    Jon

    
.16> Okay, okay!  You're right.  But find me a child who was conceived via
.16> homosexual intercourse. 

     I believe someone said (might have been AIMHI::RAUH) that these children
     grow up to be lawyers :-)       

| <<< Note 18.16 by COMET::BRONCO::TANGUY "Armchair Rocket Scientist" >>>




| Okay, okay!  You're right.  But find me a child who was conceived via
| homosexual intercourse.

	None. But with artificial semination (sp?) one can still evolve and be
either a lesbian or a male homosexual.

| Evolution (if you believe it) is a convenient answer to the question of
| why people are heterosexual.  Heterosexual intercourse is the only way
| I know of to create a new being, and hence pass on your genes.

	Artificial semination. :-)

| But then, how do you explain, in evolutionary
| terms, why so many members of the human species feel inately
| uncomfortable about homosexuality?

	Artificial semination! :-) Ok, I'll be serious.... this is only *my*
opinion, but I have found that what people don't understand they can find ugly,
disgusting, etc. Think about it. Has there been anything that you can think of
in the past that you didn't like, thought was disgusting, whatever, until you
actually took some time and found out about it? I know there have been a lot of
things for me. The thing is we can easily form an opinion of someone, but that
opinion can many times be false. Ignorance to <insert any subject> is something
we can all be guilty of from time to time. But if we actually look into what's
going on, we will have a better chance of finding out the truth of any given
matter than if we rely on other people's or our own thoughts. Why? Because
there may be no facts to back them, just perceptions. 

	One other thing I have noticed is that I have found more women to be
open about homosexuality then men. I noticed with my straight friends that the
women have no problems around my gay friends, but the men are a little leary. I
have talked to them about it and the reasons they give (your mileage may vary)
is that they have a hard time getting past the sex part of it. It isn't normal.
I tell them that you're right, it isn't normal.... for you. Just as their sex
isn't normal for me. What they were doing though by not getting past the sex is
that they forgot to look at the person. Once they realized this, it became
easier for them around my gay friends. Another reason they gave was they
thought that the gays would hit on them. I told them not to flatter themselves.
Then after we laughed I asked what about that bothers them the most. Their
answers were more in line with the fact that they aren't gay, and don't want to
go out with anyone gay. I asked them what do they do when a woman who they
aren't interested in asks them out. They just say no. Upon further probing they
realized that in their heads gays attacked their own masculinity. That gays 
weren't real men. This is something that they still are dealing with. I can see
the changes, but it's only happening by them seeing me and my friends as one
thing, people. For them, masculinity is a problem. Whether it's that way for
most straight men I don't know. I haven't talked to everyone yet! :-) 

	One other reason also might be that before gays were in the closet. Not
many people knew who was gay or really even thought much about it. Now we are
out there. People think about it more. They still use the old stereotypes
towards gays. I think, anyway, if they go out and meet gays, they will get a
better understanding of who we are. Sure you'll run into a few a**holes, but
you'll run into that with straight people as well.

	Does this make any sense to you? If not, ask away.

| But I think that the answer to why homosexuality occurs
| homo sapiens and other species is an open question.

	Hmmm..... I guess maybe you're looking for some scientific reason as to
why homosexuality occurs? Maybe in the end it will be discovered along with why
heterosexuality occurs. 



Glen

    Re .16
    
    > Evolution, as Darwin saw it, is based on (of course) survival of the
    > fittest.
    
    But here is where we depart from known fact into the realm of theory. 
    Although evolution itself is a documented fact, the mechanisms of
    evolution are not yet understood.  Darwin's "survival of the fittest"
    theory certainly cannot account for all of the facts.
    
    Other theories of evolution are also current, among them that of
    "punctuated equilibrium," which states that species evolve only
    sporadically and slightly over most time but that certain conditions
    such as great climatic changes can trigger rapid periods of widespread
    evolution.  One clearly observable example of this theory is the North
    American dinosaur record, showing through most of the Cretaceous period
    relatively little diversification of ceratopsian species; but, as the
    K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) boundary approaches, there's a sudden massive
    diversification of ceratopsians.  The K-T boundary marks the apex of
    the grand climatic change that dried up most of the Mesozoic seas and
    left the world generally much drier and cooler than it had been.
    
    Punctuated equilibrium isn't the whole answer, either, but it actually
    explains most evolutionary phenomena better than Darwin's theory. 
    Darwin's theory only works in isolated populations over relatively
    short periods (less than a million years or so).
    
    It remains, then, to point out that evolution is not necessarily the
    survival of the fittest.  There are many genetic traits in many
    species, among them hemophilia and color-blindness in humans, that are
    clearly contrasurvival, yet they persevere.  If survival of the fittest
    were the only evolutionary mechanism at work, these traits would long
    since have been evolved out of existence.  Think also on the Jukes and
    Callicacks.
    
    Although I do not postulate that such is the case, I admit the
    possibility that homosexuality may well be a mechanism for population
    control, one that is imposed by conditions outside the individual.  An
    individual's selfishness does not enter into the equation, then; it's a
    larger issue in which homosexuality plays a part.
    
    -dick

    re .16, I have often wondered why so many members of the human race
    feel inately uncomfortable about homosexuality.  I see no reason for
    anyone to feel uncomfortable about it, and can't understand why so many
    people apparently do.
    
    I don't *really* care why some people are homosexual because I see
    nothing wrong with it, and so don't understand the big deal about
    finding out why.  What I do wonder about, though, is why people can't
    just mind their own business and leave other people alone.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Proragated...hummm maybe that's how are created!!
    
    There's an answer!
    

    
	"I have often wondered why so many members of the human race
    	feel inately uncomfortable about homosexuality."

Probably for a number of reasons. And one of those is that they simply don't
understand what it means to be homosexual.

Some years ago a 6 part series on BBC TV was run. They took three hetro guys 
and three homosexuals. The three hetros were anti-gay to the point that one 
of them had gone - at the time it was very popular - queer bashing. The six 
guys met and discussed what it meant to be homosexual. At the end of the 
series the six guys, and about 30 million viewers (it was a very popular show)
were a lot wiser and a lot more compassionate towards homosexuals.

Tom Robinson - of the Tom Robinson band - then launched a record called
'Sing if your glad to be gay' as a protest against a friend of his that was
beaten up in a queer bashing session. The track hit the top-10 and I remember
singing it at the top of my voice with several thousand others in the South-
ampton Odeon.

The discussion about homosexuality is healthy and I for one have benefited 
because of it. The educated, compassionate noters that have contributed,
thankyou and please don't stop.

- Paul.

<    (and remember, "evolving" is not the same as "improving"; there are 
<    plenty of examples of animals which evolved themselves right into 
<    extinction).
    
<    I've heard the argument that homosexuality may be a method of
<    population control, but that flies in the face of the essential self-
<    ishnessof organisms.  It's hard to imagine that an organism would adopt 
<    a behavior which will help propagate its cohorts' genes!!!

   The behavour of a member of a species is not always indicative of the 
   species.  Humans are far more complex that instict driven orgainisms
   so when it comes to social behavour what lower organism is useful and
   applies to humans?  If anything we apply human behavour to lower animals.
   Our entire culture is based on how we reproduce, I thought we were
   complex creatures.

   Allison

    
    	It is my opinion (and I have absolutely no facts to base this on)
    	that homosexuality is the result of a chemical difference in the
    	brain (notice that I did not say *imbalance*) as compared to het-
    	erosexuality. It is my further opinion that this difference will
    	be isolated within the next several decades. The implications of
    	this are left to your imaginations.
    
    	John
    

	John, quick question. How did you come to the conclusion that it is a
chemical difference?



Glen

re: .23

>   The behavour of a member of a species is not always indicative of the 
>   species.  Humans are far more complex that instict driven orgainisms
>   so when it comes to social behavour what lower organism is useful and
>   applies to humans?  If anything we apply human behavour to lower animals.
>   Our entire culture is based on how we reproduce, I thought we were
>   complex creatures.
>
>   Allison


        The roots of homosexuality probably began "millyuns and millyuns"
        of years ago, when hominids *were* very simple creatures.  Basic
	human behaviors, as in our sexual activity, came about because of 
	development over millions of years, and are not a result of our 
	modern culture.  The question is "why?"  The answer is, "we may 
	never know." But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking.
                                
        Scientists who investigate homosexuality may be opening the door
        to greater understanding and acceptance by society as a whole.
        If they can finally dispell the myth that homosexuals chose to be
        that way, I think we'll all be better off.

	(In case you couldn't tell) everything I'v spouted off over the past
	couple of replies is strictly my opinion based on the scant reading 
	I've done; and watching the Discovery Channel!  

	Dammit, Jim, I'm an engineer not a macro-biologist!

    
    	Glen
    
    	It's not really a conclusion, just an opinion. It's based on the
    	fact that many things that attract us ( and other beings, such as
    	bees -> honey) have their basis in some type of brain chemistry.
    
    	BTW, I've had lot's of opportunity recently to discuss issues around
    	sexuality, mainly due to some hard questions asked by my 13 yr old
    	son. Discussion has been fueled by recent events in the news, such
    	as Clintons' actions on abortion, acceptance of gays into military
    	service, and the like. His (my son's) concerns are as much the
    	intolerance (Why doesn't everyone just live and let live, dad?) as
    	the sexuality aspects.
    
    	John

     <<< Note 18.26 by COMET::BRONCO::TANGUY "Armchair Rocket Scientist" >>>

   That is so true.  It is recent times, mabe the last 20 years that
   research in to homosexuality has been aimed at basic knowledge rather
   than as if it were a disease.  It would be good to know why, as in all
   research answers to other problems may also become known as the mind
   and body are better understood.  What is known?  Science has been for
   the most part ahead of society.  

   Unlike Scotty, this engineer likes to study life sciences and
   psychology.  

   Allison

    re .24, that's what I think, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    Pinning the root of homosexuality on "simple" paleohominids is
    sophistry, I think.  Hominids were *never* simple creatures.
     
    Planarians may be simple creatures, but any creature with sagans� of
    cells and the organization displayed by all vertebrates is not simple,
    not even a frog.  There are degrees of complex, that's all.
    
    -dick
    
    --------
    
    �  One sagan == "billions and billions"

re: .30

Sorry.  Wherever I said "simple," just delete and insert "less complex!!"

Read what I mean, not what I type!!  ;-)

Jon

    Hey, Jon, that's what you get for being an armchair rocket scientist.
    Most of us don't have RWTOPM (Read What The Other Person Meant)
    parsers built in, we have RWTOPW (...Wrote).
    
    :-)
    
    -dick

   From my reading and study there is the least support for chemical
   difference as the specific mechanism.  If such a difference did exist
   it would likely trace back to genetic legacy or in-utero develoment.
   In either case it would be fair to believe it would express itself as 
   a fundamental protein or hormonal difference beyond nominal male/female
   differentation that is already known.  Right now none of that exists.
   Science has gotten to the point where is does say male and female
   brains are differently developed but chemically same.

   Chemical difference, is that a metaphor for a more complex and less
   understood mechanism?

   Allison

    Not always less understood, Allison.  Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. 
    Its "parent" painkiller was Spirin, which is sodium acetyl salicylate. 
    There's a chemical difference here, but it's well understood.  (Yes, I
    admit that this is a very simplistic example.)
    
    -dick

     �I believe someone said (might have been AIMHI::RAUH) that these children
     �grow up to be lawyers :-)

    At last someone recognized me for my insanity!:) 
    
    
    

    -dick,

   Good analogy though the level of over simplification is far to
   extensive for a vald comparison.  One of the primary items of
   significance is that even subtle variations can be the difference
   between alive and dead for most animals, especially the more complex.
   The balance of a given set of chemicals specifically, hormones are
   linked to all manner of impacts to the reproductive system alone.  
   We also know those hormones are genetically linked to their
   progenitors.  The corrolation is not absolute as there are failures.

   If it were only chemicals then we then say men and women are almost 
   chemically the same save for a COOH tail on a gonadotropic hormone
   and have real meaning in the statement.    So saying chemicals is 
   not an adaquate enough explanation.

   Allison

	John, thanks for the info! Good luck with your son. :-)



Glen

    re:.19
    
    It's been a good 20 years since I studied evolution in high school
    biology class, but (if memory serves me) I can tell you that punctuated
    equilibrium is not contradictory to classical Darwinism.
    
    It might have even been Darwin himself who first conceptualized the idea.
    
    From reading .19 it sounds like you think the two cannot coexist, though
    I may be reading you wrong.

    RE .38
    
    Good point for discussion, Mike, but you should read .19 more closely.
    
    I did not say in .19 that punctuated equilibrium cannot coexist with
    Darwinism.  I said specifically that Darwinism does in fact explain
    quite well the evolution of isolated populations (e.g., that of the
    Galapagos Archipelago, which was Darwin's laboratory population) over
    relatively short time spans (on the general order of a million years or
    so - say, up to 10 million or so.)  Punctuated equilibrium works better
    at explaining the broad picture over long geological spans (of the
    order of magnitude of eons).  If you examine the diversification of
    species over the past 400 million years, you will see that the numbers
    of *new* species rise and fall periodically and that these peaks and
    valleys in the diversification process coincide well with periods of
    greater or lesser environmental change.  In the same way that Newtonian
    physics and Einsteinian physics explain different aspects of the total
    universe, Darwinism and PE work together to clarify our overall
    understanding.
    
    In the specific case of "is being gay a choice," PE explains better
    than Darwinism how genetic homosexuality could, after coming into
    existence, remain an active trait.  Darwinism says that contrasurvival
    traits are bred out of species; homosexuality is looked upon as such a
    contrasurvival trait, yet it has not been bred out of existence in tens
    of millions of years, across many species.  So it makes more sense to
    postulate that it is a trait that doesn't fall under the Darwinian
    "survival of the fittest" theory.  Under PE, homosexuality would be a
    mutation in response to some environmental event (a stray Alpha
    particle, maybe?  Who knows?).
    
    -dick

	OK, first of all, I don't think it should matter what "causes" people
    to be gay.  I figure a person's sexual orientation is and should be a 
    matter of concern only to that person and that person's consenting partner.
    
	In fact, I tend to ignore "news" like that.

	Somebody Else: "Did you hear that Woody and Mia are in a custody battle
		over their kids?"
	Me: "So what?"
	Somebody Else: "Did you hear that Donald Trump paid $6 million for a
		haircut?"
	Me: "So what?"
	Somebody Else: "Did you hear that so-and-so is gay?"
	Me: "So what?"
	Somebody Else: "Did you hear that Washington released Mark Rypien?"
	Me: "Thank God!  Now maybe they can get a *real* quarterback."

	The scary thing about this is that if being gay is discovered to have a
    genetic origin, then it stands to reason that some time in the future some
    doctor is going to figure out a way to genetically alter an embryo to
    "correct" that condition.  So the embryo's parents say, "Hey, we don't 
    want our child to be gay, because (a) gay people have a hard time in this
    intolerant world, or -- sadly -- (b) we don't want any aberrations in our
    family."  So the doctor performs the procedure, and at the same time maybe
    loses some nuance that would have predisposed that embryo to grow up to 
    become a great doctor or artist or humanitarian, or even (mirabile dictu)
    a happy, well-adjusted person.

	To me, it's less important why people are gay than that they are and
    shouldn't considered abnormal because of it.

    I should know better than get into this discussion, but:

    I believe that being homosexual is a matter of choice rather
    than being "born that way".  I base my opinion on the careful
    consideration of the following facts and am not likely to change 
    that opinion unless I see some pretty convincing evidence.  

    1)The "studies" pointed to by homosexuals fall far short of being 
      conclusive.  In fact those studies (yes I have seen them) indicate 
      that there _may_ be _some_ condition that _may_ cause some 
      predisposition to homosexuality.  They are not even conclusive on 
      the _condition_ existing let alone whether or not the condition 
      causes a predisposition to homosexuality.

    2) The laws of Genetics.  I'm talking Mendel here, not Darwin.  The
       fact that if there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, then
       the passing of homosexuality from generation to generation would
       follow the laws of genetics.  From what I have seen of
       homosexuality, this does not happen.  

    3) If homosexuality were a mutation, I find it hard to believe that
       this one mutation would affect 10% (the number claimed by the
       homosexual community) of the population.

    4) I know how strong an affect the subconscious emotional part of
       our mentality controls the conscious part of our mentality.  Such
       as certain phobias.  My wife, for one example, has a phobia against
       certain dead animals.  Live versions don't bother her, and she
       knows the she has the problem, but she can't control herself
       running away in hysterics whenever she encounters this situation.

    5) There are many phobias and manias that people just cannot control
       by themselves.  To overcome these conditions a significant amount
       of psychology is involved.  This also holds true for homosexuality.
       There are many cases where homosexuals have changed their
       orientation with the help of psychotherapy.

    fred();

.40> ...in the future some doctor is going to figure out a way to
.40> genetically alter an embryo to "correct" that condition.

I do not doubt but that in all probability, within our lifetime, there
will be a genetic procedure available to (1) tell if the unborn child will
be homosexual and (2) to "change" (note that I did not say "correct")
this.

I wonder how many parents would have such a procedure done?  Anyone here
in this conference?
    
.40> So the doctor performs the procedure, and at the same time maybe
.40> loses some nuance that would have predisposed that embryo to grow up to 
.40> become a great doctor or artist or humanitarian, or even (mirabile dictu)
.40> a happy, well-adjusted person.

Straight people turn out to be (mirabile dictu) quite happy and well-adjusted
people also .. and they make good doctors, artists and humanitarians.  The
only difference between homosexual and heterosexual is that of the object
of their affections.  Being gay hasn't a flippin' thing to do with being
a better <anything>.

Bubba

    Re .41
    
    1)The "studies" pointed to by homosexuals fall far short of being 
      conclusive.  In fact those studies (yes I have seen them) indicate 
      that there _may_ be _some_ condition that _may_ cause some 
      predisposition to homosexuality.  They are not even conclusive on 
      the _condition_ existing let alone whether or not the condition 
      causes a predisposition to homosexuality.

    This statement carries no weight of evidence to refute the studies; it
    is no more conclusive than the studies you cite.  Rejected.
    
    2) The laws of Genetics.  I'm talking Mendel here, not Darwin.  The
       fact that if there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, then
       the passing of homosexuality from generation to generation would
       follow the laws of genetics.  From what I have seen of
       homosexuality, this does not happen.  

    Left-handedness is accepted to be a genetic predisposition.  It occurs
    in approximately 10% of the population, and it is not passed from
    generation to generation.  Mendel's laws do not apply; there is some
    other mechanism at work.  Your point is rejected.
    
    3) If homosexuality were a mutation, I find it hard to believe that
       this one mutation would affect 10% (the number claimed by the
       homosexual community) of the population.

    A mutation that occurred some tens or hundreds of millions of years ago
    could very well have been reinforced.  Homo sapiens sapiens is a
    species that is the product of mutation after mutation; at some time in
    the Paleozoic Era (before 225 million years ago) there were no mammals. 
    Mutation.  Until approximately halfway through the Tertiary Period (the
    most recent 65 million years) there were no primates.  Mutation.  Shall
    I cite more?  Your point is rejected.
    
    4) I know how strong an affect the subconscious emotional part of
       our mentality controls the conscious part of our mentality.  Such
       as certain phobias.  My wife, for one example, has a phobia against
       certain dead animals.  Live versions don't bother her, and she
       knows the she has the problem, but she can't control herself
       running away in hysterics whenever she encounters this situation.

    It is agreed that some individuals may come to believe that they are
    gay when they have no apparent genetic predisposition thereto.  To show
    all behaviors to be learned or chosen, you would have to prove that
    there is no such thing as instinct.  Explain, then, a baby's sucking
    reflex.  Your point adds nothing to the debate, and it is rejected.
    
    5) There are many phobias and manias that people just cannot control
       by themselves.  To overcome these conditions a significant amount
       of psychology is involved.  This also holds true for homosexuality.
       There are many cases where homosexuals have changed their
       orientation with the help of psychotherapy.
    
    Not proven.  There are cases in which homosexuals have been turned into
    a lifestyle different from their previous one.  These cases have not
    been shown to have permanently altered the person's mental and
    emotional patterns; they can be proven only to have altered behavior. 
    Your point is rejected.
    
    We are back to "insufficient information" for both sides.  Next case?
    
    -dick

    It is worth noting that the genetic causes for phenomena are often
    indirect.  Sometimes genes designed to produce one effect can create
    another side effect.  One example comes to mind is sickle cell anemia. 
    This is off the top of my head, but as I remember this from my college
    anthropology textbook, it comes about as a losing result of a sort of
    genetic crap shoot.  If you have the gene in only one of the two
    chromosomes, you have a genetic resistance to a particular disease (it
    might be malaria, but I'm not sure).  If you don't have the gene at
    all, you are out of luck in the sense of being more susceptible to that
    disease.  If you have both genes, you are also out of luck--in that
    case, you get sickle cell anemia.  So sometimes a genetic explanation
    can be that the genes were intended to do one thing, but as a side
    effect can produce something else.  That "something else" is also due
    to genetics, but are not what the gene was really designed for. 

    However, homosexuality need not have a genetic cause in order for it
    not to be a matter of personal choice.   It is worth considering the
    question of handedness, which makes for an interesting analogy with
    sexual orientation.  The use of one hand or another is behavioral, just
    as sex is a behavioral expression; among the two possible choices, the
    vast majority of people opt for one as their preference over the other;
    and yet, the predisposition to choose one pattern of hand use over
    another is, as most of us recognize in more enlightened times, not a
    matter of choice.  We don't (or at least shouldn't) try to force left
    handed people to become right handed anymore.  And yet, when all is
    said and done, no one really knows what causes people to be left or
    right handed.  It may not be genetically determined, as some studies
    seem to suggest that there isn't really any genetic link (although the
    jury is still out.)  One possibility is that something happens in the
    womb that causes some people to be left handed.  If so, then it would
    not have a genetic cause, but it also would not be a matter of choice.

    -- Mike

    The only thing I would add to the excellent replies by Dick and
    Mike is this:
    
    Fred, you start by saying you believe homosexuality to be a
    choice, and then proceed to tell us that you believe it is a
    psychological disorder.   I don't believe people can choose
    to be afflicted with psychological disorders.  Furthermore,
    many psychological disorders actually have their roots in
    biology (brain chemical imbalances and the like).
    
    So which is it?
    
    Your note is contradictory.
    
    /Greg
    

	Mike, Dick, great notes. I do want to add one thing. If you chose to be
gay Fred, and found a male partner, would you be cured of heterosexuality? 



Glen

    I think anyone who has ever tried to be sexually attracted to the sex he
    or she is not naturally or normally attracted to, knows that it isn't a
    choice.   I remember sitting on the sidewalk, in Provincetown, during
    Women's Weekend, watching all the women walking by holding hands, etc.,
    and saying, with true conviction, to a friend,  "I may as well face it! 
    I *know* I'm straight.  Cause all I can think of is - yeah, but what's
    the point without men?"   
    
    Lorna
    

    The way I view it, heterosexual women are living proof that sexual
    orientation is not a choice.  I say this because I can't imagine why,
    if anyone (male *or* female) had a choice, they would be sexually
    attracted to men.  Since most women are heterosexual, it only follows
    that it's because they can't help themselves.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    re balenza, binder, et. al
    
    That is about the response I expected.  You are once again putting
    me in position to prove my point to _your_ satisfaction, and if I
    can't then I must be wrong.  Well, as I said, I'm going to need a lot 
    more conclusive evidence than what has so far been presented to 
    change my mind.
    
    fred();

    IMHO, I think that there are those born gay, and those who make it a
    life's choice (ie: bisexuals) due to something in their past that
    turned them off the opposite sex.  I have a girlfriends who was hetero
    and had such bad problems with men she ended up completely turning to
    women.  God knows, before I met my husband I despaired at the quality
    of the guys I was meeting (they all seemed to do coke and drink to
    excess ... for some reason) and had such abusive relationships I
    sometimes thought of it as a viable alternative.
    
    Tammi
    

    
    But Fred, it does seem somewhat confusing. You state that you think its
    a choice, but your argument suggests its a disorder. Most people don't
    choose to have a disorder. Like kleptomania. Or that other thing where
    you accidently swear alot.
    
    I can honestly understand if you thought that homosexuality was a
    curable disorder. But I don't understand why you think its a choice.
    I'd like to understand that.
    
    BTW, if you made a comparison of the treatment of gays to the treatment
    of Jews in Europe in the 1940's, you could say, to some extent, staying
    Jewish is a choice. 'You could always convert.' (Wouldn't restore the
    foreskin, though.) And in that instance, the consequences of being a
    Jew were so terrible, that it would be understandable that people would
    opt out if they could... or hide it.
    
    Similarly, the Christians in Rome were persecuted horribly... for a
    choice. But they felt that the benefit of that choice was so much
    greater than the persecution that it was worth it.
    
    I guess its very hard for me to see why anyone would make the choice to
    be gay, considering how much persecution gays face... except if it
    brought them immense personal satisfaction. But then, it STILL goes
    back to how they feel inside that loving people of the same sex could
    be so wonderful that they would face such persecution.
    
    No matter how I look at it, I still end up with it being something
    deeper than choice in the sense of "do I wear my red sweater or my blue
    shirt today".
    
    So Fred, what exactly do you mean by choice?

    Fred, there is such a thing as proving one's point via objective
    standards.  It has nothing to do with the biases of Dick or Mike
    or myself or anyone else to tell you, for example, that your 
    argument about gay genes not being passed down is faulty because 
    you ignore the concept of recessive genes or because homosexuality 
    may be a biological condition not based on genetics but on
    something else we don't quite understand...like left handedness.

    And it isn't even a matter of getting the facts right.  Your logic
    seems faulty as well.  That the medical studies are inconclusive
    and that there are various psychological disorders is not a coherent 
    basis for a determination that people are gay by choice.

    /Greg

    Allow me to point out that my name is spelled with a "V", not a B". 
    Thank you.
    
    -- Mike

    
    re .52
    
    To you anyway.  this whole subject looks to me like an invitation
    to either agree with your position, or get pc-bashed.  You asked
    my openion  ( or .0 did ) and I gave it and the reasons why I
    hold that openion.  If you want to change that openion, then I 
    would expect something other than backhanded rejection.
    
    fred();

    re .53
    typo.

    re .51
    >
>              <<< Note 18.51 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>
>            -< Fred, before you leave, could you explain "choice"? >-

    Saying that there is some physical/genetic reason for homosexuality
    is saying there is no choice.  If homosexuality is an emotional/mental
    disorder, then change, although it may be very difficult, is possible,
    and the choice is to remain as you are or to at least _try_ to change.

    fred();

    I did not intend backhanded rejection.  I intended a straightforward
    and direct rejection of your reasoning.

    If I write my opinions in an open notesfile for discussion, I expect
    that on occasion they will be rejected.  It is up to me to determine
    if that rejection is pure BS or whether it has some merit.

    I do apologize if I came across as insulting in any way.

    FWIW, maybe you don't realize that suggesting I ought to change 
    (because there must be something wrong with me?) is inherently 
    insulting.

    /Greg

    re: .44
    
    ASIDE:  You're right, Mike.  It was malaria that the sickle-cell gene
            fights under correct conditions.
    
    	    I read an article about that in Discover magazine a couple of
    	    months ago.  Interestingly enough, it was an article about the
    	    possible genetic cause of homosexuality.

    fred(), you say we're putting you in the position of having to prove
    your point to our satisfaction.  Not so.  We're asking you to provide
    some hard evidence instead of only ideas, as we have provided hard
    evidence.  We're not asking for proof, just a little support of a kind
    that is less nebulous than "studies I've seen."
    
    As Greg says, it is up to each individual to determine if a rejection
    of his or her opinion has merit.  It is my belief that my rejection of
    your expressed opinions has merit by virtue of its citation of
    demonstrable fact, whereas your rejection of my rebuttal is no more
    than a cry of "that's what I expected."  Not much to build your case on
    there, is there?
    
    -dick

    re .59

>    fred(), you say we're putting you in the position of having to prove
>    your point to our satisfaction.  Not so.  We're asking you to provide
>    some hard evidence instead of only ideas, as we have provided hard
>    evidence.  We're not asking for proof, just a little support of a kind
>    that is less nebulous than "studies I've seen."

    To which I reply that neither have I seen any _hard_ evidence.  Only
    conjecture that is assumed to be true because it supports the politically
    correct position.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    What I've learned from this discussion is:  Don't tangle with Dick
    Binder unless you've got your sh*t together!!!  ;-)
    
    Jon

    re .58

> 	    I read an article about that in Discover magazine a couple of
>    	    months ago.  Interestingly enough, it was an article about the
>    	    possible genetic cause of homosexuality.

    I read the same article.  Emphasize _possible_.  No evidence that the
    _condition_ even exists let alone that the condition is a
    predisposition for homosexuality.  It is this article and those like it 
    that I see the homosexual community try to hold up as "evidence".

    fred();

     re .61

>    What I've learned from this discussion is:  Don't tangle with Dick
>    Binder unless you've got your sh*t together!!!  ;-)

    Or unless your position is backed by political correctness.

    fred();

    re . 62
    
    > I read the same article.  Emphasize _possible_.  No evidence that the
    > _condition_ even exists let alone that the condition is a
    > predisposition for homosexuality.  It is this article and those like it 
    > that I see the homosexual community try to hold up as "evidence".
    
    Yeah, I thought it was a very well balanced article.  A lot of times
    you see "scientists" arguing this point with an obvious pre-disposition
    to one side of the debate or the other (choice or not).
    
    If you've read some of my previous replies, it was probably obvious
    where I got some of my info!!
    
    jt

    RE: Fred

    I don't think you are being fair.   You have presented your opinion and 
    several people have explained why they disagree. Rather than offer 
    additional evidence and/or reasoning as a response, you accuse people of 
    being politically correct.

    There is nothing politically correct about me saying the 
    following:

      Your opinion that being gay is a choice is directly contradicted by
      your further opinion that being gay is a mental/emotional disorder.

    For me to state this does not require that I refer to speculative
    medical reports or adopt the views of some cadre of elite opinion 
    makers.  
    
    Unless you can show one of the following:
    
    A) You don't have an opinion that being gay is a choice
    B) You don't have an opinion that being gay is a mental/emotional disorder
    C) People chose to be afflicted with mental/emotional disorders
    
    ..unless one of A B or C is true, your opinion doesn't make any sense.  
    That isn't to say you have no right to hold it, by the way...
    
    /Greg

	I'll be very honest, I have no definate opinion as to whether
	homosexuality is a choice or pre-determined orientation.

	I know that I had a brother who was Gay. I know that all of his 
	siblings are decidedly heterosexual. 

	I know that I have an opinion, that David did not have a choice
	in the matter.

	I also know that I don't care that he did, or did not, "choose".

	Folks, IT DOES NOT MATTER!. Choice or genetics. Predeliction or 
	decision.

	I know that it is very important for those that would discriminate
	against Gays to believe that Gays choose. That they can be what 
	their beliefs tell them is "right". It makes it easier for them.

	The bottom line is that Gays are people. People not very different
	from you or I.  And that is something the bigots can never accept
	or understand.


Jim

If one rules out that Gay is a matter of choice and accepts that being Gay is 
part of ones genetic makeup (not mutation) then Homosexuality is as natural as 
Heterosexuality.

If genticists could prove that Homosexuality is 'polygenic' - not one but
many genes involved - then the Gay community would have a real powerful
argument to achieve a standing in society equal to that of Heterosexual. Which
is their right anyway - it would just be a lot easier.

If sexual preference is genetic how does it stay in the population ? It seems 
probable that Gay genes aren't 'passed on' from Father to Son. If that were 
the case then Homosexuality would have been, or is, being purged as a process 
of natural selection. True, Gay men can still reproduce but the probablity is 
somewhat reduced as a consequence of being Gay. I don't think darwinian theory 
can be ruled out it seems less likely.

Could sexual difference be decided during fetal development as a consequence of
hormonal release ? That might explain why Homosexuality stays within the
population and shows up in Heterosexual families and Heterosexuals show up in
Homosexual families. Anybody know of any studies which support that hypothesis ?

- Paul.

| <<< Note 18.49 by CSC32::HADDOCK "Don't Tell My Achy-Breaky Back" >>>



| That is about the response I expected.  You are once again putting
| me in position to prove my point to _your_ satisfaction, and if I
| can't then I must be wrong.  

	Actually, if you would list the reports you've seen that would be fine.
It would be nice to know how/why one forms the opinion that you have. 




Glen

    It is not necessary for homosexuality to be genetic for it not to be a
    matter of choice.
    
    There is a substantial body of evidence which supports the argument
    that sexual orientation is determined essentially by the influence of
    hormones during the early stages of fetal brain development.  In order
    for the fetus to develop properly specific amounts of specific hormones
    must be present at specific times at each stage.  If they are not, and
    tolerances for error appear not to be great, then any of a vast array
    of potential 'abnormalities' may occur.  
    
    Clinical experiments with animals have demonstrated that specific
    sexual behaviour can be induced at will by the manipulation of hormones
    before and after birth.  It is now so easy and predictable that
    populations of laboratory animals with specific sexual predispositions
    can be had to order.  Want the next rat generation 50% gay?  It can be
    had to order.
    
    This argument explains why homosexuality persists in the human
    population without conforming strictly to the laws of genetic
    inheritance, and why it is not a matter of conscious choice (putting an
    ideologically motivated radical minority to oneside temporarily).  It
    is also supported by the evidence.

>If sexual preference is genetic how does it stay in the population ? It seems 
>probable that Gay genes aren't 'passed on' from Father to Son. If that were 
>the case then Homosexuality would have been, or is, being purged as a process 
>of natural selection.

    It is very possible that the genes causing one to be gay are recessive.
    Thus you could have a whole lot of heterosexual carriers around. Or a
    complex set of genes that are involved. It it were one gene than there
    might be a case for expecting it to die out in a couple of generations.
    But it could still be genetic and be passed on by heterosexual couples.

    And of course lots of gay people fight being gay to the point of
    getting married and having kids. Especially in a non supportive
    environment. Seems to me if you really want to wipe out homosexuals
    and you believe only a few genes are "at fault" the best way to do it
    is to make life easy for gays. That way they will not go and have kids
    to hide being gay.

    			Alfred

    re .68

>	Actually, if you would list the reports you've seen that would be fine.
>It would be nice to know how/why one forms the opinion that you have. 

    Actually I have not seen any other references to "scientific evidence"
    either.  Other than the reference to the Discover article a few back.
    What I have seen is a lot of speculation that conditions _may_ exist
    that _may_ give predisposition to homosexuality.  No evidence that
    the _condition_ exists let alone it's affects.  Yet you demand I
    site chapter and verse of everything I present.   I guess being
    "politically correct" is supposed to be proof enough.

    fred();

    I don't think we have quite beat this subject to death yet, so I'll add
    my 2� worth.

    Thus far in this discussion the reality of bisexuality and its
    implications haven't been explored.  It has been observed that people's
    sexual orientation may fall in three major categories, exclusive
    heterosexual, bisexual, and exclusive homosexual.

    Because of social conditioning, many who may be ambi-sexual may quickly
    learn to express only one aspect of their sexuality.  I liken this to
    those who may originally be ambidextrous, but select one hand over the
    other and become fixed in their handedness.

    Furthermore, I can imagine situations where a bisexual man may have
    started related sexually to both men and women, but later switch to
    relating exclusively to a female through marriage.  Such individuals may
    be sited as examples of gay men switching over to conventional
    heterosexuality.  I would argue that such individuals may have always
    been bisexual, but through social pressure decided to 'settle down' in a
    heterosexual relationship.

    The occurrence of bisexuals may give the appearance that everyone who
    relates homosexually has the choice to be heterosexual.  This is
    false in two ways.

      One, the bisexual may conform to social conventions through a
      heterosexual marriage, but their underlying bisexuality has not been
      eliminated.  Even after marriage, they may relate homosexually when
      away from the light of social pressure.

      Two, the exclusive homosexual never had the option to relate
      heterosexually.  It is akin to the situation of forcing the left
      handed person to exclusively use their right hand.  An ambidextrous
      person may been able to condition themselves to use one hand over the
      other, likewise they may continue to retain their ambidextrous
      ability.  A right handed person and a left handed person doesn't share
      the ambidextrous person's ability to condition themselves to the use
      of one hand over the other.



    Well, what do others think?

Steve Hanson

    re .72
    
    Interestingly, by exploring shades of sexuality your argument points at
    its own weakness, which is the assumption that there are three distinct
    categories of sexual orientation.  It is far simpler to eliminate the
    categories of 'pure' homosexual and heterosexual altogether.  We are
    then left with people who are merely sexual, and who will express their
    sexuality differently at different times.  We simultaneously attack the
    artificial boundaries between homosexual and homosocial behaviour.  For
    example, one prime reason many men fear displays of affection for male
    friends is precisely because they fear they or others will confuse
    homosocial behaviour with homosexuality.

    I can't speak to the issue of people who get themselves into "sexual
    relationships" -- as opposed to those who get into loving relationships
    that turn sexual as emotional intimacy develops.
    
    But I will speak to that latter type of relationship, by saying that I
    know people for whom the natural sexual polarity appears to be hetero
    but who have formed love relationships of the kind I describe with
    members of the same sex.  When the issue is brought up, the response is
    something on the order of, "Why should I care that he's a man?  I love
    him, he loves me, we want to share that love physically."
    
    -dick

    re: .72  Let's dub that the "Switch Hitter Theory!!"
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
    Here's another one for you:
    
    I saw a study on PBS one time (geez, what a geek I am!).
    
    Now, I wasn't taking notes at the time, so forgive me if I don't get
    this entirely right, but according to the show, a group of German
    scientists did a study of male children born before, during and after
    WWII.  They found that there was a higher incidence of homosexuality
    among boys born during the war than in similar sized groups of boys
    born in the surrounding years.
    
    Their theory was that the stress of daily Allied bombings, worry about
    husbands, brothers, fathers whore soldiers, and other threats of war ar
    in Germany caused increased levels of adrenaline and other hormones 
    among pregnant women.  That increase may trigger hormonal changes in
    the developing fetus which could result in a homosexual man.
    
    They did not postulate on the cause of lesbianism (is that a real
    word?).

| <<< Note 18.71 by CSC32::HADDOCK "Don't Tell My Achy-Breaky Back" >>>




| Actually I have not seen any other references to "scientific evidence"
| either.  Other than the reference to the Discover article a few back.
| What I have seen is a lot of speculation that conditions _may_ exist
| that _may_ give predisposition to homosexuality.  No evidence that
| the _condition_ exists let alone it's affects.  

	Fred, look at the proof that has been given. Now go out and see if it
is or isn't true. Very simple.

| Yet you demand 

	Hmmm.... where did you see a demand in my statement? Interesting how
you came to that conclusion....

| I site chapter and verse of everything I present.   

	Again, these are your words and not the words anyone stated. Just
present the reports. We can very easily go back and read them ourselves. 
Is this how you form your opinions of people or groups of people? You know, by
constantly putting your own thoughts into their words? If not, let me know how
you do it. :-) Ask questions! You'd be surprised at what you'll see.

| I guess being
| "politically correct" is supposed to be proof enough.

	Again, your words and no one elses....



Glen

    re .73
    
>    Interestingly, by exploring shades of sexuality your argument points at
>    its own weakness, which is the assumption that there are three distinct
>    categories of sexual orientation.

    I guess I don't follow you.  How is this theory weak?

>    It is far simpler to eliminate the
>    categories of 'pure' homosexual and heterosexual altogether.  We are
>    then left with people who are merely sexual, and who will express their
>    sexuality differently at different times.

    True, it may be simpler, but does it accuratly correspond to the
    evidence?  Does the evidence allow us to remove the categories of
    heterosexual and homosexual and only speak of ambi-sexual?  Likewise,
    have we found evidence to support the removal of the categories of
    left-handed, right-handed and acknowledge that everyone is ambidextrous?

Steve H

    
    	re .69 by Dave Simpson
    
    	Interesting..can you post any pointers to these studies? My son
    	said that he had seen a TV show that offered the same theories,
    	but I wondered how much of it he really understood while viewing
    	it.
    
    	John

    re .76

>| Actually I have not seen any other references to "scientific evidence"
>| either.  Other than the reference to the Discover article a few back.
>| What I have seen is a lot of speculation that conditions _may_ exist
>| that _may_ give predisposition to homosexuality.  No evidence that
>| the _condition_ exists let alone it's affects.  
>
>	Fred, look at the proof that has been given. Now go out and see if it
>is or isn't true. Very simple.

    What proof?  All I see is speculation and conjecture that I am expected
    to accept as "proof" because it supports the "politically correct"
    view of things.

    fred();

    RE: .79
    
    I ask again, what do the contents of reply .65 have to do with
    being "politically correct?"
    
    /Greg

    re .65

>    I don't think you are being fair.   You have presented your opinion and 
>    several people have explained why they disagree. Rather than offer 
>    additional evidence and/or reasoning as a response, you accuse people of 
>    being politically correct.

    I presented my opinion.  It was demanded that unless that opinion
    be supported by chapter and verse of documentation while other opinions
    here are expected to be taken at face value.


>      Your opinion that being gay is a choice is directly contradicted by
>      your further opinion that being gay is a mental/emotional disorder.

    Not at all.  You have a choice to change. Although that change may
    be difficult.  Unlike someone whose skin is black that cannot change
    no matter how much they want to.

>    For me to state this does not require that I refer to speculative
>    medical reports or adopt the views of some cadre of elite opinion 
>    makers.  

    Yet you require that _I_ back up my opinions.

>    Unless you can show one of the following:
>    
>    A) You don't have an opinion that being gay is a choice
>    B) You don't have an opinion that being gay is a mental/emotional disorder
>    C) People chose to be afflicted with mental/emotional disorders
>    
>    ..unless one of A B or C is true, your opinion doesn't make any sense.  
>    That isn't to say you have no right to hold it, by the way...

    In other words, unless _I_ can _prove_ my point to _your_ satisfaction
    then I must be wrong.  Looks like "political correctness" to me.

    fred();

    Even if being gay were a choice (I don't think it is, but *if* it
    were), so what?  I don't see anything wrong with someone choosing to be
    gay, if it were possible.  What's the problem?  I don't see why there
    can't be room in the world for alternate lifestyles, and I don't see
    why heterosexuals should mind if other people are gay, whether they
    choose it or not.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .82

>    Even if being gay were a choice (I don't think it is, but *if* it
>    were), so what?  I don't see anything wrong with someone choosing to be
>    gay, if it were possible.  What's the problem?  I don't see why there
>    can't be room in the world for alternate lifestyles, and I don't see
>    why heterosexuals should mind if other people are gay, whether they
>    choose it or not.
    
    Because whether being gay is a choice or not has a lot to do with
    whether or not they are a "minority" equal to that of Blacks,
    Hispanics, women, etc and should be protected by the same civil rights
    laws, or whether they are a powerful special interest group trying
    to shove their agenda down the throat of the majority.

    See SOAPBOX 1427 for a rather lengthy discussion of special civil
    rights protection for homosexuals.  
    
    fred();

    
    
      Jim Percival,
    
    > bigots
    
      Don't you think it is possible for some people to think that
    homosexuality is wrong and for those same people to not be bigots?
    
    David

    .81

    > Not at all.  You have a choice to change. Although that change may
    > be difficult.  Unlike someone whose skin is black that cannot change
    > no matter how much they want to.

    I'm afraid I don't understand you.  How can someone who has a 
    psychological condition make a "choice to change" that condition?
    Can a manic depressive "decide" not to be a manic depressive anymore?
    Certainly a manic depressive can decide he/she no longer wishes to
    suffer the affects of manic depression, and he/she can take medication
    and undergo other kinds of treatment to relieve the effects of manic
    depression, but is that the same thing as deciding not to *BE* a manic
    depressive?

    And how does one get to be a manic depressive in the first place?
    Is that a choice as well?

    It occurs to me that when you talk about choice, you may be referring 
    only to certain kinds of behavior.  Is it your opinion that a person 
    can not only choose to refrain from engaging in homosexual sex, but 
    that a person can also choose not to *desire* it as well?

    I would agree with you that people definitely have a choice in how
    they behave.  I could decide tomorrow to be celibate for the rest of
    my life.  Whether I would be successful or not is another matter, but
    certainly the choice is mine.   What I don't think I have a choice in
    is whom I find attractive.  Are you suggesting that people have the 
    capacity to consciously decide what they do and do not find erotic?  

    >>    For me to state this does not require that I refer to speculative
    >>    medical reports or adopt the views of some cadre of elite opinion 
    >>    makers.  
    >
    >    Yet you require that _I_ back up my opinions.

    What do you require in the way of proof of anything that I have said.  
    Point out an assertion that you believe is false that requires 
    substantiation and I will do my best to back it up.

>    In other words, unless _I_ can _prove_ my point to _your_ satisfaction
>    then I must be wrong.  Looks like "political correctness" to me.

    I set the situation up using *your* opinions, not mine.  I will 
    admit the A, B, C, thing is restrictive, but I don't understand what this
    has to do with my personal satisfaction.   It seems self evident 
    to me that if some unknown factor causes a person to be gay, and that
    factor is determined (by you) to be some sort of mental or emotional
    disorder, then by your own definition becoming gay can not have been
    a choice.  Unless, as I said, you believe that people chose to become
    afflicted with psychological disorders.

    And I still fail to see what this has to do with political correctness.
    I thought being PC was about avoiding terms, subjects and ideas deemed
    to be insulting towards some group.  About restricting debate to 
    certain subjects and censoring unwanted opinions.   Is this what you
    see happening?  Is anyone deleting your notes or threatening you
    because of your contributions here?   Fred, I may strongly disagree
    with the things you say, but I believe 100% in your right to say them.
    Does that sound like PCness to you?

    /Greg

    
    what's insulting is what is insulting in the eye of the beholder, 
    or what the beholder chooses to think is insulting, or what the
    beholder finds expedient to believe is insulting.
    
    i think you'll agree that given enough incentive, its possible 
    to find something insulting about most anything anyone could say.

     <<< Note 18.84 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>

    
    
>      Don't you think it is possible for some people to think that
>    homosexuality is wrong and for those same people to not be bigots?
 
	If "thinking it is wrong" is a far as they go, then yes.

	However as soon as they work to strip Gays of their civil rights,
	or determine where they can or cannot work, or where they can or 
	cannot live based SOLELY on the Gay's orientation, I apply the
	label.

Jim

    re .85

    It is "political correctness" when one side of the debate is assumed
    to be correct simply because it supports the "correct" position 
    ( Ie. being homosexual is not a choice), while the other side of the 
    debate is required to back up their position documented chapter and 
    verse. Not only is that documentation required, but the position must 
    be _proven_ to the satisfaction of the "correct" side.  Otherwise 
    the "incorrect" side is just _naturally_ proven to be wrong.

    fred();

    .88
    
    Fred, I feel as though we are different planets.  If that is your
    definition of being PC, then you are as guilty of the charge as
    you claim others to be.   Why do I say this?
    
    I assume you think your position is correct, right? Well if so, and if 
    you insist on alternate positions being proven to YOUR satisfaction 
    (who doesn't????), then YOU are being PC.  You said right from the
    begining that you'd need substantial proof to change your mind.
    Well aren't you behaving in precisely the same way as those you 
    accuse of being PC?  If not, how is what you are doing any different?
    
    I would prefer we stick to the subject.
    
    I would point out that I have yet to ask you for a single piece of 
    documentation.  And I have offered to provide *YOU* with documentation 
    should you care to ask for it.  
    
    What else do you want?
    
    There were several questions in .85 that I was hoping you might
    answer so that I might better understand where you are coming from.
    Will you answer them?
    
    Do you think I am being unreasonable?
    
    /Greg

    Can I ask a dumb question ....?

    Suppose that tomorrow in the "New England Journal of Medicine", a
    respected journal, it was announced that there was definitive
    proof that homosexuality was genetic.  A person is BORN gay and
    that's all there is to it.

    What difference would it make to anyone about anything?

    Bubba

    
    	Hey Fred Haddock
    
    	I don't know whether being gay is a matter of choice, or genetics,
    	or brain chemistry, or phase of the moon. And what's more, I don't
    	give a damn. And while I don't think that people that are gay
    	should receive special treatment, I don't understand why they
    	should be treated any different than heterosexuals or celibates.
    	And I don't like anybody trying to shove their beliefs or agenda
    	down my throat,whether it be militant gays or the moral majority.
    
    	So does this make me 'Politically Correct' in your eys? If so,
    	then I'm glad I did at least one thing right today.
    
    	John

    re:.39
    
    I did allow for the possibility that I read you wrong.
    
    So, it seems we agree.  Now I'm waiting for the lightning bolt...

    re .91

    Where have I ever said that homosexuals should not receive equal
    treatment.  All I have said is that homosexuality is a choice rather
    than they are "born that way".  That was the original question of
    this note, and for daring to respond to  that I have been bashed from 
    several directions.  I get the distinct feeling that this note is not 
    for open discussion, but for the regurgitation of the "politically 
    correct" point of view.  Your last attack only serves to prove my point.

    Several back someone pointed out how many homosexuals have lived
    heterosexual lives and had children, etc.  This in itself is enough
    to prove that whether or not there is some built-in predisposition for
    same-sex attraction, whether or not someone lives a homosexual 
    lifestyle (engages in homosexual relationships and homosexual
    sexual acts) is indeed a _choice_.

    fred();

    Re .93: Ah, *actions* are a choice! You're quite right. Homosexual
    behavior is a choice, just as heterosexual behavior is a choice. But
    sexuality (as opposed to sexual _behavior_) doesn't have to do with
    actions but with attractions. And the theory is that, in general, one
    does not choose which sex one finds arousing.
    
    Therefore, I would agree with you that "living a homosexual lifestyle"
    (whatever that is) is a choice. But _being_ homosexual is, as far as
    can be determined, not a choice. 
    
    Clear as mud?
    
    -b

    re .94

>    Therefore, I would agree with you that "living a homosexual lifestyle"
>    (whatever that is) is a choice. But _being_ homosexual is, as far as
>    can be determined, not a choice. 

    My point is that it has _not_ been determined whether homosexuality
    is a physical or an emotional condition.  My belief is that it is an
    emotional condition and that condition _can_ be changed.  I have seen
    many homosexuals that have, through counseling, been able to reverse
    their sexual preference.

    fred();

    Ah, I see. Since I, a heterosexual, could, if I _chose_, undergo some
    form of therapy that would, if successful, cause me to be aroused by
    women instead of by men, then my current sexual orientation is a
    "choice" in the sense that I could _choose_ to try and change it -
    though not in the sense that I ever made a conscious choice about it in
    the first place.
    
    Sort of like "choosing" to like to eat food, as opposed to undergoing
    extensive aversion therapy that would render all food distasteful. So
    the fact that I was born liking food doesn't mean that my continuing to
    like food is not a choice! NOW I understand.
    
    [This is a definition of "choice" that's well beyond the one I use in
    normal daily life, but I can see how it might appeal to anyone who
    really wants to be captain of his/her fate, monarch of his/her soul...]
    
    I don't suppose you'd be willing to concede that, choices
    notwithstanding, some people seem to come equipped with different
    "default settings" than others? And that a good many people have found
    it easier to die than to change those settings?
    
    -b

    re .95, but *why* should anyone want to reverse their sexual
    preference, when it's so enjoyable to satisfy the sexual preferences
    that we already have?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .97

>    re .95, but *why* should anyone want to reverse their sexual
>    preference, when it's so enjoyable to satisfy the sexual preferences
>    that we already have?

    Because society does not accept homosexuality as a legitimate minority.
    Why should the rest of society have to change to accept the conduct
    of this group?  Why should they be granted legal protection equal
    to other legal minorities?  If that is the way you choose to live
    your life, fine, but I cannot see why the rest of society must 
    change to accept what is essentially _your_ problem.

    fred();

    re .96

>    I don't suppose you'd be willing to concede that, choices
>    notwithstanding, some people seem to come equipped with different
>    "default settings" than others? 

    As I said originally, not unless I see a lot more _concrete_ evidence
    than is currently being presented as _proof_ by the homosexual community.

>    And that a good many people have found
>    it easier to die than to change those settings?

    I never said it was easy.  Just possible.  There has been a lot of
    people who have found it easier to die than to change a lot of things.

    fred();

    RE: .96
    
    Theoretically speaking, could you change, Fred?  And I don't just
    mean "force yourself to perform specific acts" - I mean, *change*
    your preference so that you could actually enjoy same sex behavior?
    
    /Greg

    re .98
    
    Not a legitimate minority?  Oh my aching back.
    
    Of course the poor benighted negroes, bless their simple black hearts,
    were not accepted as a legitimate minority for a long time, either. 
    But my land sakes, you say, they were thought to be inferior speciments
    of humanity, and it was the white man's burden to take them out of
    Africa where they were living in trees and carving each other up for
    dinner, and give them the blessings of civilization.
    
    Right.  Now it's gays.  Whom will we choose to hate next?  Men who are
    named after fish?
    
    I think the kind of concrete evidence that would convince you is the
    same kind of concrete that needs to be jackhammered out of some
    people's heads.
    
    -dick

    re.100

>    Theoretically speaking, could you change, Fred?  And I don't just
>    mean "force yourself to perform specific acts" - I mean, *change*
>    your preference so that you could actually enjoy same sex behavior?

    There was a time in my life that I had to make some changes in my
    emotional character.  No, not homosexuality, and I won't go into
    the gory details.  Anyway most people would probably consider it
    rather trivial compared to some problems.  It took about two years
    of really intense work even though I really wanted to make the change.
    I was sick and tired of being sick and tired of being and feeling the
    way I did.  I have made those changes. I know how difficult it can be.  
    I am also proof that it _can_ be done. 

    Making changes that are really hard are infinitely more possible than
    making changes that are _impossible_  such as changing skin color or
    the fact that you are a quadriplegic.

    fred();

    We wouldn't be a minority if people didn't insist we either change
    to suit their standards, or hide in closets and endure a miserable
    clandestine existance constantly in fear of exposure and all that
    would entail.
    
    The laws of the majority (including the recently passed amendment 2)
    made gay people a "legitimate" minority!
    
    /Greg

    re .102, well, Fred, personally, I don't think I could turn into a
    Lesbian any easier than I could turn my skin black.  I might be able to
    force myself to have sex with another woman, and might be able to paint
    my skin brown, but underneath it all I'd still be a heterosexual
    caucasian.  
    
    Also, I totally disagree with you when you say that homosexuals should
    try to change their behavior.  As a matter of fact, I find it
    insulting.  If I were a Lesbian I wouldn't be very happy if most people
    wanted me to try to be attracted to men.  I'd prefer to be respected
    for what am, not what you think I should be.
    
    Lorna
    

    The whole question of changing behavior is an interesting one.
    
    Assuming all gay people in existance *could* change, why should
    we?   Why shouldn't society change instead?
    
    I mean, we aren't doing anything that harms anyone, whereas
    society is doing things like turning a blind eye to gay bashing
    and the suicide rate among gay teens, legalizing discrimination
    against g/l/b people, and (in some cases) openly preaching hatred 
    towards us.
    
    Now I ask you, who's behavior is worse?  
    
    /Greg

        re .103

>    We wouldn't be a minority if people didn't insist we either change
>    to suit their standards, or hide in closets and endure a miserable
>    clandestine existence constantly in fear of exposure and all that
>    would entail.

    But aren't you demanding that the rest of society change to meet
    _your_ standards?

>    The laws of the majority (including the recently passed amendment 2)
>    made gay people a "legitimate" minority!

    Again evidence that what was intended by this note is not discussion
    but a forum from which to espouse the "politically correct" position.
    For discussion on minority status for homosexuals, you can see 
    PEAR::SOAPBOX note 1427.

    re .105

>    Assuming all gay people in existence *could* change, why should
>    we?   Why shouldn't society change instead?

    Then it appears that we have reached an impasse.

>    Now I ask you, who's behavior is worse?  

    I simply do not buy your assertion that the problems of the
    homosexuals are being deliberately perpetrated by society.  Assault
    and battery is illegal under any circumstance.  Suicide is a problem
    no matter when and where.   You can see PEAR::SOAPBOX AND COMET::
    COLORADO for discussion of A2.

    fred();
    fred();

    re .104

>    Also, I totally disagree with you when you say that homosexuals should
>    try to change their behavior.  As a matter of fact, I find it
>    insulting.  If I were a Lesbian I wouldn't be very happy if most people
>    wanted me to try to be attracted to men.  I'd prefer to be respected
>    for what am, not what you think I should be.

    There are a lot of things a lot of people enjoy doing that are not
    accepted by society.  Some of them are downright illegal.  I think
    that there are probably many people who indulge in those activities
    who are also insulted by the fact that society does not approve of
    them.

    fred();

    >    I simply do not buy your assertion that the problems of the
    >    homosexuals are being deliberately perpetrated by society.

    Oh I see.  The Marines who beat up that gay man outside a gay bar
    the other day while shouting "Clinton must pay" did it by accident.

    Is it really your position that all the discrimination, harassment 
    and violence the gay community faces is either fictional, deserved,
    or unrelated to the sexual orientation of the victim?   That there
    is no such thing as anti-gay bigotry?

    I wonder if a report by our own government (prepared during President 
    Ronald Reagan's tenure), would make any difference.  It said that gay 
    people were the number one victims of bias-crimes in the United States.  
    
    /Greg

    PS - I've read SOAPBOX.  The interpretation of A2 is simple.  A
    	 child could understand what "no claim of discrimination"
    	 means - but yet their remain those who insist A2 is a 
    	 fair law that prevents "special privileges."  Rubbish.

    Re .107: Well, Fred, if your main issue with "gay rights" is that it
    shouldn't be any _more_ wrong to beat up gays than to beat up anybody
    else - i.e., if the "minority privilege" you speak of is the main
    "special right" you're concerned about - I'd have to agree with you. I
    don't think beating someone up "because they're <favorite picked-on
    group>" should be considered a worse crime than a - what _is_ it if
    it isn't a hate crime? an "I didn't like his/her face" crime? - than
    a run-of-the-mill beating. BUT if it can be shown that law enforcement
    officers, juries, and/or judges are consistently treating such crimes
    as if they're _less_ significant, I'd like to see some action taken to
    make enforcement of the existing laws more consistent.
    
    Heck, who knows? I might find myself in one of those "minorities it's
    OK to pick on" one of these days...
    
    So, are you in favor of restricting the rights of consenting adults to
    do what they want with each other in private? Or are you mainly
    concerned with what they do in public - as in, you never want to see
    two men walking down the sidewalk holding hands? Greeting each other
    with a kiss? [Never mind that they might be relatives rather than
    lovers; let's say it's a really juicy kiss.] If _that's_ the case,
    there are probably a few old ordinances still lying around banning
    public displays of affection; as long as they're enforced consistently
    for everybody, they're probably not even unconstitutional...
    
    -b

    re last2
    
    Again more evidence on what this note is _really_ about?
    
    fred();

    
>    Because whether being gay is a choice or not has a lot to do with
>    whether or not they are a "minority" equal to that of Blacks,
>    Hispanics, women, etc and should be protected by the same civil rights
>    laws, or whether they are a powerful special interest group trying
>    to shove their agenda down the throat of the majority.

Well, we could be  a "minority" *and* a powerful special interest 
group tryng to shove our agenda down your throats.  (Lovely choice of 
words, Fred.)

Seriously, "veterans" are a protected class, and they a group formed 
from choice...sorta.  Certainly not from genetics.

			*	* 	*

Do you folks know what it feels like to have your "nature" (or 
"choice") debated by the nation for a few weeks?  Do you know what it 
feels like to be talked about as if you weren't there?  Do you know 
what it's like to have professional soldiers tell you that they are 
qualified to make all sorts of statements about how you do and do not 
behave, based solely on their extensive *military* service, with 
quite possibly next-to-zero experience with gay people?  Do you 
realize how weird it is for me--a jock who has taken group showers 
with lots of heterosexual men--to hear about how gay men (they never 
seem to talk about lesbians) will be constantly coming on to 
heterosexuals and getting aroused by them in the 
showers/stalls/barracks/trenches.  (What an egotistical 
perspective!?!  "Honey, you ain't that good looking."  No one is.)

Do you know what it feels like to go through a complex set of 
decisions, confirmations, experimentations, and realizations, which we 
call "coming out" (realizing that we're lesbian, bisexual, or gay), 
and to have people disrespect that experience/knowledge and demand 
scientific studies???

It's a real drag.  (Pun intended.)

There's really no substitute--scientific studies included--for
spending lots of time with gay people.  *Speak* with us, for gosh
sakes.  Hang out with us for a bit.  Take a coffee break with us.
Watch one of our movies.  Attend one of our events (plays, marches,
films, dine at our cafes, whatever).  Make a friend who's gay.  Share
experiences.  And make sure that you *listen* and *feel*...and mull it
over for a long time before you leap into judgement. 

The data that you're looking for is in your gut, your mind, and your 
heart.  The study you need is that coworker sitting ten feet from you, 
or that artsy playhouse showing "Torch Song Trilogy" this weekend.  
It's that cousin or son or uncle or friend of a friend.  

If we're a bunch of twisted invididuals who are harmful to society, I 
trust that you are sensitive and intelligent enough to pick up on that 
after spending some time with us.  ("Harold!  That homosexual over 
there keeps twitching, drooling, and fingering the swtichblade!!!")
You can find out what level of "choice" was involved with each of us 
by talking with us, hanging out with us, relating to us, listening to 
us.  (If it's such an easy choice, why don't all us gay folks jump 
over to heterosexuality to avoid the discrimination, rude 
conversations, change of being gay bashed, and so forth.  Sure would 
make our lives a lot easier, wouldn't it?)

You don't need a ruler or computer or a test tube to get at the truth.
The brain is only one way we have of taking in data.  Open up your
ears and your heart, and enough truth will make itself apparent to
you. 


							--Gerry

>    Several back someone pointed out how many homosexuals have lived
>    heterosexual lives and had children, etc.  This in itself is enough
>    to prove that whether or not there is some built-in predisposition for
>    same-sex attraction, whether or not someone lives a homosexual 
>    lifestyle (engages in homosexual relationships and homosexual
>    sexual acts) is indeed a _choice_.

In order for this to be true, you need to remove the societal 
pressure.  There's tremendous pressure to get married to a member of 
the opposite sex and to have kids.  Just about anyone over the age of 
13 knows this from personal experience.  (I had an aunt Mary who 
opened every conversation with, "So, Gerry, how many girlfriend do you 
have?"  I eventually started to answer, "Tons!  I have to beat 'em off 
with a stick."  She would look so hurt if it became obvious that I was 
playing with her.)

Many people assume that their "homosexual tendencies" will go away, so 
they go ahead and get married.  And they discover that they weren't 
tendencies.  They were something stronger.

Or their bisexual, and their attraction for members of the same sex 
never gets exercised, but is still there.

...but you'd know all of this, if you'd hang out with us and listen to 
our stories for a while.  Right, Fred?

I'm sorry.  You want that study.  (That's what I get for going into a 
scientific field!!!)

							--Gerry

>    My point is that it has _not_ been determined whether homosexuality
>    is a physical or an emotional condition.  My belief is that it is an
>    emotional condition and that condition _can_ be changed.  I have seen
>    many homosexuals that have, through counseling, been able to reverse
>    their sexual preference.

No you haven't.

They've altered how they are living.  They have not altered to whom 
they're attracted to.

There was a show on 20/20 that asked each of their "recovered" gay 
folks, "Has your attraction to men gone away?"  "No."  "Nope."  "No."
"Nope."

But then that was just regular folks talking.  And 20/20 isn't 
scientific.  I guess that doesn't count.



							--Gerry

.113> Do you folks know what it feels like...Do you know what it feels like
.113> ...Do you know what it's like ...Do you know what it feels like ..

<insert all above phrases> to be called "homophobic" at every turn just
because a person takes issue with something that has "gay" attached to
it?

.113> It's a real drag.

Damned right it is.

There's really no substitute--scientific studies included--for spending lots
of time with straight people.  *Speak* with straights, for gosh sakes.  Hang
out with straights for a bit.  Take a coffee break with straights.  Watch 
some straight movies.  Attend one straight events (plays, marches, films, 
dine at straight cafes, whatever).  Make a friend who's straight. Share 
experiences.  And make sure that you *listen* and *feel*...and mull it
over for a long time before you leap into judgment. 

Bubba

    re .116
    
    Just what is your point, Jerry?

| <<< Note 18.114 by TERSE::FISHER "go easy, step lightly...Stay Free." >>>





|     Several back someone pointed out how many homosexuals have lived
|     heterosexual lives and had children, etc.  This in itself is enough
|     to prove that whether or not there is some built-in predisposition for
|     same-sex attraction, whether or not someone lives a homosexual
|     lifestyle (engages in homosexual relationships and homosexual
|     sexual acts) is indeed a _choice_.

	Fred, it is a choice to be something you're not. The reason's behind it
are the real thing. I was engaged to be married twice. Both times I backed out
because I knew that I was gay, but didn't want to deal with it. Society says
you should grow up, get married and have kids. They say that gays rape
children, they are effeminate, sleep with all other gay males, will change
others to being gay, they get beaten, looked upon as a lesser form of human, 
the list goes on and on. This is what I didn't want to deal with, this is what
I didn't want to even prove right or wrong. I gave into society's way of
thinking. I hid in the closet and dated women. I was never happy because one, I
was hiding who I was, and two, I am not attracted to women. Yes, I find many
women very beautiful, but there is no bonding with them. Finally enough was
enough. At 28, on New Years day (midnight to be exact) in 1990, I did make a
choice. That choice? To stop lieing to myself on who I am. To stop lieing to 
others about who I am. To just be me. You see Fred, I made the choice to not 
be me. To lie about who I am. If you tried to be a homosexual you'd be lieing 
to yourself as well. I'm happy with the "real" me. I don't need to lie about 
it anymore, I just need to live my life as who I really am. The amount of 
pressure that's been lifted was tremendous. True, there are lots of things I 
have to worry about, but most of those things are caused by other's people's 
fears and ignorance. I too had those same fears and I was quite ignorant (and 
sometimes still am) on the gay issues and people. The only difference between 
the 2 of us is that I have taken the time to see gay people for who they are, 
people. It has also helped me immensly when dealing with other issues. Like 
blacks, women and so on. I still have a long way to go, but I'm trying. Can 
you say the same?




Glen

    re .116, Jerry, how can you say Torch Song Trilogy was terrible???!!! 
    I think it's a beautiful movie.  You didn't like Matthew Broderick as
    Alan?  He looked so good in that tux.  Oh, well.  Can't please
    everybody.  But, it's definitely one of my Top 100 movies.  I cried my
    eyes out at the end.
    
    You probably like John Wayne movies.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    re .199

>people. It has also helped me immensely when dealing with other issues. Like 
>blacks, women and so on. I still have a long way to go, but I'm trying. Can 
>you say the same?

    I have tried several times to exit gracefully from this rathole, but
    it seems that several are trying to play "if I put in the last article,
    the I win".  This will be my last reply to this note since it has
    been and continues to be an exercise in pc-bashing and not a discussion
    of the original topic.

    I have no problem dealing with gays.  I know several people who are
    gay.  I work with people who are gay.  One of my closest co-workers
    is gay.  I believe that what homosexuals do in their _private_ lives 
    is _their_ business.  I also believe that homosexuals dealing with
    society is the _homosexuals_ problem, not societies problem and certainly
    not my problem.  It becomes my problem when homosexuals start using
    their sexual preference to try to obtain some preferential treatment
    from society with less than 10% of the population trying to dictate 
    to the rest of the more than 90%.

    fred();

    This may be my last note here, too.  But I feel that I must point out
    once more that this remark:
    
    > it has been and continues to be an exercise in pc-bashing and not a
    > discussion of the original topic.
    
    ...is entirely the view of fred(); Haddock.  Clearly, your interlocutors
    do not share that view.  Convenient, isn't it, that you can use such an
    opinion as your escape hatch.
    
    -dick

.117> Just what is your point, Jerry?

I read the author of .113 as a great deal of "you come to us".  My reply
was based on the off chance that it works both ways.

.120> Jerry, how can you say Torch Song Trilogy was terrible???!!! 

I watched it.

Bubba

	Fred, you amaze me. You have used the "PC" label as quite an effective
tool. Whenever anyone asks a question, it's your answer. Imagine avoiding any
tough questions by just saying it's "PC". Hmmm......

	BTW, seeing you do have gay friends, have you ever listened to them on
if it's a matter of choice or not? 



Glen

> I read the author of .113 as a great deal of "you come to us".  My reply
> was based on the off chance that it works both ways.

y'know, Jerry, I'll remember that.  It may come in handy, next time I
hear a bunch of gay people opposing the rights of het people not to be 
bashed, the next time I witness a bunch of gay people deriding 'breeders'
as mentally sick or 'their own problem, not societies'.  In short, what
Gerry requested in the analgous situation; when people demonstrate a
total ignorance of the others for whom they profess such disrespect.

I expect I'll have to wait a long time for that convenience, though.
But really, I'll keep it in mind.

DougO

You know .. I've never understood this "separatism".  Perhaps you can
explain it.  I can't.  I've seen gay: ski clubs, rock climbing clubs,
bowling clubs, outdoors clubs, running clubs, churches, electronic
conferences, choruses, bands, resorts, travel agencies, bars, theaters,
rodeos, cruises, movies, records, arts associations, Democrats,
Republicans, bulletin boards, horticultural societies, newspapers,
magazines, professional associations, student associations, radio
station, cable channels ... <whew> ... just to mention a few.

Of course, you've probably heard the term "gay culture" and "gay
community".

I saw an interview on local TV this afternoon.  Two gay guys were
protesting this video tape ("The Gay Agenda") that's been circulated
throughout Capitol Hill and the military .. (it was made not far from
Bakersfield).  I kept hearing "we're just like everyone else".  Then,
I think of all of the separatist organizations.  What's wrong with
this picture?

Don't tell me that it's too "dangerous" to join a local horticultural
society or professional association.  Good Lord, I doubt that could
hold a candle to joining the military and being openly gay.

I'll go to a movie that I like, and, not because it has a gay actor
or a gay theme or a gay producer.  I could really care less as to
the sexual orientation of the producer or actor.

I'm not going to a gay owned restaurant because it's gay owned, I'll
go if I like the food and service.  I really don't care who owns the
restaurant unless it's a Zulu head hunter.

I'll not read a gay book just because it's a gay book, I'll read it if
the subject matter is to my liking and the writing style is to my liking.

I'll not go to a gay chorus because it's a gay chorus I'll go depending
upon whether or not I like the music - I could really care less about
the sexual orientation of the performers.  Why should I?

I'll go to an event if I like the subject matter (rodeo, theater, 
etc...) and not based on the fact that it's a "gay" event.  It's
based on whether or not I like the event and the quality of the
players and etc .. I could care less if it's a "gay" event".  Why
should I?

I'll take a coffee break with people that I enjoy talking to and I
could care less about their sexual orientation.  Why should I?

Gerry seems to be saying that to get to know gay people this is what
you have to do.  If that's the case, put me down as a "no thank you".
No, there's absolutely, positively, resolutely nothing wrong with all
of the separatism.  Whatever flats your boat.  Just don't imply that
this is the way to get to "know" gay people.

>Make a friend who's gay.

Well, that's surely one way.  I could count, perhaps 10 gay friends
here in Bakersfield.  Not a SINGLE ONE participates in any of the
"events" that Gerry listed.  There not "closeted", they're not
"internally homophobic".  They're (brace yourself) people.  Just
like everyone else.  They don't start every sentence with "I'm gay",
but if you asked any one of 'em they'd tell you.

But (there had to be a "but") .. I wouldn't advise to make friends
with a person BECAUSE that person is gay.  You make friends with
people that you enjoy being around, that you enjoy talking to. To
seek out a person because he/she is gay reminds me of that very
tried saying that I heard all to often ... "Oh, some of my best
friends are black".  Horse hockey.  Some gay people that I know
are indeed my best friends, and, some are my worst nightmare.

This separatism drives me to distraction.

Again, whatever floats your boat.

Bubba

	Bubba, people will always want to see their kind do things. That's one
reason why people would go to see movies with gay theme, actors, producers,
etc. There are a lot of gay themed clubs, sports, events and things because
when trying to attend these same things in the straight world, many have been
put down or made to feel very uncomfortable. Just as you like to hang out with
the marines and do things gays like to hang out with each other and do the
same. Funny I know I have heard this question from you before somewhere....



Glen

    Face it, Bubba, gays have a right to *some* social life, participation
    in the processes of government, entr�e into arts, recognition by their
    peers, and so on.  Since hets as a "class" are so determined *not* to
    acknowledge the contributions and rights of those "sickies," then it
    seems only reasonable that gays start their own organizations.  The
    alternative is living their lives in the closet.  Sorry, but that does
    not appeal to me as a straight, and I can well imagine how it must feel
    to a gay.
    
    If the het society would acknowledge gays as ordinary people instead of
    dispossessing them, things would settle down, and I'd speculate that it
    wouldn't take that long, really, once gays were just let be.
    
    -dick

Re: .126

>>This separatism drives me to distraction.

	Me too.  Good note, Bubba.

	You know Dick, the more I read your notes the better they seem to get.
Not just on this topic, but as a whole. Please keep noting! :-)



Glen

    .129> Me. too.  Good note, Bubba.
    
    Thanks.
    
    I don't know how in the Hell we're all going to learn to get along if
    we keep going to our own little corners of the world.
    
    Thanks millions to those who sent mail .. there's no way that I can
    answer it.  I'm on my way to downtown Los Angeles and I've got to get
    the clips for the .45, tripod for M60 .. and other appropriate stuff
    ready.
    
    Bubba

    You've got a Stoner, Bubba?  I WANT ONE TOO!!!
    
    :-)

    
    
    Gee, Jerry, I recall "hearing" comment many times, especially in the
    'BOX, that the reason you go to "redneck bars" is because you like to
    be around people like yourself, at least some of the time -- you enjoy
    the atmosphere, the company, the people -- they are "like" you.  That's
    why gay people also gather in "gay spaces" -- it's provides a feeling
    of being with people like yourself -- it's a feeling of safety for
    some.  Some gay people live their whole life in gay space -- those
    people I pity.
    
        GJD

    Sorry ... I guess we can expect a gay NCO club and gay officer's club
    shortly?
    
    No funny business .. I'm deadly serious.
    
    Bubba
    
    PS:  Oh, and, I don't seek out redneck professional associations,
    redneck bands, redneck, books, redneck rodeo, redneck conferences,
    etc...  

    RE: .134

    That's silly.  The military encourages uniformity and there is
    no reason to believe g/l/b military personnel will seek to separate
    themselves.  Are there black NCO clubs?  Christian NCO clubs?
    Texan NCO clubs?  Republican NCO clubs?  I believe that if you
    think about the gay (ex)military personnel you actually know, you'll
    see that they aren't going off trying to join/form gay only
    type organizations...(or is there something special about the 
    military types you know who just "happen to be gay?")

    It amazes me that you continue to raise this question about
    "separatism." 

    First of all, separatism refers to *total* exclusion of anyone not a part 
    of the group.  That is pretty much impossible for gay people to accomplish 
    unless we go off and form remote communes someplace.  There may be a few 
    lesbian separatist groups, and there are probably a goodly number of gay 
    men who work/associate with other gays most of the time - but to assume 
    such people have NO contact with the other 90%+ of the population is absurd.

    Secondly, the reason gay people created gay organizations in the first
    place is because we were excluded from "mainstream" organizations
    either implicitly or explicitly.

    Thirdly, there are literally hundreds of specialized clubs,
    organizations, places of business, etc. that cater to specific groups.
    It is part of human nature.  I don't see you complaining about ethnic
    restaurants, Jewish neighborhoods, "China Town" "Little Italy" or 
    whathaveyou..

    Finally, if it were so easy for *ALL* gay people to just "fit in"
    with existing organizations that are predominantly straight, then
    why are there gay people running around (sometimes in these very 
    NOTESFILES) using terms like "us" (straights) and "them" (gays)?  

    All of this should be perfectly obvious.  Not only has it been
    explained before, but your an intelligent man and I'm sure you are
    easily capable of figuring it out on your own.

    So that leaves me to wonder just what you mean when you say you
    don't "understand" gay "separatism."

    /Greg

    
    myriads of sub cultures exist (or did in late 60's/early 70's
    when i did mine) in service.
    
    urban hip blacks, southern rural blacks, southern whites, hispanics from
    california, puerto ricans, pseudosophisto NE whites, FFV types, surf bums 
    all had their unofficial cliques and hangouts, their own trademark brands 
    of beer and smokes, fave bars, and tended to accumulate in separate 
    platoons/companies.
    
    some of the stuff being said about military life by those without
    experience is just incredible..
    

    
    
    No, Jerry, I don't expect there will be "gay" groups in the military --
    the gay folks in the military will continue to do like the do now when
    they wish to associate with other gay people -- they'll go to gay bars,
    clubs, etc.  I think you don't WANT to understand this issue.
    
        GJD

>PS:  Oh, and, I don't seek out redneck professional associations,
>    redneck bands, redneck, books, redneck rodeo, redneck conferences,
>    etc...  
 
    	No, you just moved to Texas. 

    	And mention the MArines a lot. 

    	And begin your sentences with "I'm BUBBA!" or "MARINES!" or
    	"GENERAL Beeler!" Which I find interesting in light of your
    	"I'm gay" criticism of Gerry, since you do the same thing
    	(but for your 'different' public persona than his).

    	-Erik
       

    Yes, but are any of those official "clubs" Robert?
    
    No, I've never been in the military but know many who have.
    It doesn't surprise me to know there are informal groupings of
    people - but Jerry specifically said "are we going to have a 
    gay NCO Club" - I said I didn't think so.  If you tell me there
    are official black NCO clubs and Italian NCO clubs and southern
    white, baptist republican NCO clubs, then I don't think there is
    anything wrong with a gay NCO club either.
    
    Some of the implications being drawn when all anyone is asking
    for is equality are simply amazing.
    
    /Greg

    
    how offical does a group have to be? if a subgroup gravitates 
    together and takes over, say, a certain corner at the local
    Gasthof, stands together in formation, give one another highly
    stylized daps/high fives, it does set them apart, and does 
    have a divisive effect on the rest of the troops.
    

    So your point is that allowing gays to simply say "I'm gay"
    will result in more of these sub-groups causing more
    division.
    
    Perhaps.  I tend to doubt it.  I don't think the fear
    that closeted gays have of coming out is going to disappear
    overnight.  I think the vast majority will be discreet.
    
    /Greg
    

    
    well, I think that once the stamp of approval has come down, 
    this discretion will go out the window, and commanders will
    have yet another non-mission related social phenom to deal
    with and take up training time. 
    
    CQ patrols will have to be beefed up to keep order and prevent
    couplings in the billets.

re: .142

>    CQ patrols will have to be beefed up to keep order and prevent
>    couplings in the billets.

I can agree with you that commanders will have more social phenomena to deal
with (but based on Tailhook and other incidents, I think the military could
use that).  But (realizing that I've never served) don't you think this is
a little far-fetched?  I would think that most gays would share the same
sense of propriety as the society as a whole.

Jon

    
    
    >>I would think that most gays would share the same sense of propriety as
    >>the society as a whole.
    
       That's it, exactly.  Gays who "misbehave" should be treated no
    differently than anyone else.  But they shouldn't be treated
    differently until they have acted in a manner which is outside the
    bounds of presribed behavior.
    
    ********************
    
    Question sort of related to the topic:  There has been the
    well-publicized case of the three marines (the branch of the military
    isn't relavent to the question) who beat the crap out of a gay man over
    the weekend while screaming "All fags must die" and "This is want
    Clinton deserves" (or works to the like).  These men were in uniform,
    though not on duty, as I understand it.  How does the military code of 
    conduct apply in such a situation.  They will be prosecuted via the
    "regular" civilian laws for criminal assault and battery.  Will they
    always be subject to military discipline?  What might that me (worst
    case scenario, maybe)?
    
        Greg

depends on what you consider worst case, Greg (which side of the
fence your idea of justice comes from).  Worst case I could imagine
is that they are not disciplined at all; base commander tells the
ja to drop the investigation, or some other such coverup.  On the
other hand, the worst case those bigoted marines can probably
imagine includes courts martial and hard time.

DougO

.127> when trying to attend these same things in the straight world,
.127> many have been put down or made to feel very uncomfortable.

And the military environment is going to be upbeat and comfortable?
When I asked someone, somewhere, about the formation of all-gay
units I was very serious.  What's wrong with "all-gay" units along
with and in concert with the other .. "groups" referenced?
    
    Bubba

.128> Face it, Bubba, gays have a right to *some* social life,

Nowhere, at any time, expressed or implied, did I insinuate that any
group of people didn't have any "right" to organize as they wish.  If
I have been misinterpreted I'll be more than happy to clarify.

    Bubba

.135> That's silly.  The military encourages uniformity and there is
.135> no reason to believe g/l/b military personnel will seek to separate
.135> themselves.

In sorry you feel that it's silly.  I asked a serious question in a serious
vein.  The gay soldiers in one NATO country have organized into a union
(much the same as a labor union here in the United States).  I asked only
from the perspective that it has happened elsewhere.  I simply inquired as
to the possibility of that happening in the United States.

.135> First of all, separatism refers to *total* exclusion...

Sorry, perhaps I did not use the right word.  One definition of the word
includes "autonomous".  I made no express or implied references to any
exclusion nor did I mean any.

.135> Secondly, the reason gay people created gay organizations in the first
.135> place is because we were excluded from "mainstream" organizations
.135> either implicitly or explicitly.

If you could cite any specific examples (other than the military) I, and
perhaps others, would appreciate it.  If you consider this a silly request
please excuse my inquiry.  Personal examples (if appropriate) would be
helpful.
    
.135> I don't see you complaining about ethnic restaurants, Jewish neighbor-
.135> hoods, "China Town" "Little Italy" or whathaveyou..

I'm more familiar with ethnic autonomy - and - yes - I have most assuredly
talked to those of the Jewish faith, Chinese, and Italians about the
separate organizations that they form.  It's an interesting bit of human
emotion.  Most recently the owner of an Italian restaurant in Los Angeles
told me that there is increasing awareness that this "separatism" has fostered
even MORE *true* separatism.  "Out of sight, out of mind" is the phrase
that he used - that is to say - he recognized that by gathering in "Italian"
organizations they were "left out" of a great deal of other things for
the simple reason  that they weren't there.

We then went into a discussion of gays in the military.  I was trying to
understand and relate to the "separate" gay organizations that exist.  To
him it was a "no-op" in that one cannot compare ethnic differences in that
it is somewhat of a desire to perpetuate their heritage (Italian)  - how
can you compare that to sexual orientation?

Hell of an interesting discussion.  Hell of an interesting guy.

.135> All of this should be perfectly obvious...I'm sure you are easily
.135> capable of figuring it out on your own.

I learn and expand my horizons each and every day.  What is perfectly obvious
today may be tomorrow's question.  I apologize if my questions have been
ambiguous or repetitive.  I regret that I do not find the answers perfectly
obvious.  Feel free to ignore further inquiries.

    Bubba

.136> some of the stuff being said about military life by those without
.136> experience is just incredible..

Agreed Mr. Holt.  I don't mind answering questions about my experiences
but do tire of seeing "that's ridiculous", or "it ain't so" -- that
style of definitive statements from those who have not "been there".
Those who have not been there do have a voice and valuable opinion 
for we all learn from each other . .however .. learning is a two way
street?
    
    Bubba 

.138> No, you just moved to Texas. 

I did not move to Texas.  My mother had the good sense to move there
before I was borned.
    
.136> 	And begin your sentences with "I'm BUBBA!" or "MARINES!" or
.138> 	"GENERAL Beeler!" Which I find interesting in light of your
.138> 	"I'm gay" criticism of Gerry....

I don't think that I've ever began sentences thusly.

Additionally, please recognize that we all develop different pseudonyms
in notes and my friends throughout NotesLand have dubbed me as "Bubba"
and/or "The General".  They're nicknames.  Nothing more and nothing less.
Perhaps we should select something more "touchie-feelie"?  Finally, with
respect to my "criticism".  You may interpret it any way you so desire.
    
That comment was made in SOAPBOX.  That conference has a different person-
ality, character, and, "style" of noting.  It for the most part much less
serious than this or other conferences.  Note that I would not make the
same comment here as it would be taken in a serious vein.

    Jerry Beeler
    Sales Executive
    Digital Equipment Corporation

.140> how official does a group have to be? if a subgroup gravitates 
.140> together ...it does set them apart, and does  have a divisive
.140> effect on the rest of the troops.

Absolutely!!!  You and I will see this somewhat differently because of
our experiences in the military - it's damned hard to put into words
just what "unit integrity" is.  It does N-O-T start and end with the
uniform!!!  I would quote from the "Guidebook for Marines" (which I still
have) on the subject unit integrity but I fear that I would be indicted
for trying to be to "macho".

    Bubba

.143> I can agree with you that commanders will have more social phenomena
.143> to deal with ... I think the military could use that ...

Jon, one of those old but VERY true military phrases is along the lines
of "the more you sweat during training the less you bleed during battle".
In as much as humanly possible mission critical training must take
precedence .. shouldn't it?

Bubba

Since there'll be questions on this unfortunate insident ... perhaps
some explanation of the military procedure is in order (unless this is
judged as to 'macho').
    
.145> -< and thats *after* the civilian courts finish with 'em >-
    
Since the offense occurred off-base (civilian property) the civil courts
have what may be called first right of refusal to prosecute.   After the
civilian courts finish then the military can prosecute.  DougO is
correct.  The civilian courts can refuse to prosecute.

If the military prosecutes - again DougO is correct - the base commander
can tell the JA to drop it .. or if the military proceeds there's different
levels at which it can be handled:

(1) Commanding Officer's Nonjudicial Punishment:  The Marine is brought before
his CO and read Article 31, UCMJ (Military equivalent of 'you have the right
to remain silent').  The CO may take action to have the Marine tried before
court-martial OR he may award punishment then and there.  There are limits,
prescribed by law, as to the severity of the punishment the CO may prescribe.
The CO does not have to prescribe the maximum - the minimum may be as much
as a reprimand or "official bawling out".  This is NOT taken lightly by
anyone with any brains.  It goes on your record (and cannot be removed) and
you can be denied promotion.

(2) Summary Court-Martial:  A summary court-martial is conducted by one
officer.  This officer reviews the evidence and decides as to guilt or
innocence of the accused.  In the case of "guilty" the officer imposes
sentence.  Maximum penalties are again limited by law.  The punishment
"may not include dismissal, dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, confine-
ment in excess of one month, hard labor without confinement in excess of
of forty-five days, restriction to certain specified limits in excess of
two months, or forfeiture of pay in excess of two-thirds of one month's pay".

A Marine may *not* be tried by summary court-martial unless he so consents
prior to the beginning of his trial.  The most usual outcome of not consenting
to trial by summary court-martial is that the accused is brought to trial by
special court-martial.  An offender cannot refuse to receive commanding
officer's punishment or refuse to be tried by special or general courts-
martial.  The privilege of refusal applies ONLY to summary courts-martial.

(3) Special Court-Martial:  Conducted by three or more members who act as
judge and jury.  There must be a two-thirds vote for "guilty" and the same
ratio for assignment of punishment.  If the accuse requests - one third
of the board must be enlisted men.  If any enlisted members appear on the
board - the minimum is one third.  As a general rule, any enlisted are
very senior NCOs.  The accused may secure (at his or her cost) civilian
counsel.  Punishment "may not include dismissal, dishonorable discharge,
confinement in excess of six months, hard labor without confinement in
excess of three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month,
or forfeiture of pay for a period exceeding six months".  Note that special
court martial may assess discharge with bad-conduct discharge.

(4) General Court-Martial:  This is the "big time".  At least five members
and a law officer.  The law officer has to be passed on by the JAG .. very
big time and complicated affair.  I don't think that the current case would
get this far.

Bubba

    I ain't read all these replies, but on the question of choice, it
    appears to be choice for many.  Why?  Cause seems most homosexuals
    discover they're gay only after going to college and getting smarts.
    I've seen studies and graphs published showing most homosexuals are
    white, have white collar jobs, travel abroad, and have large bank
    accounts.
    
    Wonder why that is?

    re .154
    
    Dwight, you really are amazing.  Just when I think you can't possibly
    lower yourself any further you manage to dredge up yet another
    masterpiece of illogic and ignorance.  
    
    Even if it is true that many people discover (your word, Dwight) that
    they're gay in college it is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not
    they were gay before then.  Acknowledgement is not the same thing as
    actuality.

    RE: .154
    
    Dwight - I'd say what those stats and graphs show is that many *out* 
    gay people fall into such categories.  It seems more likely a college 
    educated, professionally employed person would be able to deal with 
    the problems of coming out because that person's skills allow him/her 
    to live more autonomously.  There are many arguments against
    homosexuality.  However, with the exception of specific, narrowly defined
    religious arguments based on a strict interpretation of a few ancient
    religious texts, all those arguments are fallicious.. But it takes
    education to understand that.   And even education isn't a sure fired
    way to overcome fear (which is why there are so many well educated
    "closet cases" - people who appear straight to most of the world, but
    make clandestine visits to various seedy places to satisfy their
    same sex desires).
    
    In reference to Mr. Beeler's requests for info on how gay people are
    excluded...  Well first and foremost, you grow up hearing 'queer'
    and 'faggot' thrown around as insults and people labled as such are
    the targets of harrassment and ridicule.  That shuts you up right
    from the start.  Many are never able to get past this - and to this
    day refuse to be honest in situations where it would make a world
    of difference....  Anyway, as you get older you hear of various minor
    uproars over gays in police departments, gays as teachers, gay elected 
    officials, gays in the military, gays in St. Patrick's Day parades, etc, 
    etc, etc.  And then you start reading about gay bashing incidents and
    discrimination cases.  And then you watch national political conventions 
    and learn you are the enemy in a cultural "war" - and soon it becomes 
    abundantly clear that you are not wanted.  That society would just as soon 
    prefer you don't exist, but if you do exist you damn well better keep 
    quiet about it.
    
    And this doesn't even address how your own family may react.  If you
    don't want your family to know, you may have to "run away" and refrain
    from associating in any of the same circles your family does for fear
    of being "found out"
    
    Does any of this make sense?
    
    /Greg

    Re .154
    
    Dwight, I think your remarks are way off base.  "Observable" phenomena
    are not congruent with "actual" phenomena.  You see more "educated
    white collar" types who *admit* that they are gay because society is
    biased against gays pretty much inversely as income and education. 
    Ditch diggers as a class are likely to beat the crap out of a gay ditch
    digger.  Executives as a class are more likely to say, so what, he or
    she does a good job, it's not my business what goes on outside the
    office.
    
    I know a couple of blue-collar gays who are terrified of coming out or
    being outed, because the know it would mean an accidental crowbar on
    the head - or worse.
    
    -dick

    re: .154
    
    	Perhaps because attending college, especially a college away from
    your parental home, is a period of self- and world-discovery?  Perhaps
    because the parental influence is so far away that persons feel
    comfortable coming to terms with what they are?
    	It is going to be a lot harder for hayseed Bubba from rural Alabama
    to admit to being gay than it is for Bobby in his 3rd year at State to
    come to terms with himself.  
    	This being true, then the atmosphere is what allows people to learn
    about themselves.  Given this, and the fact that most college attendees
    in the US have been white (this is becoming less true now), and that
    college graduates often have white collar jobs and thus the funds to
    travel, why do you seem so surprised?
    

.152> Jon, one of those old but VERY true military phrases is along the lines
.152> of "the more you sweat during training the less you bleed during battle".
.152> In as much as humanly possible mission critical training must take
.152> precedence .. shouldn't it?


Yes, I agree whole-heartedly.  I have a friend who's in the Naval Reserves.
After the Tailhook story broke, he had to attend seminars on sexual harassment.
I don't think that the time was excessive, but I think generals and admirals
and commandants would like to avoided the situation where they had to act
in response to a crisis.  Maybe they could find time to make soldiers/sailors/
airmen/marines aware of the diversity in the ranks?

You know I'm a life-long civilian, so I don't have any insight as to how
much or how little time is available for non-mission training, but. . .

   RE: <<< Note 18.154 by COMET::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>
    
<    Wonder why that is?

   Many discover they are gay, they did not choose to be.  It seems
   common when you observe carefully.  Some, not all start out with the
   idea they are normal heterosexual and can't understand why they aren't
   interested in the opposite sex.  Others get married sometimes several
   times and can't seem to figure it out or dont want to admit it until
   one day the dawn breaks or they finally say they can't lie to
   themselves any longer.  All of these people are normal in they want
   the best for themselves and gayness does not preclude education or a
   good job so long as it's kept secret.  

   I can see how you mould make that observation, but in retrospect the
   explanation you use is not true.  

   Allison

.159> Maybe they could find time to make soldiers/sailors/
.159> airmen/marines aware of the diversity in the ranks?

In all probability they'll probably be forced to make the time. It'll
be quite interesting to see just how they do it since the very essence
of unit integrity has always been "sameness" as opposed to diversity.
I talked to a G-1 guy a few days ago and his head was reeling.  There's
not enough money in the world for me to want this guys job (today).

Bubba

>.135> Secondly, the reason gay people created gay organizations in the first
>.135> place is because we were excluded from "mainstream" organizations
>.135> either implicitly or explicitly.
>
> If you could cite any specific examples (other than the military) I, and
> perhaps others, would appreciate it.  

Well, gay folks were excluded from most churches for a long time.  Gay folks
are still excluded from the institution of marriage in these United States.
Gays aren't welcome in the Boy Scouts.  How many more mainstream orgs you
want as examples, to concede the point, Jerry?

DougO

and to expand a bit further on Jerry's expansion of my original...

> Since the offense occurred off-base (civilian property) the civil courts
> have what may be called first right of refusal to prosecute.   After the
> civilian courts finish then the military can prosecute.  DougO is
> correct.  The civilian courts can refuse to prosecute.

That isn't quite what I said, but it is correct, so far as it goes.  The
civilian courts can prosecute, too; and after they're done, the military
can prosecute *again*, if they want to.  Double jeopardy, courtesy of the
UCMJ.  During my time in, our JA told us this rarely happened except in
cases of DWI.  But legally, these Marines could get tried in a civilian 
court, then be subject to military justice proceedings as well.  And with
all the publicity, I expect it, too.  After civilian jail time, they could
get hard labor; and cap it all with bad-conduct discharges.

DougO

    
    
    I'll give a real-life example of "exclusion".  Several years ago when I
    was living in a small town in Iowa (~7000 people), I regularly (at
    least 2 Sundays a month) served as assisting minister (doing the
    readings, and assisting with the distribution of communion).  Somehow,
    and I still don't know how, the head minister found out I was gay.  He
    called me into his office and informed me that he would allow a
    "sinner" to serve communion.  He didn't understand (or wouldn't
    understand) that he'd end up having a hell of a time finding any
    assisting ministers unless Jesus Christ himself help out.  He also
    informed the music director of the church that I was no longer to  do
    any solo work, of any time, and he didn't wish me to sing in the choir
    any longer.  Needless to say, I never set foot in the door of that
    church again.
    
       GJD

.162>  from most churches ...Boy Scouts...

Since I'm not a church goin' person is this still true?  Ok, you're right.
That's two .. do you think that the list of organizations that I posted
earlier resulted from these two exclusions?  Are there any others?

.163> Double jeopardy, courtesy of the UCMJ.  During my time in, our JA
.163> told us this rarely happened except in cases of DWI.

Correct.  This rarely happens but with the publicity that this case has
and will receive it just may happen this time.  I strongly suspect that
if the civilian courts prosecute the military will go through a quick
CM and give 'em a BCD .. then again .. when attorneys get involved you
can never tell what will happen.

Jerry Beeler
Sales Executive

    
    
    GJD,
    
      The bible teaches that homosexualiy is a sin, what did you expect??
    
    
    
    David

    
    
    
                     If you could write the rules......
    
                      Questions..
    
    
    1.) Will gay men in the military be allowed to take showers with the
    heterosexuals?
    
    2.) If taking showers with gays makes the heterosexuals feel
    uncomfortable will the gay soldier value this difference?
    
    3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?
    
    
    4.) Will drill sergeants in basic training be able to stand in front
    of a recruit from California and say " Son there are only two things
    that come from California, querrs and steers, and I don't see no horns
    on your head."?? Or will this constitute harrassment??
    
    
    5.) Should feminine gay men( assuming there is a litmus test) be
    allowed to stay in the rear echelon with the other non-combatants??
    
    
 David

    RE: .165
    
    > Are there any others?
    
    See .156  (second half)
    
    /Greg

    
    
    Alcoholism is a sin.  Are alcoholics allowed to "serve the church"?
    Adultery is a sin.  Are adulterers allowed to serve the church?
    Using recreational drugs is a sin?  Are drug addicts allowed to serve
    the church?
    
    Well?

    
    
    -1
    
      Not unless they are repentant.
    
    David

    re .166
    
    We've been down this road before.  The Biblical argument against
    homosexuality is at best weak, and utterly insufficient as a crutch for
    the true homophobe.

    
    
    
    > at best weak
    
      No. It is not politically correct. I am not arguing the bible here,
    simply trying to point out to Greg that he should have expected it.
    
    > insufficient as a crutch for the true homophobe
    
     How quickly you categorize people as homophobic. If a person is
    morally opposed to homosexuality are they homophobic? Or moral? Guess
    it depends on the individual bias..
    
    
    David

    re .172
    
>      No. It is not politically correct. I am not arguing the bible here,
 
    I'm tired of having 'PC' thrown around everytime somebody makes a
    telling point.  To accuse me of being PC is to mistake me utterly.
    
>     How quickly you categorize people as homophobic. If a person is
    
    I categorised nobody.  Go back and read exactly and only what I said,
    not what you wanted me to have said.  Of course, if the shoe fits...

	David, let me ask you something. Isn't obesity a sin? How many priests,
ministers and people who make up the church are obese? How many of them are
told to take a hike?



Glen

    
   �  The bible teaches that homosexualiy is a sin, what did you expect??
    
    The bible also teaches that shaving your beard is a sin -- and wearing
    clothes with mixed fibers -- and eating seafood without scales...
    
    How does one decide which biblical injunctions to follow, and which to
    ignore?

    .........how does one decide which biblican injunctiion to follow?
    
    Following the ones which prohibit or limit hurting other people would
    be a good place to start.
    
    Jeff

| <<< Note 18.167 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>




| 1.) Will gay men in the military be allowed to take showers with the
| heterosexuals?

	David, I would say yes. If you think no, can you list why?

| 2.) If taking showers with gays makes the heterosexuals feel
| uncomfortable will the gay soldier value this difference?

	What are the fears based on? Truth or an overactive imagination? If
heterosexuals feel that gay men want to have sex with all other men, then
it's the latter.

| 3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?

	I believe that the military has a standard code for dress. One that
must be adhered to. So, as long as everyone, regardless of the label attatched
follows it, are capable of doing the asigned job, there should be no problem 
having anyone serve in the military.

| 4.) Will drill sergeants in basic training be able to stand in front
| of a recruit from California and say " Son there are only two things
| that come from California, querrs and steers, and I don't see no horns
| on your head."?? Or will this constitute harrassment??

	Harrassment I would think. It would be the same if they made any
racial, ethnic or any put down to woman comment. Don't you think so?

| 5.) Should feminine gay men( assuming there is a litmus test) be
| allowed to stay in the rear echelon with the other non-combatants??

	David, do you feel that feminine gay men are lesser qualified than
feminine straight men? I only ask because you have clearly stated JUST gay
feminine men. Now, as far as where they should or shouldn't be, as long as they
are capable of doing the job assingned to them, then they could go anywhere.
Even the front lines. 

	One thing I always wondered about is some say gays can't be in the
military under combat conditions because of unit integrity. Yet, we've been
there for years. Also, why when Dessert Storm start, the witch hunts for gays
stopped? Then, as soon as it ended, they started again? If we aren't good
enough for combat, if the unit integrity would become very bad, to the possible
point that Bubba made of putting the troop's lives in danger, why didn't they
ESCALATE the hunting for gays instead of stopping them? The reason seems
obvious, but who knows, they could have had another reason? ;-)


Glen

	We have heard from one person who has served in the military (Bubba)
and his views on what could happen to those in the military if gays were
allowed to enter. here is another view by a 68 year old man who has served in
combat. 



The following is the 2/2/93 installment of the Boston Globe column
"Over 60" written by Donald M. Murray, reprinted here without per-
mission.


		COMBATING HYPOCRISY, HOMOPHOBIA

			by Donald M. Murray
			   Globe Correspondent


	I expected at 68 that I would have an immunity from surprise at
political hypocrisy and epidemic bigotry, that I would have seen it all,
but I am shocked at the sanctimonious rantings of our military leaders
and the political opportunists who see an advantage in encouraging homo-
phobia.

	What topped it for me were those who said if President Clinton
had been in the military, he would understand their fear of gays and
lesbians, their terror at sharing a pup tent with [fill in with the
bigoted word of your choice].

	Well, I was in the military, a volunteer in the hairy-chested,
hetero-obsessed paratroops.  I served in combat.  My credentials esta-
blished, let me tell you about the military.

	I served in the paratroop military police, and I arrested many
rapists and marched them to court-martial.  All were men charged with
raping women.

	I took action against a number of what were called gangbangs
and was ordered not to act against others.  All were aggressively
heterosexual.

	In France I worked controlling traffic within the corridors
of a US Army whorehouse.  No gay men, just long lines of panting
heteros.

	I served as a jeep driver for officers all the way up through
general, some of their names in the history books, in the United States,
Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria and Italy
while I delivered them to houses of prostitution and waited long hours
outside - on wartime duty.

	At the end of the war, I drove two Red Cross women volunteers
through Germany, Austria, Italy and France, at government expense, while
they "visited" generals.

	I drove American movie stars to appointments with married generals;
others lived in the generals' headquarters.

	I even saw a Capt. Kay Sommersby, a British citizen for whom Gen.
Eisenhower managed to finagle a commission in the US Army.

	And, of course, all the propaganda had the Japanese and the Germans
raping and pillaging.  Then the Russians and the Chinese, who never did such
things when they were our allies, started doing them when they became the
enemy.

	And, of course, US soldiers never did.

	But, once, when we were back from the front in France and I was on
patrol, we caught two male paratroopers engaged in a homosexual act.  One
soldier was a many-times-decorated company corps man.

	The division provost marshall agreed with us; they were not charged.
They went back to combat.

	War and sexuality go together.  We who are over 60 remember wartime
romance, tidied up for the movies.  Facing death, men and women seek life.

	War is an excuse, a stimulus, an additional motivation for sexual
activity.  I celebrate that when it is romance, deplore it when it is
brutal.  And in the military, sex is usually heterosexual and often brutal.

	Our military leaders are in no position to preach the sanctimonious
homophobia I hear from them.  There were gays and lesbians in the military
in my war and all the wars before that.  They are in the service today and
they will be in the service in the future.

	If President Clinton had served in the military in combat or peacetime,
he might indeed be more familiar with the sexual climate of the military
services.  Remember the recent Tailhook parties where blatant heterosexual
Navy pilots sexually harassed women?

	I would hope his military service would have made the commander-in-
chief even more opposed to the mistreatment of military personnel whose
love life is different, but often less violent and exploitative, than ours.

	All the arguments I have heard against gay men and lesbians in the
service I have heard before.

	Once, in the back of an Army truck in France, a fellow paratrooper
picked up a huge block of wood and started to hurl it through the windshield
of the jeep behind us.  My comrade in arms did not believe a black man should
drive.  We fought and I won, but that was a segregated Army, an Army in which
Gen. Colin Powell would be serving hash to white generals.

	Later we heard that women could not be integrated in the military.
They would inflame the troops, war would stop when they had their monthlies,
rampant pregnancy would rot the Army from within.

	Today we know that many of our best military enlisted persons and
officers are female.  Male officers told me that when Pease was a Strategic
Air Command base the best mechanics were all women.

	Those who oppose gays and lesbians in the service have called upon
those who have served our country, who are certified patriots, to speak out.
This old soldier has spoken.

	He salutes the commander-in-chief, commends him for his courage and
hopes he will be allowed to lead us in the real wars of our time:  against
the poverty, unemployment and underemployment, homelessness, ignorance and
illness that afflict our land.

	Sounds as if the military should get their own act in gear before they
start telling others how to do theirs......



Glen

    RE: .178
    
    Thanks for posting this.
    
    As I've mentioned elsewhere, my Dad is a veteran of 3 wars (including
    Vietnam) and he holds the same position as the 'old soldier' who wrote 
    this article.
    

.177> | 4.) Will drill sergeants in basic training be able to stand in front
.177> | of a recruit from California and say " Son there are only two things
.177> | that come from California, querrs and steers, and I don't see no horns
.177> | on your head."?? Or will this constitute harrassment??

>Harrassment I would think. It would be the same if they made any
>racial, ethnic or any put down to woman comment. Don't you think so?

Big time wrong.

Bubba

.167> 1.) Will gay men in the military be allowed to take showers with the
.167> heterosexuals?
    
    Yes.
    
.167> 2.) If taking showers with gays makes the heterosexuals feel
.167> uncomfortable will the gay soldier value this difference?
    
    What does "value the difference" mean?  Leave the shower?  Act in a
    professional manner?
    
.167> 3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?
    
    No.
    
    
.167> 4.) Will drill sergeants in basic training be able to stand in front
.167> of a recruit from California and say " Son there are only two things
.167> that come from California, querrs and steers, and I don't see no horns
.167> on your head."?? Or will this constitute harrassment??
    
    No harassment, yes they can say it.
    
    
.167> 5.) Should feminine gay men( assuming there is a litmus test) be
.167> allowed to stay in the rear echelon with the other non-combatants??
    
    Personnel should be assigned to the post(s) that best fit their talents
    and skills.
    
    
    I see nothing wrong with keeping the UCMJ the way it is, with one small
    change - being gay will no longer be sufficient grounds for discharge.
    
    Does anyone have a problem with that one change?

    
    
    
    > how many of them are told to take a hike?
    
    
      How many of them say " God made me this way God loves me this way,
    your interpretation of the bible is in error."? Would you go to a
    church that does not condone homosexuality? 
    
    David

    
    
    > How does one decide which
    
     
      I suspect many decide based upon their own preference.
    
      

>    I see nothing wrong with keeping the UCMJ the way it is, with one small
>    change - being gay will no longer be sufficient grounds for discharge.

don't think that's in the UCMJ at all, anyway; that's been an administrative
policy, not part of the Code.

Y'know, its amazing, what with all the discussion on this issue, how nobody
is talking about the Judge's ruling in the Meinhold case.  Keith Meinhold is
the Navy seaman who was discharged for stating his homosexuality last summer,
filed a lawsuit over it on Constitutional grounds, was ordered re-instated
pending the judge's ruling last October or so...and who has now won his case.

That's right.  The Judge found that the service ban on homosexuals was a
violation of (the constitutionally guaranteed right to) due process, and
ordered the services to cease and desist from discharging gys solely because
they were gay.  

Clinton didn't have to do a thing.  The ban's history.

DougO

    The district court which issued that ruling is the lowest level court
    and the ruling can be overturned in a heartbeat.
    
    Bubba

    
    
    
    > the ban's history
    
    
      Obviously you do not listen to Ruch Limbaugh. The judgement will be
    overturned. Look at the sodomy decision that the supreme court just
    upheld..
    
    
    
    David

.187> The judgement will be overturned. Look at the sodomy decision
.187> that the supreme court just upheld..

Probably correct.  The UCMJ has got to be changed to elimnate sodomy
as an offence which can result in discharge.  Slick does not by the
wildest stretch of the imagination have anywhere near the backing
to get this trough.  Slick's action could easily be a no-op.

Bubba

| <<< Note 18.183 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>




| > how many of them are told to take a hike?

	Hmmm.... you never did answer the question David.

| How many of them say " God made me this way God loves me this way,
| your interpretation of the bible is in error."? 

	Hmmm.... I don't want to argue over the Bible, but let's clear a few
things up here. According to the Bible, a sin is a sin. In God's eyes, no sin
is greater than any other. IF it says homosexuality is a sin, and it is the
belief of <insert congregations name>, and they tell someone to take a 
hike for being gay, then they should also tell everyone who is obese to
take a hike as well. It doesn't matter what the victim (homosexual, obese
person) uses for an excuse that matters to most Christians. It is what their
interpretation of the Bible says that matters to them, regardless of whether 
their version is really right or wrong (examples of wrong would be slavery, 
burning of witches, spanish inquisitions, etc). Based on that fact, if they 
don't tell both to take a hike (and again, if ANYONE has heard of this
happening post it), then they (the people in that particular congregation) are
nothing more than hypocrites. Rules are rules in the church. They are not
supposed to be broken. In most churches the Bible is the standard and the Word
of God. You do what it tells you.

| Would you go to a church that does not condone homosexuality?

	As an every Sunday thing? Nope. But I'm not sure they would come to our
church either. 



Glen

Navy lawyers would (in old days) have appealed this ruling; the administration 
would have directed them to.  I don't expect an appeal in the case, given that 
we have a new administration, with a very different opinion on the issue, and 
now with a favorable court ruling to illuminate their position.  So, Bubba, 
you can't expect an overturn...

DougO

| <<< Note 18.182 by HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG" >>>




| .167> 3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?

| No.


	I am curious as to why you think this. 




Glen

| <<< Note 18.181 by MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!" >>>



| .177> | 4.) Will drill sergeants in basic training be able to stand in front
| .177> | of a recruit from California and say " Son there are only two things
| .177> | that come from California, querrs and steers, and I don't see no horns
| .177> | on your head."?? Or will this constitute harrassment??

| >Harrassment I would think. It would be the same if they made any
| >racial, ethnic or any put down to woman comment. Don't you think so?

| Big time wrong.

	Explain why Bubba.


Glen

    
    
    
     Glen,
    
      I do not condone uneven enforcement of any agreed upon rules, this is
    not really the question tho' is it?
    
    
    David

    
    
    Glen,
    
    Re:: Drag queens
    
    
     Speaking for myself only!! If I had someone in my unit that showed
    up wearing womens clothing and swishing around, being lispy, talking
    about the war being just a bunch of horrible ill mannered boys fighting
    about nothing( insert your favorite stereotype here) I would probably
    frag  him the first chance I got..
    
    
    David   ( I would do the same to an Amway distributor)

| <<< Note 18.193 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>




| I do not condone uneven enforcement of any agreed upon rules, this is
| not really the question tho' is it?


	David, it may not be the question to you, but how can someone who is
the victim (this case homosexuals) actually believe that some of these people 
aren't hypocrits when they pick and choose what Scripture they are going to
obey? If they were consistant then at least people could see where they are
coming from. But in cases where they aren't (as in this one) it makes people
wonder where they are coming from. Is it hate? I can imagine, but I really
don't know.

	BTW, what question do you feel I was asking?



Glen

    As soon as the recruit arrives at the induction center the first job of
    the drill instructor is to relieve that recruit of all vestiges of
    civilian life - his head is shaved, his clothes are send home (or
    burned, in some cases), he has lost his right to freedom of speech,
    freedom of assembly, etc .... lots of freedoms lost.  Includes freedom
    from harassment.

    During the training phase every attempt will be made to "break" the
    individual.  He'd much rather "break" in training than to break on the
    battle field!!  If a soldier is captured by the enemy you have a fairly
    good chance that the enemy did not take a Valuing Diversity course. 
    The individual soldier must be ready for this.

    By example:

    One guy in our platoon (K Company/238) was black.  The drill instructor
    dubbed him "Sambo".  He was made to address superiors as "massah'" as
    opposed to "sir" .. made to carry a hoe as opposed to an M14 .. and was
    given the most menial of chores.  Did he "take it"?  You bet he did. 
    Did the black Marine complain?  Not one iota.
    
    Did we, the other Marines, rally to help this guy at every opportunity?
    You bet we did.  This is what begins to build unit cohesion.
    

    Now, what happens if a senior drill instructor tells a gay recruit 
    that "you are 100% wimp, you are a queer, personally, I don't like
    queers, I think they should wear lace panties - here's yours". Then,
    the gay recruit is made to wear lace panties and have a flower in his
    rifle.  Harassment?  You bet?  For a good cause?  You bet.

    Do you have a problem with this?

    Bubba

    Another point about the Meinhold ruling. . .
    
    It only affects the jurisdiction of that particular court in
    California.  The rest of the nation is unaffected at this point it
    time.
    
    jt

	This is a note from someone in another notesfile who watched a special 
on gays in the Isreali army. In it he talks about what the psychological tests
really are for. I have his permission to post this.



================================================================================
Note 319.59                    The Gay 90's on NBC                      59 of 62
BEDAZL::MAXFIELD "Politically Considerate"           13 lines   5-FEB-1993 10:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Canada and Israel are two countries that I know have lifted the
    ban on homosexuals serving in the military (and in Israel, military
    service is required of all citizens, male or female).  I heard
    a report on All Things Considered about the Israeli army allowing
    homosexuals to serve.  Anyone who claims to be homosexual is
    given additional psychological tests, to make sure that their
    homosexuality is not the basis for psychological problems.  I may
    not be stating this very well; the point was that homosexuality
    was not considered a problem, but they understood that due to
    cultural and social factors, homosexuals may need support to
    deal with prejudice and discrimination.
    
    Richard

	David, if follow the dress code for any given branch of the military,
then you won't see them wearing the clothes you are talking about. I DO agree
that if they don't follow the dress code, then they should be brought up on
disaplinary charges.



Glen

     <<< Note 18.196 by MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!" >>>



	Not ever being in the military I don't know if they would go as far as
you have said Bubba, but I do see why they might do it. Do I have a problem
with this? Not from the explaination that you gave. I would have a problem if
JUST gays were singled out though.



Glen

    The SDI will single out anyone he want to single out.  One platoon it
    may be gays .. one platoon it may be black .. one platoon it may be
    Mexican .. etc ...
    
    Believe me .. if the recruit complains .. there's going to be Hell to
    pay.
    
    Believe me, they "would go as far" as I said. They will go "further"
    but I really don't want to put that in notes.
    
    Bubba

    RE: .196  Jerry Beeler
    
    > Did we, the other Marines, rally to help this guy at every opportunity?
    > You bet we did.  This is what begins to build unit cohesion.
    
    What if the drill instructor punished the unit every time this guy
    made a mistake (to the point where the entire unit despised the guy
    for even the smallest error?)  Would they sneak up on him at night
    and pummel him with bars of soap wrapped in towels?
    
    Is this part of unit cohesion (to foster the most severe hatred
    possible towards some Marines?)

.202> What if the drill instructor punished the unit every time this guy
.202> made a mistake (to the point where the entire unit despised the guy
.202> for even the smallest error?)  Would they sneak up on him at night
.202> and pummel him with bars of soap wrapped in towels?

"What if"?  Ha! Ha!.  Guaranteed the SDI will do this.  Guaranteed.  Why
can I guarantee?  It happened to *me*.

We were coming to parade rest position while we were practicing in 
the barracks (old WWII things with wooden floors).  When I came to the
parade rest position I let my M14 slide just a little too fast and the
butt hit the deck with a resounding "thud".

"WHO IN THE HELL DID THAT!!!  WHO DROPPED A MARINE WEAPON!" screams the
senior drill instructor.

I didn't say a word.  Scared to death I was.  The whole platoon was made
to do some .. "exercises".  The SDI asked again.  I kept quiet (although
everyone around me knew it was me).  More exercises.  The SDI asked again.

By now the guys around me were ready to kill me and there was little
question in my mind but that they would.  I took one step forward.  Jesus
H. Christ, did I pay.  Big time.  I never forgot my "lesson" and neither
did the other guys.  The SDI beat the hell out of me ... big time.

I heard it put this way:  In the Marine Corps the fear of letting your
fellow Marine down transcends your fear of death.  Very true.

.202> Is this part of unit cohesion (to foster the most severe hatred
.202> possible towards some Marines?)

You bet it is.  And well worth it.  I do not regret for one minute getting
the livin' hell beat out of me.  A lot of guys did a lot of work because
I screwed up.  It never happened again.

I'm glad that I learned my lesson at Parris Island and not at Pleiku.

Bubba

    RE: .202
    
    Been watching too many videos. 
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .188

    > Probably correct.  The UCMJ has got to be changed to elimnate sodomy
    > as an offence which can result in discharge.  Slick does not by the
    > wildest stretch of the imagination have anywhere near the backing
    > to get this trough.  Slick's action could easily be a no-op.

    Clinton never had any intention of changing the UCMJ such that
    sodomy would no longer be grounds for discharge, and he has taken
    no action along those lines.

    The issue is that, according to at least one ex-military type,
    when someone *states* they are homosexual, it is interpreted as
    if they had just confessed to committing sodomy.  

    What I question is this: Is that *interpretation* written into the
    code itself, or is it just traditional based upon the original
    executive order that put the ban in place?

    If it is simply a matter of "traditional interpretation" then the
    code needn't be changed.  If the executive order is overturned, then
    military prosecutors would have no grounds for assuming the statement
    "I am homosexual" is equivalent to the statement "I have committed 
    sodomy."

    Any actual language against sodomy would remain in place.

    The main point is that NO ONE is arguing for a change in the 
    military's ban on sexual *behavior*.

    /Greg

    RE: .203  Jerry Beeler
    
    .202> Is this part of unit cohesion (to foster the most severe hatred
    .202> possible towards some Marines?)

    >You bet it is.  And well worth it.  I do not regret for one minute getting
    >the livin' hell beat out of me.  A lot of guys did a lot of work because
    >I screwed up.  It never happened again.
    
    If hatred towards your fellow Marines is necessary for unit cohesion,
    then I can easily see why bigotry is fostered there as well (since
    it is 'hatred incarnate,' so to speak.)
    
    In this case, it's best to lift the ban on gays (so that the units
    will have all the more hatred and bigotry at their disposal, even
    if they still don't know who the gays are among them.)

>    Another point about the Meinhold ruling. . .
>    
>    It only affects the jurisdiction of that particular court in
>    California.  The rest of the nation is unaffected at this point it
>    time.

It was a federal court.  And the news reports I read said it did indeed
apply not only nationwide, but to the us services in general, ie, worldwide.
I'll try to bring in the article.

DougO

    Suzanne, you are missing the aspect of this that Bubba is getting at,
    although I think it may be because he's not being clear enough.  Bubba,
    correct me if I'm out of line.
    
    "Abuse" of the whole unit on one Marine's account does not foster
    hatred of the guilty party.  It fosters an urgent, and overpowering,
    desire to see that he or she doesn't do it again.  When I was in a ROTC
    drill team and - gawd help me, Bubba, I know how you felt - dropped my
    Springfield, three of the members of the parade team spent a couple of
    hours with me, teaching me the maneuver I had not caught on to, so I
    wouldn't drop it again.  They had this thing against giving 20 to the
    sergeant on someone else's account, you see.  I never dropped my rifle
    again, either.
    
    -dick

    Suzanne.  The lesson was that I let my fellow Marines down.  I
    learned my lesson well and in a very short period of time.  So, it took
    a little temporary hate and bigotry in a controlled environment ... who
    cares?  Hey, *I* was the one that got the hell beat out of me.  Do *I*
    not have the privilege to say that it was .. worth it?

    Hey, I got a hot flash for you .. the same identical thing could happen
    to a gay recruit, a black recruit, a Mexican recruit ... or the blessed
    white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual recruit.  No difference.  Same lesson
    taught - same lesson learned.  Never heard a single complaint.  Until
    now, and, from someone who never has been and never will be there.
    
    Believe me, I hope and PRAY that this practice of (as you like to call
    it) bigorty and hatred CONTINUES.  It's called "training".  You better
    damned well pray that you make mistakes and you learn the consequences
    of those mistakes while training.  The "test" comes when someone is out
    there trying to make you die for your country.  One pays much more
    dearly during the "test" than they do during the "training".

    Bubba

    
    
    
     Glen,
    
    
      Even if a church was without hypocrisy of any kind you would still
    feel hated because they consider your homosexuality to be a sin.
    
    > what question
    
      It doesn't matter..
    
    
    David

    
    
    
    Glen,
    
    > Israelis do not consider homosexuality
    
    
     ERRRR... Wrong.. I just finished the book on the Mossad and according
    to this author they are not considered or treated with the same
    consideration that hets are.. Israel is a fundamentalists wet dream..
    
    
    David

DougO,

I saw on TV that it was Federal District Court, and the reporter
specifically stated that the ruling would not apply to other Federal
Districts until backed by the U.S. Court of Appeals (or something like
that).  I may be wrong, and since I don't make a habit of recording Peter
Jennings I can't prove it.

Let us know what you find; then I'll blame the network reporter for
getting it wrong!!!   ;^)

jt

| <<< Note 18.210 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>



| Even if a church was without hypocrisy of any kind you would still
| feel hated because they consider your homosexuality to be a sin.

	David, while I can not disagree with you about this in most churches,
the end result would be that these people view each individual the same. They
would not be hypociytical. They aren't really "above" anyone else in this
world. Some churches see things this way. But I also think that if the church's 
followed all of the rules explicitly with each and every person, no matter who 
they were, you would have very few people left to attend. 




Glen

    
    
    
    Glen,
    
      If you believe the bible to be the innerant word of God you are
    a sinner. That others sin too and maybe are not treated as harshly
    as you may have been treated is irrelevant..
    
    
    David

    What if you don't believe the bible to be the inerrant (is that a
    word?) word of god?

    					andrew
    
    P.S.  I ran this response through the spell checker, using two
    different spellings, and both times, it wanted to substitute
    "ignorant" for "inerrant."

    inerrant, adj.  [ etymology here ] : free from error: INFALLIBLE

    RE: .209  Jerry Beeler
    
    You missed my point.  If the training thrives on hatred (and bigotry,)
    then adding to it by lifting the ban on gays sounds like it would help
    matters.
    
    (By the way, you'd best not even *dream* of telling me that I don't
    have the right to express my opinion on any of this.  I'm PAYING for
    this stuff with my taxes.)

    By the way, Jerry, I already know that my Dad (a veteran of 3 wars)
    strongly supports lifting the ban on gays.
    
    I'll ask him this weekend what he thinks about the training techniques
    you've mentioned in this string.  Having fought in 3 wars, the guy is
    pretty opinionated - he may just disagree with you (but I guess his
    opinion would count since he's been in 3 times as many wars.)

.217> If the training thrives on hatred (and bigotry,) ....

I don't recall any "love your enemy" courses .. could have been some, but
I missed 'em.

.217> (By the way, you'd best not even *dream* of telling me that I don't
.217> have the right to express my opinion on any of this.  I'm PAYING for
.217> this stuff with my taxes.)

If I pay more taxes than you.. Does my opinion count more? (If you want to
bring this down to a monetary level)
    
Nowhere, expressed or implied, did I say that any person or group of people
didn't have a "right" to express their opinion on this or any other subject.
Read for comprehension next time.

Bubba

    
    
    > what if you don't believe the bible to be innerant
    
    
      Party hearty..
    
    David

    RE: .220  Jerry Beeler
    
    You talked about "love" built up for the man the DI called "Sambo"
    (which prompted me to ask you about hate built up for other Marines
    instead - you agreed that this is another technique.)
    
    So we were talking about DIs building up hatred among Marines (for
    each other, not the enemy.)  If you meant that this is what happens,
    then why wouldn't lifting the ban on gays help matters (by adding
    to this hatred)?  Do you understand now what I'm asking you (based
    on what you've written so far?)  Read for comprehension yourself
    this time.
    
    (You did seem to express dismay, by the way, at hearing the opinion
    of someone who hasn't 'gone' or can't 'go' - if you didn't mean to
    imply that such a person has no right to an opinion on this, I'm glad.)

RE: .218

You know, I don't believe that the leadership of our Armed Forces (the JCS),
and the congressional leaders like Sam Nunn are opposed to gays in the 
military in the absolute sense, but rather, they would like for this to be
a more gradual change.

The opposition is to President Clinton making a sweeping change practically
overnight.

On the other hand, there are the Jesse Helmses of the world who are just 
plain deadset against gays.  Period.  In my opinion, General Powell is a
more just man than Helms, and a more practical man than Clinton.


Jon

    Suzanne, the training does not thrive on hatred and bigotry.  It
    thrives on tested, proven techniques for breaking down the mental
    structure of the trainees so that they can be reconstructed not as
    independent individuals who will do what they want or what they think
    best but raather as cogs in a machine, people who will act instantly
    and correctly in concert to get the TEAM's job done.  They must each
    know beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt that their teammates can be
    trusted implicitly to do their jobs.
    
    I think Jerry's statement that it wouldn't matter whether a DI's victim
    were white or black or Hispanic or straignt or gay is valid.  The DI
    picks *someone* for the specific purpose of causing the others to rally
    around that person as a TEAM.
    
    -dick

    RE: .224  Dick Binder
    
    > ...the training does not thrive on hatred and bigotry.
    
    Thanks.  (I agree with this.)
    
    > It thrives on tested, proven techniques for breaking down the mental
    > structure of the trainees so that they can be reconstructed not as
    > independent individuals who will do what they want or what they think
    > best but raather as cogs in a machine, people who will act instantly
    > and correctly in concert to get the TEAM's job done.
    
    I agree.  I haven't heard anything yet that explains why lifting the
    ban on gays would have a negative effect on this.

	David, you're right that anyone who views the Bible to be inerrant
would view both of these things as sins. That isn't even the issue at hand.
What IS the issue is that one would be told to take a hike, the other would
not. How can some Christians expect others to believe what they say when
some are not consistant with how they react to sin? 

	And for the record, I don't consider the Bible to be inerrant.




Glen

    Re .225
    
    Suzanne, the problem is that some people fear that the mere knowledge
    of a buddy's gayness could be sufficient to cause a soldier or Marine
    to hesitate for a split second because he or she didn't understand that
    gay does not equal wimp.  "Oh, damn, he's gay, can I really trust him
    to back me up?"  The answer is of course yes, you can trust him, and I
    think Jerry will concur, since he says he knows gay Marines.  But the
    fact that question gets asked at the wrong time is a potential killer.
    The same thing happened when blacks were integrated in - many white GIs
    simply refused to believe that blacks are as reliable as whites.  This
    error was based on the Uncle Tom stereotype.  Today's error is based on
    the swish stereotype.
    
    -dick

    
    
    Glen,
    
      I know.. Remember I used to defend you in the Christian notesfile:-)
    
    
    David

    RE: .227  Dick Binder
    
    > "Oh, damn, he's gay, can I really trust him
    > to back me up?"  The answer is of course yes, you can trust him, and I
    > think Jerry will concur, since he says he knows gay Marines.  But the
    > fact that question gets asked at the wrong time is a potential killer.
    
    The training that is supposed to take individuals and transform them
    into effective soldiers is designed to address the situation of a
    person thinking as an individual (and hesitating) based on prejudices.
    It should be fixable.
    
    > The same thing happened when blacks were integrated in - many white GIs
    > simply refused to believe that blacks are as reliable as whites.  This
    > error was based on the Uncle Tom stereotype.  Today's error is based on
    > the swish stereotype.
    
    Exactly.  The other problem was fixable, too (and it was fixed.)

    
    
    -1
    
      Not.. It is and will always be for the majority, a question of moral
    character.
    
    David

.167> 3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?
.182> No.
.191> I am curious as to why you think this. 
    
    For one thing, they would be out of uniform.

    If the ban is lifted, in my opinion, it's likely that we wouldn't
    see much of a change in the military (other than the lack of a witch
    hunt and no more discharging those who reveal their homosexuality.)
    
    I'd be happy if these two things (alone) were accomplished.
    
    God knows, we have plenty of gays in the military who do an excellent
    job without having their orientation discovered.  If these folks could
    continue on (without worrying about being hunted down and discharged
    upon discovery,) I'd personally find this a vast improvement over the
    situation we have now (and I'm not sure if the military would need to
    go beyond this.)

     <<< Note 18.230 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>




|  Not.. It is and will always be for the majority, a question of moral
|  character.
    

	David, a couple of notes back I put something in from the Globe. It
listed some of the things that straight men do while they are in the service.
If it's a moral issue for those in the service, then there are many that need
to clean up their act first!



Glen

Jon .. in less than 100 words you have provided what I personally consider
the most eloquently simple description of this entire "affair".  My
Stetson is off to ya'.

.223> You know, I don't believe that the leadership of our Armed Forces
.223> (the JCS), and the congressional leaders like Sam Nunn are opposed
.223> to gays in the military in the absolute sense, but rather, they would
.223> like for this to be a more gradual change.

Absolutely.  If it took a one year plan .. a five year plan or a ten year
plan I doubt seriously that you'd see 1/10th of the emotional displays
that we are seeing now.  Who really cares if it takes a few years?  When
people see and/or hear "NOW!  I WANT MY RIGHTS!", or "let the Joint Chiefs
of Staff resign, who need's 'em" .. this is called 'pouring gasoline onto
the fire'.  No one gains anything.  Hell, had Martin Luther King, Jr. taken
the same approach he would have burned the busses as opposed to taking
the approach of a well thought out and executed boycott in Alabama.

There's only one letter difference between "anger" and "danger".  Slick
needs a spelling lesson.

.223> The opposition is to President Clinton making a sweeping change
.223> practically overnight.

Additionally, without prior consultation with the leading Congressional
members, Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
or any military personnel.  This is not a good way to win friends and
influence people.  Slick found out the hard way.  Let's hope he learned
from it.

His commentary along the lines of: no matter what happens between now and
six months from now ... "I've made up my mind", well, this serves notice
that irrespective of the results of any hearings, "I've made up my mind".
What must this sound like to a Senate or House member:  Irrespective of
what you say I'm going to do it my way.

Who is really paying (and I don't mean from a monetary perspective) for
this?  Take a wild guess.

.223> On the other hand, there are the Jesse Helmses of the world who are just 
.223> plain deadset against gays.  Period.

Right, and, due to human nature and the fact that all humans are different
there will probably always be the Jesse Helms type.  There's nothing that
you and/or I can really do about that.  It's called "life".

.223> In my opinion, General Powell is a more just man than Helms, and a
.223> more practical man than Clinton.

THAT, my friend, is the understatement of the year!  I pray to whatever
deity will listen that Powell does not get frustrated with Slick to the
extent that he resigns.

Bubba

.224> .. not as independent individuals who will do what they want or
.224> what they think best but raather as cogs in a machine, people who
.224> will act instantly and correctly in concert to get the TEAM's job done.

Properly said.  I'm sure that a lot of people have seen George C. Scott's
portrayal of "Patton" in the movie .. remember his speech at the beginning
of the movie..."this individuality stuff is a bunch of crap".  Truer words
have never been spoken.

.224> I think Jerry's statement that it wouldn't matter whether a DI's victim
.224> were white or black or Hispanic or straight or gay is valid.  The DI
.224> picks *someone* for the specific purpose of causing the others to rally
.224> around that person as a TEAM.

Even if the platoon is full of white, anglo-Saxon, Protestant, het males.
Believe me.  He'll find someone.

Bubba

.227> Suzanne, the problem is that some people fear that the mere knowledge
.227> of a buddy's gayness could be sufficient to cause a soldier or Marine
.227> to hesitate for a split second because he or she didn't understand that
.227> gay does not equal wimp.

Correct.  This is where the unit integrity element comes into play.  I think
that this is indeed the concern of a great many of people - at least it
started out that way.  It has sense grown to a whole host of other issues
which have more than clouded this original issue.  Not that the other issues
are invalid or inappropriate.

.227> The answer is of course yes, you can trust him, and I think Jerry will
.227> concur, since he says he knows gay Marines.

It has nothing to do with "gay" and nothing to do with Marines.  It has
nothing to do with gay Marines.  It has to do with an individual soldier -
irrespective of his branch - and the basic human reaction to any difference(s)
which would tend to cause hesitation or notice.

I'm not going to say that I would trust a gay soldier - or a black soldier
or a Mexican/American soldier or a white soldier .. or any other soldier.
The other soldier has to earn that trust.  Anyone is capable of demonstrating
that they are deserving of trust.  Once you've earned it you hold on to
it for dear life.  A gay soldier is certainly capable of demonstrating
that he is deserving of that trust.  You don't have to convince me -
convince the other 79 guys in a platoon.

It is a simple fact in any combat team and with any element that is or
could be disruptive to unit integrity.  I mentioned somewhere about a guy
in our unit who like to have sex - no big deal - problem was he liked girls
who were in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 years old.  He was one of the best
there was (as far as soldering) but I got rid of him mucho pronto because
the other guys were going to kill him or get someone else killed in the
process.

Herein lies a question that begs for an answer.  Given a platoon with
one <x> soldier and 79 <y> soldiers who have a real problem with the
<x> soldier .. simply because the soldier is <x> ... what do you do? How
do you handle that?  Oh, and, don't say "just tell the 79 to follow 
orders".  Also, don't ask me how I'd do it.  I don't know.  I've given
it a great deal of thought, but, at this time I don't know.

.227> But the fact that question gets asked at the wrong time is a potential
.227> killer.

There's the unfortunate side of this.  Death is so damned ... final.

Bubba

.230> Not.. It is and will always be for the majority, a question of moral
.230> character.

I'll give you a 50% on this.  It *is* now perceived as such but I wouldn't
go as far as saying that it "will always be".  Always is such a damned
long time.

Bubba

.167> 3.) Will drag gueens be allowed to serve?
.182> No.
.191> I am curious as to why you think this. 

Better question .. will a drag queen *want* to serve?  I would think
that there would be somewhat of a disconnect between the military
life and a drag queen's lifestyle.

Even better question .. what's a drag queen?  I've seen guys show up
who made the stereotypical drag queen look like he just walked out
of GQ Magazine.  Believe me, in about 1 hour they all look the same.

Bubba

    
    
    
    Glen,
    
     I suspect it is a matter of wether certain morally offensive behavior
    is in Vogue or not:-)
    
    David

    
    
    > what's infinity divided by zero
    
      Zero.
    
    David

    re .240
    
    Wrong.  It is undefined.

| <<< Note 18.238 by MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!" >>>



| Better question .. will a drag queen *want* to serve?  I would think
| that there would be somewhat of a disconnect between the military
| life and a drag queen's lifestyle.

	Who's to say Bubba? Many feel that there would be a disconnect between
the military and gays. We both know that many serve in the military, right? Why
would this be any different?



Glen

| I suspect it is a matter of wether certain morally offensive behavior
| is in Vogue or not:-)

	I've listen to the song David. ;-) Madonna having any type of morally
offensive behavior? Never! :-)



Glen

    
    
    >  Wrong. It is undefined
    
    
      Wrong.. It was undefined. You obviously have not read my latest book
    entitled " When I knew it all." :-) :-)
    
    David

>                           -< "Torch Song Trilogy" was T*E*R*R*I*B*L*E ! >-

Okay.  There are lots to choose from, and I wouldn't expect everyone 
to like every play/movie.

Then I'd recommend the play "Breaking the Code," which is about Alan
Turning, his breaking of the German code during WWII, and his being
hounded by the government (and his subsequent suicide) for being gay. 
I don't believe it's been made into a movie, yet; it's only performed 
on the stage.

"The Mayor of Castro Street" is a film about the life of Harvey Milk, 
one of the first openly-gay elected officials in the nation.  Rumor 
has it that it will star Robin Williams and will be directed by Gus 
Van Sant ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "My Own Private Idaho").  I imagine 
it would be released sometime in 1994.


							--Gerry

.232> (other than the lack of a witch hunt
    
    Witch hunt?
    
    Does the military actively seek out gays to discharge?

yup...

    "yup" is a generous understatement.
    
    My wonderful and great friends in NIS (Naval Investigative Services)
    makes the  FBI, CIA, IRS, DIA, KKK, KGB, LAPD, DEA, and SOAPBOX
    moderators .. look like a kindergarten class.
    
    These guys is mean .. but (if any of 'em are reading this) .. they're a
    great bunch of guys .. yep .. thoroughly enjoyed working with you .. 
    listening?  Hear me?  OK?  Everything fine?
    
    Bubba
    
    

It's time for the official NOTESpoll.  Please extract the following
survey, answer the questions, and forward to MORO::BEELER_JE.  This
poll will be open until Friday, 12 February 1993, 2400 HRS.  The
results will be posted the following Monday.

This poll has been simultaneously posted in SOAPBOX, MENNOTES, and
WOMANNOTES.

	PLEASE:  DO NOT(!) answer the poll in this string.
	------   All replies will be STRICTLY confidential!
	         No "exit polls"!



1.  Should the policy as it existed on 1 January 1993 remain in place?
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

	------------------------------------
	In the event that the ban is lifted:
	------------------------------------

2. Homosexuals should be allowed access to highly classified information
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

3. Homosexuals should be allowed in forward combat units 
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

4. Homosexuals should be subject to mandatory psychological evaluations
   to insure that their homosexuality is not detrimental to military
   service:
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

5. The military should have sensitivity training to acquaint the troops
   with the issues of homosexuals in the military:
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

6. Assume that a homosexual soldier claims that continued service would 
   be psychologically injurious to him/her.  Should this soldier be allowed
   honorable discharge?
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

7. Should current active duty troops be allowed early discharge, prior to
   the lifting of the ban, with the status of "Honorable"
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

8. Separate sleeping and showering facilities should be provided for
   straight and homosexual soldiers:
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

9. The United States government should provide survivor and housing benefits
   for homosexual couples in the same manner as are provided for heterosexual
   married couples:
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

10. Should the question of homosexuality be removed for all federal
    service (Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
    Secret Service, etc...)?
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

		-The following is optional - you may
		 complete any fraction or none of this
		 section-

Your sex:
	[ ] Male	[ ] Female

Have you previously served in any branch of the military?
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No

Were you ever in a combat or "imminent danger" situation while in the
military?
	[ ] Yes		[ ] No	[ ] N/A

Your sexual orientation:
	[ ] Homosexual	[ ] Heterosexual  [ ] Bi-sexual
	[ ] Not decided [ ] Not Applicable (Private matter)

Someone somewhere asked me for the news report on this- here's the high 
points.  This is taken from a small weekly newspaper here in my town.

DougO
-----
[from the Mountain View Crier, Wed 3 Feb 93, p4.]

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. said, "Gays and
lesbians have served and continue to serve the United States military with
honor, pride, dignity and loyalty.  

"The Department of Defense is permanently enjoined from discharging or denying
enlistment to any person based on sexual orientation in the absence of sexual
conduct which interferes with the military mission of the armed forces of the 
United States."

The decision affects all branches of the military.

Gays in the military?  Sure.  Why not?

"This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun."

After seeing IN LIVING COLOR this past weekend, I think I understand more about
the gay life-style.  As they say, good comedy is based life.

    re.247 Not only does the military maintain a toll-free hotline for 
    reporting gays, but they have spent about a quarter *billion* 
    dollars actively seeking out gays in the military.

    
       I am rather curious about the claim that 10% of the population
    is gay.  If most are still quiet about it.....how can we be sure
    about this ?   Is this number claim from gay sources only ?  
    
       I only know 2 people who are gay. But I know hundreds of people
    well enough I figure.  Yeah, yeah, I know, most might not admit it...
    but still, I don't think the numbers add up.
    
     

    Re .254
    
    > most might not admit it...
    
    Exactly.  You know only two people who are willing to admit to you that
    they are gay.  The number of people you know who are gay is without
    doubt much larger.  I am continually surprised (but not, be it noted,
    displeased) when friends whose sexual polarity had not before been a
    subject of discussion, decide to trust me enough with the information
    that they are gay.  It is said that the average person knows about
    1,000 other people.  Well, I can (but will not here) name at least 50
    gays in my circle of acquaintance.  That's only 5%, but then, as I
    said, there are others about whom I have no clue in either direction.
    
    -dick

| <<< Note 18.252 by COMET::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>



| After seeing IN LIVING COLOR this past weekend, I think I understand more about
| the gay life-style.  

	Hey Dwight, now I think I am beginning to understand where you are
coming from. How about dealing with reality? Parodies do NOT = reality. Come
join the real world for a while. You might be surprised at what you'll learn. 




Glen

    
       Over the years, I've know at least 200 people VERY well.  Well
    enough that they've told me personal things about themselves.
    
    And if the numbers claim is true, then I should know 40 gay people.
    
    ....sorry, I think the 10% is too high.
    

    re .257
    
    The standard claim is about 4% of the male population is at any one
    time living in an exclusively gay environment/relationship.  Not all of
    these men are exclusively gay all their lives, so over time the total
    number of men who have lived as such rises.

    
      I still would like to know, what are the official sources of
    these numbers ???
    
        

To satiate your desire for official sources, feed on this...

The Economist Dec 5-11th 1992.

	"Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that
	one in ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives
	are exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of adult men and 
	less than 2% of adult women."

- Paul.

    Yup,
        2 to 4 % is definately more believable.   
    
      
    Still, I wonder if people will ever get to a level where there is no
    more bloodshed over this.  Seeing the news about the gay inlisted man
    who was beaten to death recently only leads me to believe this issue
    about gays in the military will never cool down.
    
       What people will do when fear is the motivator.
    
    Pretty sick stuff.
    

    re .261
    
    Remember: the 4% is only exclusively gay.  It ignores the very much
    larger number of men who engage in homosexual behaviour but who do not
    live as or define themselves to be exclusively gay.

    Any quesses on the % for men who engage in homosexual behavior?
    
    Marc H.

    
    
     Just saw the film being passed around in the Pantagon " The Gay
    agenda". I suspect that this will influence the public to say hell
    no to lifting the ban. It was well organized..
    
    David

    re .262
    
    	"It ignores the very much larger number of men who engage in 
	homosexual behaviour but who do not live as or define themselves 
	to be exclusively gay."

Your right but I have a problem with 'larger number of men' as an 
unquantifiable generalisation and 'homosexual behaviour .....' as a 
definition.

How do you know that a 'larger number of men' have sex with other men and
with your definition do you mean bisexual ?

- Paul

    re .265
    
>unquantifiable generalisation and 'homosexual behaviour .....' as a 
>definition.
    
    Of course it is not unquantifiable.  All you have to do is count them.
    
    As for homosexual behaviour - you really want a blow by blow
    definition?
    
>How do you know that a 'larger number of men' have sex with other men and
>with your definition do you mean bisexual ?
    
    How do I know?  Because publically available reputable studies tell me
    so.  Do I mean bisexual?  In a technical, behavioural sense yes.  But
    many men who engage in homosexual behaviour won't admit even
    bisexuality.

    re:.253
    
    I learn something new every day.  I stand corrected.

    re:.259
    
    The Merck manual also cites a 5% figure for men who are exclusively
    gay their entire lives.

    re .266
    
    	"Of course it is not unquantifiable.  All you have to do is 
	count them."

Yep, your right. 

	"But many men who engage in homosexual behaviour won't admit even
	bisexuality."

Yep, your probably right there too and as they won't tell you, you won't be 
able to count them. So you and I will never know exactly how many men your 
'larger number of men' really is. Conclusion - pointless discussion.

    	"How do I know ?  Because publically available reputable studies 
	tell me so."

Oh, which ones have you read ? Put a hold on the sarcasm there, I'm generally 
interested.

- Paul.

If most (or many) men who engage in homosexual activity won't admit it,
how do the so-called reputable studies come up with numbers?

    Admitting it to other people in social and similar relationships is not
    felt by many to be equivalent to providing the information as data to
    be used statistically.  The same thing applies to exit pools, where
    many people freely enumerate the candidates for whom they voted who
    would not tell their friends the same list of names.
    
    -dick

| <<< Note 18.264 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>



| Just saw the film being passed around in the Pantagon " The Gay
| agenda". I suspect that this will influence the public to say hell
| no to lifting the ban. It was well organized..

	David, can you give out any details on it? If not in here by mail?



Glen

    Order one for yourself.  It's slightly less than $12.  The tape was
    made right here in Bubbaland ... 
    
    I posted the number in SOAPBOX ... I'll get it and post here.
    
    Bubba

re .271:

I'd either lie to an exit poll, or refuse to answer.  I'd refuse to answer
a poll about sexual practices.  I don't think I'm unusual in that.

    >...lie to an exit poll

    For the first time in my life I was approached by one of these pollers
    just after I cast my vote in the last Presidential election ...

    I answered most of the questions ... then .. it came to the demographic
    part ...

    She looked at me and said "white" ... I responded with "I use a lot of
    Clorox".

    She said "male" ... I said "you can never be sure these days".

    She asked "salary?" I said "I don't care for salary in my salads, too
    stringy".

    She asked "sexual preference" .. I said "missionary position".

    She left with tears in her eyes .. I don't know if it was tears of joy
    or sadness ...

    Oh well ...

    Bubba

    
    
    Glen,
    
    > Details
    
      GAy parades showing men in leather with chains( Frisco, New York).
    Speakers on the show stating that gay males may have sexual relations
    with up to 75 men in x period of time. Gay men kissing and dressing
    as women. Signs being carried be Gays saying " God is Gay".
    Information detailing that gays suffer from hepatitis B because of anal
    sex..... etc etc etc.. All in all it had a definite impact..
    
    David

| <<< Note 18.276 by COMET::DYBEN "Grey area is found by not looking" >>>



	Thanks for the info David. Of course you knew I would analize it,
right? ;-)


| GAy parades showing men in leather with chains( Frisco, New York).

	I guess the only difference between gays and straight men who wear the
same would be gay men have worn them outside the bedroom. :-)

| Speakers on the show stating that gay males may have sexual relations
| with up to 75 men in x period of time. 

	David, do you remember if the speakers were gay or straight? Also, did
they have proof of their statements that they showed on the video? (a report or
something)

| Gay men kissing 

	This one's cute. Straight men don't kiss? Hmmmm.....

| and dressing as women. 

	My mother has a problem with this and gays. I asked her if it were a
straight man dressing up for fun, would she see anything wrong with it? She
said no. So what's the big deal? Whether or not a man wears a dress for any
<insert whatever reason> really shouldn't be an issue. When anyone is allowed 
into the military, they have to follow a dress (no pun intended) code. Plain 
and simple.
	
| Signs being carried be Gays saying " God is Gay".

	He isn't? ;-) Well, seeing that no one has ever seen God, we really
don't know what He is. My guess is He is asexual. But who knows?

| Information detailing that gays suffer from hepatitis B because of anal
| sex..... 

	I wish I had some information on this. I think I know where to get it
too. (the information)

| All in all it had a definite impact..

	Too bad the impact is so refuteable for them, eh? :-)




Glen

    
    
    Glen,
    
      When straights kiss in public that are kissing the opposite sex. I
    do not recall the narrators orientation, I suspect it was het. The
    film will cause damage. I remember thinking( and we all know how
    liberal I am :-) ) that if I went to war with someone like that I
    would fear them more than the enemy.. The same show( Pat Robertsons
    CBN) which I normally do not watch, also had a Senator Gramm from Texas
    talking about his interviews with military Sergeants. The jist of it
    was simple, for every arguement for allowing the gays into the military
    there was a  logical repsonse rebuffing the idea. They did an excellent
    job of pointing out the responses by sergeants as being non-hate based
    and morally sound.. 
    
    David

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< SOAPBOX: Around as long as Digital is >-
================================================================================
Note 707.552             Homosexuality and the military               552 of 719
MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!"     23 lines   2-FEB-1993 03:45
                              -< The Gay Agenda >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may have seen/heard about the video tape that's being distributed
    on Capitol Hill and to the Senate and House of Representatives.  It's
    called "The Gay Agenda".  I first heard about it by way of a phone
    call from a friend in Washington, DC a few days ago - and have since
    heard it referenced on CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

    A local investigative reporter found that the infamous tape is made
    and distributed right here in Bubba's back yard (Lancaster).  Not only
    that, it's for sale!

    The organization which makes the tape granted the interview with the
    local TV station ONLY if the TV station would post the phone number
    for people to call if they wanted to order the tape.

    I don't know how much it cost .. but I'll be ordering mine tomorrow.

    If you want a copy call (805) 940-4700 and ask for "The Gay Agenda"
    video tape.

    Bubba

    PS:  From the little that they showed on the local news - it is NOT for
         the faint of heart and should NOT be shown to kids (seriously).

    
    
    I haven't seen the tape, doubt that I will -- doesn't sound worth
    $12.00.
    
    The tape sounds like it much the same as the advertisments put together
    by the CFV folks here in Colorado in support of A2.  Those
    advertisements (which I DID see) focus on the fringe elements of the
    gay community and have little basis in reality.  Those advertisements
    did, I believe, have a profound impact (negative) on the general
    population.

    
    
    
      I am certain that the gay community is diverse, however, they are all
    gay. This is at the heart of the problem. I have heard it said that if
    gays cannot see the unreasonability of their own sexuality what else
    will they be confused or wrong about? 
    
    David

> if gays cannot see the unreasonability of their own sexuality 

excuse me, David, but that's a classic.  I take issue with that statement
on about every grounds I can imagine.  One, who says their sexuality is
unreasonable?  Two, who says that there is such a thing as 'unreasonable' 
sexuality anyway?  Sexuality just is.  Everybody's got some.  Everybody's
is similar in some ways to other folks', everybody's is unique in some
ways.  There's no such thing as unreasonable sexuality.  Three, even if
there were, for the sake of the discussion; on an overpopulated planet,
with over a billion people starving to death as we speak, seems to me that
a sexuality that doesn't make babies is a lot more reasonable than one that
does.  

People are afraid, all right, but its from ignorance.  And that, unlike
homosexuality, is something that can and should be cured.

DougO

    
    
    > but it's from ignorance
    
      Talk about classics.
    
    > There's no such thing as unreasonable sexuality
    
      Pedaphilia(sp)? Beastiality(sp)??  Sadism? Mosochism? 
    
    David

    
    
    
    
    > a sexuality that doesn't make babies
    
      Oh I get it. The environmentally correct sexuality:-)
    
    David

    re:  .276
    
    Thanks for that update on the tape, David.
    
    Yuck.
    

Perhaps at this early hour of the morning I'm just tired but ...

Someone help me to understand something.  Here we have a guy, David Dyben.
He's said that he's seen this tape and he is concerned.  He's told us how
it has influenced his thinking on this issue.

Now, we see commentary to the effect: "I haven't seen the tape, doubt that
I will..." and that it "sounds like" .. but tacit admission that it does
"have a profound impact (negative) on the general population."

Next, the word "ignorance".  Ostensibly directed toward Mr. Dyben.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Dyben.  He is far from "ignorant".
He's a damned intelligent person.  What does he have to go on with respect
to gaining some understanding of this issue?  What he sees and what he
reads!  I recall Will Rogers commentary: "All I know is what I read in
the newspapers".

Tell you what, Mr. Dyben.  It's worth $12 to me to know what I'm talking
about and what I'm theoretically fighting against.  I've ordered a copy
of the tape and after I view it we'll talk about it.  I'm not going to
write you off with suppositions as to what I think it is.  Personally
I don't like fighting in the dark and not knowing what I'm fighting.

Yes, I've seen the stuff put out in Colorado.  It was damned brilliant piece
of strategy.  Damn brilliant.  Had I not seen it I may have written it
off as "fringe element" and "untruths" but it was far from that.  It was
well done, well articulated and far from "fringe". That's another subject.

Also, David, you're not ignorant.  Not by a long shot.  This may come as one
hell of a shock to you, but, you're human.  Just keep your eyes and
ears open and keep asking questions.

Mr. Berry, as I promised I'll send you a copy of the tape.  You view it,
then, we'll talk about it.

Bubba

	"Someone help me to understand something"

Bubba, this tape sounds to me like propaganda of the worst kind. I haven't 
seen it (probably never will) but from Davids commentary I'd say it portrays 
homosexuals as the product of Lucifers work - demons incarnate. Right ?
Somebody - probably the religious right - are seizing on homosexuality as
the next great Satanic wave after abortion.

Can you change that ? Can you change what's on the tape ? Can you force 
middle road America not to be influenced by it ? Can you stop the anti-gay 
groups or religious right ? No.

As I understand it, I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, under the
14th ammendment to the constitution homosexuals already have rights. What
they need is for the Civil Rights Act to be extended to them. The louder 
homosexuals shout now, the easier it is for other groups to block that
process.

I don't think Clinton has done homosexuals any favours by making an issue of
'homosexuals in the military' now. Other countries, like Canada, Israel, and
some European countries are already open about this issue - it was only a
question of time for America. Now it'll happen later than sooner. Tough.
  
- Paul.

PS.  Bubba, you're unreal man. What are you doing (if you don't mind me asking)
at 4:00 in the morning reading a notes file. Are you on night shift or 
something ?

| <<< Note 18.286 by MORO::BEELER_JE "God save us from Slick Willie" >>>



	Bubba, you take the cake sometimes, really.....

| Next, the word "ignorance".  Ostensibly directed toward Mr. Dyben.

	GANT!!!! WRONG Bubba! What was said is ignorance is something that
should be corrected. It seemed to be directed towards those who would portray a
group of people in the worse way based on fears, not based on anyone getting to
know who these people are. This means ANY/EVERYONE who feels this way, but no 
one in particular.

| I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Dyben.  He is far from "ignorant".
| He's a damned intelligent person.  

	Bubba, playing with words again? You could have the most intelligent
person in the entire universe standing next to you. It doesn't mean that he
isn't ignorant about any particular issue. Intelligence doesn't mean someone
will or won't be ignorant. There have been MANY things I have been ignorant to
in the past, and I'm sure there are things now as well. But I try to work these
things out. That is how one gets over their ignorance, by either proving or
disproving their belief about someone or something. But I still didn't see any
direct referrence that David was ignorant.

| What does he have to go on with respect
| to gaining some understanding of this issue?  What he sees and what he
| reads!  

	I guess it would come down to whether he has or hasn't gotten to know
gay people himself? 

| Tell you what, Mr. Dyben.  It's worth $12 to me to know what I'm talking
| about and what I'm theoretically fighting against.  I've ordered a copy
| of the tape and after I view it we'll talk about it.  I'm not going to
| write you off with suppositions as to what I think it is.  Personally
| I don't like fighting in the dark and not knowing what I'm fighting.

	Very good Bubba, really. Not overly dramatic, but just enough. Bubba,
there's a lot some can do keep things from being theoretical, to let others
have full knowledge of <insert subject/person>. Can you think of any?



Glen

    
    
    
    Bubba,
    
      And I thank you for your support :-)
    
    David

    
    
    I think Glen said it well, but I'll say it again anyway!
    
    If Mr. Dyben is making all his "decisions" as to how he feels about
    homosexuals and thier "agenda" based only on this tape and what he sees
    on television and reads in the paper, then he *is* ignorant as to what
    main-stream gay people are all about.  
    
    Just my $0.02.
    
       GJD

    
       
        Given the fact the alot of main-stream Americans consider
    sodomy un-natural. And are uncomfortable with the idea of it...
    
       Gay men don't help their cause any by marching in parades wearing
    leather + chains.  To some, it implies S + M etc.   Why add to the
    stigma of sodomy ?    We all have evey right to march in parades....
    but why not just wear a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt or something
    like that ?  Unless, of course they WANT to shock your average Joe
    on the street. But that's just adding fuel to the fire.
    
      Just a thought.
    
    

    
    
    
    > If Mr. Dyben is making all his " decisions"
    
      Wow! I kept looking around the room for my Father...Mr
    Dyben...Diercks(Greg I think) I did not say I was making the decision
    based upon the tapes, I said that this tape will influence people. I
    have already made up my mind on the issue of homosexuality..
    
    > he *is* ignorant
    
       No i is not! So thar :-)
    
    David

The film clearly portrays mainstream gays wrongly. Quote "Americas gays are 
educated, affluent ... and engaged in the great civil-rights struggle of the
1990s" - which is my belief too. Friends of mine who are gay fit exactly this
picture but if some weirdos dress up with the intention to shock, are filmed 
and given the label 'gay' then people will stereotype gays as "Yuck". 

I don't think David showed any ignorance with his note - and neither did 
Dwight.  However their notes do demonstrate how divided America is over the 
issue and Glens response drove the point home.

If you want to change it why don't you invite David or Dwight to your home for
dinner and talk.

22 States, including Arkansas (which I found surprising) still have anti-sodomy 
laws.(Src: Economist) How can gays change the attitudes of mainstream America 
towards homosexuality if those kinds of laws still exist ? That can only happen
if gays act as individuals and work to achieve their Civil Rights.

- Paul.

P.S. Can anyone name the other 21 States ?









 

    My daughter is a freshman in college and her best friend is a gay male. 
    They are planning to rent an apartment together next year.  I have met
    him and he seemed pleasant, courteous and as normal as most people. 
    I'm not sure I would have known he was gay if she hadn't told me
    before-hand.  He wasn't wearing leather or chains or dressed like a
    woman.   What should I do?
    
    Lorna
    

Re. -1

Are you serious ?

If you are - I'll go bang my head and hope that helps.

- Paul.

| <<< Note 18.291 by 2CRAZY::FLATHERS "Rooting for the underdog." >>>




| Gay men don't help their cause any by marching in parades wearing
| leather + chains.  To some, it implies S + M etc.   Why add to the
| stigma of sodomy ?    

	I DO understand that leather and chains can imply S&M. But would the
issue of sodomy be implied if it were straight men who wore these things? There
are 2 questions that have to be asked. 

		1) Do all cases of leather and chains = S&M?

		2) Do all cases of leather and chains = sodomy?

	The answer to both questions is no. But, many people have fixed in their
minds that it does. These are the people who need to see for themselves. To ask
questions, etc. Yes, in both cases it CAN mean that, but not in all (most?). 

| We all have evey right to march in parades....
| but why not just wear a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt or something
| like that ?  

	Scottish people wear kilts, Irish people may dress like Leprecans, but
this is acceptable. I think what might be part of the whole issue is that
something most may feel should be kept to just the bedroom is being brought out
into the light for all to see. Now it's a question of dealing with it. Sure,
many will freak out, but they may be doing so without ever knowing what's going 
on. Ask questions. Meet a few people. It's the only way people will find out 
for sure about things.

| Unless, of course they WANT to shock your average Joe
| on the street. But that's just adding fuel to the fire.

	Look at Madonna. She is a perfect example. She brings a lot of issues
out to the forfront. She makes people talk about them. If things are always
kept quiet, then people go on with their impressions. The sad fact may be by
doing this some may have the wrong impression of any given subject. 

	Another example would be Milton Bearle. He wore dresses and everyone
thinks it's funny. If a gay man wears a dress it's disgusting. Regardless of
why he may be wearing it.

| Just a thought.

	One I'm glad you brought up.




Glen

| <<< Note 18.293 by GYMAC::PNEAL >>>


| If you want to change it why don't you invite David or Dwight to your home for
| dinner and talk.

	It would cost David a lot of money to come out here for dinner! :-) I
don't know where Dwight lives, but if it's in the Mass area, the offer is open.




Glen

| <<< Note 18.294 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "i would let it go" >>>



| -< is my child in danger??? !!!! >-

	Lorna, really, are you serious? I really need to know! :-)





Glen

    
       Scottish people wearing kilts   is hardly a comparison to
    gays wearing leather + chains. And I bet you know the comparison
    is a weak one.  Scottish people wearing kilts won't shock anyone.
    
     It's all just perception of what's exceptable.   I personally could
    care less if gays march in parades. Doesn't bother me at all. 
    But hey, if they want to add fuel to a fire.....well, what can I say.
    
     I think sodomy is un-natural. To me the backside is an exit, not
    an entrance. I'm sorry if it bothers some to state it, but it's just
    my opinion. And I DON'T hate those with opposing views.  THat's the
    key.  We have to stop hating people based on fear. !!!!!
    I don't care if my neighbor wants to perform it with his willing partner. 
    That's their business.
    
      I just hate to see fuel being added to the fire of hate. We have
    enough to worry about without continued hate for one another.
    
      What we do, or wear, or say in public matters to some degree on
    who we are.  A good example would be.......
    
      President Clinton  grabbing his crotch and spitting at a news 
    conference.   Not that would be shocking !!!!   BUT  Wade Boggs
    grabbing his crotch and spitting while stepping up to the plate
    is acceptable.
    
       Ah the human mind.....gotta love it....
    
    
      

.287> -< It's 4:00 and your still awake ? >-

It's only 0100 HRS out here.

.287> Bubba, this tape sounds to me like propaganda of the worst kind. I
.287> haven't seen it (probably never will) ...

Could be.  I'll let you know after I've seen it.  Like I said, it would have
been easy for me to write off the Colorado stuff as the same sort of stuff
but it was in fact well done and very convincing.

.287> >Can you stop the anti-gay groups or religious right ? No.

Don't know if I can stop 'em but I can sure go a long way toward makin'
'em look like fools.

.287> I don't think Clinton has done homosexuals any favours by making an
.287> issue of 'homosexuals in the military' now.

THAT is the understatement of the year.

.287> Bubba, you're unreal man. What are you doing (if you don't mind me
.287> asking) at 4:00 in the morning reading a notes file. Are you on night
.287> shift or something ?

I'm a Sales Executive.  That's a 24 hour/day 7 day/week shift.  Notes
provides a great deal of comic relief from quotes and proposals.

.293> I don't think David showed any ignorance with his note - and neither did 
.293> Dwight.  However their notes do demonstrate how divided America is over
.293> the issue..

Bingo.

.293> If you want to change it why don't you invite David or Dwight to your
.293> home for dinner and talk.

I'm not all that good of a cook.  David is a decent cook.  I'm going to his
place.  Also, David is so broke that he makes a church mouse look like King
Midas.

.294> He wasn't wearing leather or chains or dressed like a woman.
.294> What should I do?

Buy him some chains and a dress?  :-)

Bubba

    
    So leather & chains = homosexuality - NOT!  What about Hells Angels?
    You have a biker gang crusing down the road on Harley's, wearing
    leather boots, jackets, chains holding wallets and keys to the rider
    and now they are labelled gay?  So some gay people wear leather and
    chains so do some heterosexuals - it's called individuality.  This
    instant labelling could really get one in trouble if taken seriously. 
    
    Ken
    

.301> You have a biker gang cruising down the road on Harley's, wearing
.301> leather boots, jackets, chains holding wallets and keys to the rider
.301> and now they are labeled gay?

Only if the one who does the labeling is tired of breathing.

Bubba

| <<< Note 18.299 by 2CRAZY::FLATHERS "Rooting for the underdog." >>>



| Scottish people wearing kilts   is hardly a comparison to
| gays wearing leather + chains. And I bet you know the comparison
| is a weak one.  Scottish people wearing kilts won't shock anyone.

	That's why it is not a weak comparison. The ONLY reason why it isn't an
issue is because they have been out there for a long time. But have you ever
heard a kid talk about someone wearing a kilt? How they wear dresses like
women? That they are fags for wearing dresses? What is this based on?
Ignorance. Is what the kids saying true? No, but they only are using their
perceptions to go by. Once they find out about it, then they start to see the
real situation. True, given any situation, any person's perception could be the
correct one, but until they find out for sure, it' still just a perception.

| But hey, if they want to add fuel to a fire.....well, what can I say.

	But that fire is based on ignorance. Pure and simple.

| I think sodomy is un-natural. 

	That's ok to think that. For a heterosexual, in most cases, it will be
something that's un-natural. To me, heterosexual sex is un-natural. But that's
only because for me having sex with the oppisite sex period is un-natural.

| To me the backside is an exit, not an entrance. 

	I have a friend that says exit only too. I always get a kick out of it
when I hear it. :-) I say the same thing to him about womens parts.

| I'm sorry if it bothers some to state it, but it's just my opinion. 

	No offense taken here.

| And I DON'T hate those with opposing views.  THat's the
| key.  We have to stop hating people based on fear. !!!!!

	I couldn't agree with you more!

| I don't care if my neighbor wants to perform it with his willing partner.
| That's their business.

	Agreed! What someone does during sex doesn't doesn't make up the person
as a whole. 

| President Clinton  grabbing his crotch and spitting at a news
| conference.   Not that would be shocking !!!!   BUT  Wade Boggs
| grabbing his crotch and spitting while stepping up to the plate
| is acceptable.

	Ever wonder why that is? I guess maybe it has to do with different jobs
have different levels of proffesionalism with it. Even though Boggs makes about
20 times more than Clinton does!




Glen

    
    
    > cost David alot of money
    
    > don't know where dwight lives
    
    > the offer is open
    
     Oh sure invite Dwight and then financially brush me off :-)
    
    David

    
      Hey, Glen,  what a deal huh ?    Wadd Boggs  making millions
    and can grab and spit on national TV !!!!
    
    
    Jack
    

    
    
    
    > David is broke
    
      You got that right. I have mastered the art of making a meal of the
    samples that they give out at supermarkets " Oh mam I am just not sure
    if I like the taste of that or not, may I please try another one", " Oh
    it's okay, got any coupons." :-)
    
   David

    
    
    Ken,
    
    > So leather & chains=homosexuality
    
     No.. Nobody said that.
    
    David

    > So leather & chains = homosexuality - NOT! <
    
      Of course is doesn't.    It just a style of dress.
    

Bubba, you really need to read my note again.  I didn't say David 
is ignorant.  I responded to the title of his note, where he said
that people were afraid.  To that, I said

> People are afraid, all right, but its from ignorance.  And that, unlike
> homosexuality, is something that can and should be cured.

David, you have been told repeatedly that homosexuality is not the same as
>Pedaphilia(sp)? Beastiality(sp)??  Sadism? Mosochism?
To insist that homosexuality is an 'unreasonable' sexuality, then to bring
these up when challenged, indicates you haven't learned the difference yet.
And by the way, some of these things may be illegal, but that, in and of
itself, doesn't make them unreasonable.  

DougO

    I thought I might mention that I've been to several gay pride
    parades and have found that the "leather and chains" guys make 
    up only a tiny fraction of those taking part in the festivities.
    (Not that I find anything wrong with people wearing leather and 
     chains you understand).
    
    There were 100,000+ people at Boston's Gay Pride celebration last
    June and the *vast* majority of us were wearing blue jeans or shorts
    and t-shirts or tank tops (it was hot that day) - just like "normal"
    people.   You don't see this on the TV news though because news 
    organizations want to show you the sensational aspects of the parade.
    
    If that $12 "Gay Agenda" tape consists of footage of leather men
    and drag queens, it most definately *is* propaganda because it is
    not showing a balanced view of gay people.
    
    /Greg

.309> Bubba, you really need to read my note again.  I didn't say David 
.309> is ignorant.  I responded to the title of his note, where he said
.309> that people were afraid.

I did.  You are correct.  It was late.  Please accept my apology.

Bubba

    I read a recent Kinsey Report that states that the majority of men who
    cross-dress are actually heterosexual, so directly associating
    transvestitism with homosexuality is not correct.

    Just thought y'all'd like to know.

    - Jim

| <<< Note 18.305 by 2CRAZY::FLATHERS "Rooting for the underdog." >>>


| Hey, Glen,  what a deal huh ?    Wadd Boggs  making millions
| and can grab and spit on national TV !!!!


	But Jack, not everyone who makes millions can grab and spit on tv and
get away with it! Remember Rossanne? ;-)



Glen

| Oh sure invite Dwight and then financially brush me off :-)

	But David, do you want to spend about $500 to come all the way out here
to have dinner? Kind of an expensive meal, don't ya think? 



Glen

| <<< Note 18.300 by MORO::BEELER_JE "God save us from Slick Willie" >>>



| .287> Bubba, this tape sounds to me like propaganda of the worst kind. I
| .287> haven't seen it (probably never will) ...

| Could be.  I'll let you know after I've seen it.  Like I said, it would have
| been easy for me to write off the Colorado stuff as the same sort of stuff
| but it was in fact well done and very convincing.



	Bubba, since you did see it, can you let us know what things in the
Colorado video were very convincing to you? (and if you thought they were true 
or just that they could convince others) I'm curious. 






Glen

.315> Bubba, since you did see it, can you let us know ....

Check out LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, note 91.1950 ...

Press KP<7> to add to your notebook.

	Bubba, in that note you state that if these articles were taken out of
context that the commentary of these articles was quite damming. Given that
statement I assume that while you thought it was a good stratagy on their part, 
the fact the information from these articles was taken out of context distorts
the "real" truth. If I'm wrong, then please correct me and explain what you
feel is the truth. 

	For *me*, if something is taken out of context, and/or distorts the
actual truth, it's false. While statements of truth may appear, not giving the
correct meaning is nothing more than lieing.



Glen

    RE: .294
    
    Are you really looking for advice?
    
    Marc H.

    re .318, no, I was being sarcastic towards people who are homophobic.
    
    Her best friend at school is a gay guy, and they are planning to rent
    an apartment together, but I'm not the least bit worried about it (or
    at least I'm certainly not worried about anything to do with his being
    gay).
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    DougO,
    
      You need to re-read my note.. I did not say that homosexuality was
    equivelent to ( sadism etc). I simply said tin response to
    
    > No sexuality is unreasonable(appr)
    
      To wit I gave examples of unreasonable sexuality( which did not
    include homosexuality...
    
    David

    As for the dinner invitations... I respectively decline.

    "Tell that Russian bastard I won't drink with him."
    				- General Patton (to his aide)

	Re. -1

	My client is guilty !!

	- Paul.

    RE: .319
    
    I would be very worried.
    
    Marc H.

    re .323, why?
    
    Lorna
    

	Gee Dwight, it's kind of sad that you had to use the word enemy. Kind
of makes me wonder what's going on inside your head.



Glen

    RE: .324
    
    Well, I would be concerned about AIDS to start with. Also, even if
    the person is a homosexual, I would be worried that sex could occur.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 18.326 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>



| Well, I would be concerned about AIDS to start with. 

	Marc, what would be your concerns about AIDS?

| Also, even if
| the person is a homosexual, I would be worried that sex could occur.

	Why is that? 



Glen

    re .326, I don't think you can catch AIDS just from being roommates
    with a gay guy.  At any rate, my daughter is well aware of the
    importance of safe sex.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .328
    
    Fine...Thats the way I feel. 
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .327
    
    My concern is that AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem, and that
    she could get the virus.
    
    Marc H.

    AIDS is NOT mainly a homosexual problem.  AIDS is *everyone's* problem. 
    She could as easily get it from a hetero man who slept once with an IV
    drug user as she could from a gay man.  And since she can't get it
    except by sexual or blood contact, I'd say that the gay man is a safer
    person to be around than any hetero man.

| <<< Note 18.330 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>


| My concern is that AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem, 

	Gee, with thinking like that Marc no wonder the heterosexuals make up
the biggest % of new cases. It's a WORLD problem. 

| and that she could get the virus.

	How?



Glen

    RE: .332
    
    Glen, you know what I said....and don't start in with twisting it
    around. You asked for an answer and you got one. 
    
    Lets not drag this out to the larger World/AIDS problem discussion.
    You are reading into my notes what *you* want to see.
    
    Marc H.

Marc,


    
	    Glen, you know what I said....and don't start in with twisting it
	    around. You asked for an answer and you got one. 

Let's look at your answer:

	    My concern is that AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem, and that
	    she could get the virus.

How many studies do you want to show that AIDS is not mainly a homosexual
disease? You still haven't answered the question of how she could catch the
disease. Or, is this what you meant:

	    Well, I would be concerned about AIDS to start with. Also, even if
	    the person is a homosexual, I would be worried that sex could occur.

Curious....

	    Lets not drag this out to the larger World/AIDS problem discussion.
	    You are reading into my notes what *you* want to see.

Considering I'm not the only one who has thought the same way, maybe you should
clarify your point a little better?




Glen

    RE: .334
    
    Glen,
     I'll try, if you are ready to listen. My concern with my daughter
    would be that since AIDS is mainly infecting the homosexual population,
    she could get the virus from her roomate. How? by having SEX with him.
    Yes.....I know you said homosexual...but...maybe the person is
    bisexual.
    
    Now, I did not say that the World should not worry about AIDS....I
    did not say that AIDS is God's revenge on Homosexuals or any other
    thing...I just spoke from the heart on how I see AIDS in todays
    life. Get it?
    
    Marc H.

    Marc,
    
    AIDS is not mainly affecting the homosexual population.  There are more
    straight people with HIV than there are gays with it.  It is talked of
    as a gay problem partially as a way to condemn gays.
    
    As it happens today, I think, gays are just as likely to practice "safe
    sex" as straights are, when "safe sex" is defined as the use of a
    barrier.  Therefore, even supposing that the daughter's gay roommate
    does turn out to be bisexual, he is no more likely to be stupid than a
    confirmed hetero.  Your fears that she is more likely to get AIDS from
    someone who practices homo sex than she is to get it from someone who
    practices hetero sex are completely unfounded.
    
    -dick

    RE: .336
    
    Dick,
     Interesting......my source of info is from the media,people, and
    notes file. My info could be wrong....as I don't claim to have
    answers to all of life's questions...just opinions!
    
    Do you have actual information for the US that says that there are
    more hetrosexuals than homosexuals with AIDS?
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    -1
    
       Ditto. My research suggests that rate of NEW disease is growing
    mostly in the heterosexual minorities group, but that over all if
    you were to count the number of victims living and dead, 85% would
    be gay( U.S.A).. 
    
    David      source Pikes Peak Library American Medical Journal.

Most people infected with AIDS are heterosexuals, but a greater proportion
of homosexuals have AIDS.

Most children with Downs syndrome are born to young women, but a greater
proportion of older women give birth to children with Downs syndrome.

As Nasser would say,
Hope this helps.

    
    
    I don't have the exact numbers with me, but approximately 12,000,000
    people worldwide are currently infected with the HIV virus. 
    Approximately 1,000,000 of those people are gay men.  Most of those gay
    men live in the United States.  I'll look up the exact numbers when I
    get home, if you wish.
    
        GJD

    RE: .340
    
    I do wish...also, what are the stats for just the USA.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 18.335 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>



| I'll try, if you are ready to listen. My concern with my daughter
| would be that since AIDS is mainly infecting the homosexual population,
| she could get the virus from her roomate. How? by having SEX with him.
| Yes.....I know you said homosexual...but...maybe the person is
| bisexual.

	Marc, to begin with, I wasn't the one who said he was homosexual. It
was the author of the origional note. But something to remember is if someone
is a homosexual, they are not bisexual. We have the information that he is a
homosexual, so for her to worry about the daughter getting AIDS from this
person is 0%. Can you see this based on the facts at hand? After all, we really
can only use the facts we have to make any type of judgement, whatever. So
taking that into consideration, would you agree that the daughter has no chance
of contracting HIV from this person because no sex will be had? 

	Also, I'm not sure you're aware of it or not, so I thought I'd mention
it. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that others should have this fear
of AIDS running rampid. Gay = AIDS is a false statement. I'm sure you knew
this, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Do you agree with the above statement?

| Now, I did not say that the World should not worry about AIDS....I
| did not say that AIDS is God's revenge on Homosexuals or any other
| thing...I just spoke from the heart on how I see AIDS in todays
| life. Get it?

	I'm glad you said it that way actually. I also do believe that this is
the way you see it. I hope Greg finds the info on who has/becomes HIV and posts 
it in here. It will be very informative. 



Glen

    re .342
    
>was the author of the origional note. But something to remember is if someone
>is a homosexual, they are not bisexual.
    
    This is a highly contentious proposition.  

| <<< Note 18.343 by UTROP1::SIMPSON_D "I *hate* not breathing!" >>>


| >was the author of the origional note. But something to remember is if someone
| >is a homosexual, they are not bisexual.

| This is a highly contentious proposition.


	I know you feel that the word sexual should be inserted, and you are
what you are at any given time, and that it can change, but it ain't so. If you
are homosexual, your sexual orientation is with the same sex, heterosexual is
with the oppisite sex, bisexual you have the ability to be able to bond with
either sex. You may not agree with this, but if not, show us how it really is.



Glen

    
    Glen, you're not being fair.  People who KNOW that they have an
    exclusively homosexual orientation are not the only people who use the
    word "gay" to describe themselves. There are many people who are NOT
    exclusively homosexual in orientation who describe themselves as gay
    because they haven't come to grips with being "bi".
    
    If that's what Marc is worried about, then don't tell him its not real.
    It may not be real for everyone, but it DOES happen.
    
    Case in point, I had a running buddy who was lesbian. We lost touch
    when I moved away from DC, and a few years later, I found out she was a
    mother. And no, it wasn't artificial insemination. She dated the guy
    for a while, and then they broke up.
    
    It truly does seem to me that the number of people who engage in both
    heterosexual and homosexual behaviour while denying the label
    "bisexual" is rather high. Some of them won't call themselves "gay"
    either, but that's another can of worms...
    
    It doesn't help build bridges when you "deny" a stereotype or prejudice
    that has a hint of basis in reality. Better to discuss the reality, and
    then look at probability... I'd say if Melissa's living with a guy who
    is out, and very sure of his orientation, then they'll probably NEVER
    have problems. But if he's "confused"... that's another story.
    C

| <<< Note 18.345 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>


| Glen, you're not being fair.  People who KNOW that they have an
| exclusively homosexual orientation are not the only people who use the
| word "gay" to describe themselves. There are many people who are NOT
| exclusively homosexual in orientation who describe themselves as gay
| because they haven't come to grips with being "bi".

	Ren, we weren't talking about the term gay though. We were talking
about the term homosexual, bisexual. This is where the difference occurs. 

| It truly does seem to me that the number of people who engage in both
| heterosexual and homosexual behaviour while denying the label
| "bisexual" is rather high. 

	I agree with this Ren. But, what we are talking about is a specific
case. One where the person identifies as being homosexual.

| It doesn't help build bridges when you "deny" a stereotype or prejudice
| that has a hint of basis in reality. Better to discuss the reality, and
| then look at probability... 

	Actually, I thought we were. :-)

| I'd say if Melissa's living with a guy who
| is out, and very sure of his orientation, then they'll probably NEVER
| have problems. But if he's "confused"... that's another story.

	Again, I agree with this. But the origional note seemed to imply the
person was a homosexual, not bisexual. I had thought I had stated something to
the effect of, "this particular case", but if I didn't, sorry.



Glen

    
    I'll take the rathole a bit further, and then bow out.
    
    - Lorna specifically used the word "gay".
    - Marc specifically used the word "homosexual".
    
    What Lorna's and Marc's definitions of those words are, and how this
    young man truly sees himself are three questions that we may not know
    the answer to. *My* interpretation of Marc's comments is that 1.) he's
    not comfortable with the word "gay" and 2.) he's heard enough stories
    about young men who engaged in both behaviors to be worried.
    
    Now, I personally believe that civil rights need to be extended to all
    Americans of age... except those who commit felonies. But I think it
    doesn't help to pick nits, to dodge questions, or to divert honest
    questions.
    
    YES: gay men are disproportionately affected by HIV in the U.S. As are
    IV drug users. Even if other "groups" are becoming infected in growing
    numbers this fact about gay men does not change. If someone is so
    callous as to not want to admit that many of these "horrible, nasty,
    yucky homosexuals" are our brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins and
    nephews, then I guess they can live with their "holier than thou"
    attitudes. 
    
    YES: not all men who wear the "gay" label are "exclusively homosexual".
    And even the Kinsey scale gives room for men who are predominantly
    homosexual vs. bisexual.  And when predominantly homosexual men  who
    are HIV+ do not practice safe sex, they put ALL their partners, men and
    women, at risk. The fact is, anyone who is HIV+ who does not practice
    safer sex puts his/her partner at risk. And anyone who is HIV- who does
    not engage in safe sex or absolute mongamy with an HIV- partner is
    putting him or herself and all partners at risk.
    
    The very nature of HIV and how it is transmitted puts some people at
    more risk than others, based on BEHAVIOR (not orientation!) SOME people
    are always going to dwell on this, twist it up a bit, and invoke it in
    defense of their fears or dislikes of other people. But you can't
    change the facts. You can only work through them. 
    
    So speaks the radical moderate in her infinite quest for harmony
    amongst individuals of differing viewpoints...

    RE: .348
    
    Correct. Excellent observations.
    
    Marc H.

     <<< Note 18.300 by MORO::BEELER_JE "God save us from Slick Willie" >>>

>Like I said, it would have
>been easy for me to write off the Colorado stuff as the same sort of stuff
>but it was in fact well done and very convincing.

	One should note that simply because something is "well done" or
	"convincing" it does NOT neccessarily mean that it is not extrememly
	biased propaganda. Remember, Dr Goebbles's work was professionally
	done and convinced a lot of people.

Jim

    re: .350
    
    I might also note that *I* thought that the anti-Amendment 2 stuff was
    done pretty well, too.  I thought A2 was going to be defeated right up
    to election day.  Perhaps that was the problem. . .
    
    jt

    re .344
    
>	I know you feel that the word sexual should be inserted, and you are
>what you are at any given time, and that it can change, but it ain't so. If you
>are homosexual, your sexual orientation is with the same sex, heterosexual is
>with the oppisite sex, bisexual you have the ability to be able to bond with
>either sex. You may not agree with this, but if not, show us how it really is.
    
    You have it the wrong way around.  First you have sexual orientation,
    then you label it.  I've known too many people gliding from one
    'exclusive' orientation to another to accept any fixed boundary.  I
    don't accept that if you label yourself homosexual at any given point
    in time then you are in a substantively different category to a
    bisexual.  I do accept descriptions such as 'Kinsey 6', for obvious
    reasons.
    
    Oh, and to the person who deemed this a rathole, if I am right then you
    must be wrong.  If 'homosexuality', 'bisexuality' and 'heterosexuality'
    are social constructions that don't accurately reflect reality then we
    can remove or alter them and the artificial and unnecessary
    difficulties that brought about the base note in the first place. 
    These words might suit our penchant for categorising people and things,
    for nice neat boxes and pigeonholes, but they don't work very well with
    the fluid nature of human sexuality.

| <<< Note 18.348 by ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate" >>>




| - Lorna specifically used the word "gay".
| - Marc specifically used the word "homosexual".

	This is my mistake. I should have gone back to reread Lorna's note. I
had assumed when Marc used homosexual that Lorna had too. 

| What Lorna's and Marc's definitions of those words are, and how this
| young man truly sees himself are three questions that we may not know
| the answer to. 

	Actually Ren, I think you have probably hit the nail on the head.
Because when I think of the word homosexual, it doesn't include bisexuals.
When I think of the word gay, I DO think of bisexuals. But I DO see your point 
on this.




Glen

| <<< Note 18.352 by UTROP1::SIMPSON_D "I *hate* not breathing!" >>>




| You have it the wrong way around.  First you have sexual orientation,
| then you label it.  

	Agreed. I guess I should have been more clear. I was referring to those
people who know who they are. Case in point, me. Until I turned 28 I tried to
live the heterosexual lifestyle, even though I knew it wasn't me. I stopped
living as something I wasn't and decided to be just me. So I DO uderstand where
you are coming from.

| I've known too many people gliding from one
| 'exclusive' orientation to another to accept any fixed boundary.  

	I do see your point as I've been there.

| I don't accept that if you label yourself homosexual at any given point
| in time then you are in a substantively different category to a
| bisexual.  

	Why is that?



Glen

    When I used the term "gay" I meant homosexual.  It hadn't occured to me
    that bisexual people might also be considered gay.  I think I tend to
    think of gay as usually meaning homosexual males.
    
    As far as I know, Melissa's friend considers himself to be homosexual. 
    From what she has told me, he tried to date girls in high school and
    after realizing he couldn't force himself to get interested, while at
    the same time realizing he was attracted in other guys, he has recently
    decided that he's homosexual.  In any case, I don't think Melissa finds
    him physically attractive, although she likes him a lot as a friend,
    and he certainly doesn't strike me as the type of guy who would force
    himself on a woman.  Especially, since he's currently looking for a
    boyfriend.  :-)  In any case, I trust Melissa to practice safe sex. 
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .335
    
    Are the cited statistics available to change the perception that 
    AIDS is mainly a homosexual/drug addict problem?
    
    Marc H.

    re:  .325
    
    You don't want to know...
    

| <<< Note 18.357 by COMET::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>



| You don't want to know...

	Actually, I do.



Glen

RE:  Note 18.358  DEMING::SILVA 

>	Actually, I do.

I'd like to tell you, but I can't use this forum.

| <<< Note 18.359 by COMET::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>



| I'd like to tell you, but I can't use this forum.

	Send mail then. Be honest as well. One other thing, whatever you write
(if you choose to) won't be brought to anyone else for any type of action. I
really am curious as to what you are thinking.



Glen

    re .360
    
    You're not the only one.  Perhaps we need a members only "Dwight
    Berry's Hidden Secrets" conference.  :-)

    Since the referenced statistics have not been produced, I will continue
    to believe that the majority of the AIDS cases are in the 
    homosexual/drug addict group.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .352 UTROP1::SIMPSON_D 
    
    I didn't say you were right or wrong, I merely stated that this topic
    has been ratholed.  I mean, there are two possible answers to the
    topics subject.  Yes or No.  
    
    Neither answer can be scientifically substantiated (yet) and is left to
    matter of opinion [based on special knowledge] from someone who is gay.  
    My personal theory is that being homosexual/lesbian is not a choice, but
    a natural sexual orientation (in this case "natural" being defined as
    "present in or produced by nature, not learned", but not as "conforming
    to the majority in population by sexual orientation").  On the other
    hand I also theorize that bisexuality is learned and is therefor a
    chosen sexual orientation and behavior. 

    
    
    Sorry, but this week hasn't been conducive to active noting!  Plus,
    while away from the office for 3 weeks, somebody say fit to use my desk
    -- I can't find the "stuff" that I mentioned.  I hope to be going into
    the city tomorrow and will try to get the latest then.
    
    You are correct, by the way, that currently, in the United States, AIDS
    has hit the gay population the hardest -- worldwide, that is not the
    case.
    
       GJD

    re .363
    
    You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.  If I am right it
    necessarily follows that you must be wrong, and therefore my argument
    is not a rathole but is fundamental.
    
    As an aside, however, your 'theory' that hetero/homo orientations are
    innate but bi is learned is, to say the least, curious.  Please show
    why it is natural for a person to be attracted to one and only one sex,
    but not two.

    It has been posited here and elsewhere that bisexuals may simply be
    people for whom *love* can sometimes be more important than ensuring a
    "proper" fit of the plumbing.  (I enclose "proper" in quotation marks
    with deliberate intent.)
    
    -dick

    
    Arrgh... sometimes I hate notes.  The "rathole" comment was not
    directed at any one individual, but at the 300+ replies it takes
    to answer the topics question. 8|  I addressed SIMPSON_D because 
    their note questioned my comment.  I guess I perpetuated it by 
    replying at all, but since I have, here goes...
    
    Homosexuality aside and specifically bisexual behavior as theorized
    by me, a complete and utter arm chair psychotherapist.  You are born,
    you develop emotionally/physically, you look at one gender and say
    "MmmMmm good". [You've realized that gender is the one that "sexually"
    stimulates you].  In the same vein you are born, you develop
    emotionally/physically, you look at one gender and say "Hmmm could?",
    but witness the contrary and decide to experiment.  Since either sex
    can produce the same result I theorize that there is a conscious 
    dicision/choice made.    

| <<< Note 18.367 by CUPMK::T_THEO "What do you know for sure?" >>>



| You are born,
| you develop emotionally/physically, you look at one gender and say
| "MmmMmm good". [You've realized that gender is the one that "sexually"
| stimulates you].  

	Now I see where you're coming from. The whole thing isn't about
sexual stimulation. It involves the emotional bonding as well. This is the
bigger of the two.

| In the same vein you are born, you develop
| emotionally/physically, you look at one gender and say "Hmmm could?",
| but witness the contrary and decide to experiment.  Since either sex
| can produce the same result I theorize that there is a conscious
| dicision/choice made.

	Again, unless there is an emotional bond then all you have is
hetero/homosexual sex. If one IS able to bond emotionally with a both 
sexes, then that person is a bisexual. Anyone can have sex with anyone
or anything, and that is a choice. But bi/homosexuality goes FAR deeper
than just sex.....


Glen

    re .367, .368
    
    The 'theory', such as it is, implies that bisexuality is qualitatively
    different to hetero/homosexuality and also that it is inferior.  It
    implies that being oriented towards one sex is natural (my earlier
    question remains) but towards two is not.
    
    It provides no argument or evidence as to why this is or should be so. 
    It demeans those who call themselves bisexual and contradicts the
    evidence of human sexuality by insisting on rigid, inflexible
    definitions and approved behaviour.  THe only substantial difference
    between this 'theory' and people like Mr Berry is that this one has two
    approved boxes instead of one and a different group to look down upon.

    Re .368: Uh, what is this "emotional bonding" stuff? By that
    definition, anybody who loves both of their parents is a bisexual!
    
    (IMO) the point of *-sexuality is _sex_; whether one is
    aroused/sexually attracted to members one sex or the other or both.
    It's possible for someone to be <any>sexual and still unable to bond
    emotionally; it's possible to bond emotionally with lots of people and
    be totally asexual.
    
    N'est-ce pas?
    
    -b

    I have another theory... It's called The Brontasaurus Theory.
    
    I theorize that brontasauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker
    in the middle and thin at the other end.  Not by choice.  8)
    
    With that, I bid you adieu
    

| <<< Note 18.369 by UTROP1::SIMPSON_D "I *hate* not breathing!" >>>



| The 'theory', such as it is, implies that bisexuality is qualitatively
| different to hetero/homosexuality and also that it is inferior.  

	Hmmm.... I didn't think I implied that at all. Being a bisexual is no
less inferior as ANYONE else. Why is different = negative? 

| It
| implies that being oriented towards one sex is natural (my earlier
| question remains) but towards two is not.

	Why is that?




Glen

| <<< Note 18.370 by DSSDEV::RUST >>>



| Re .368: Uh, what is this "emotional bonding" stuff? By that
| definition, anybody who loves both of their parents is a bisexual!

	Do you love your parents in the same light as your SO? Can you be
intimate (sex doesn't have to be included) with your parents as you could with
your SO? Can you see a difference?

| It's possible for someone to be <any>sexual and still unable to bond
| emotionally; 

	I agree with you on this. 

| it's possible to bond emotionally with lots of people and
| be totally asexual.

	Again, I agree with you on this. 




Glen

    Re .373: No, I don't love my parents the same way as I would an SO
    (though as for intimacy in the emotional sense, it might come close).
    I'd have to admit that, when another's mere presence makes one feels
    tingly all over, it's hard to distinguish between the parts of the
    relationship that are friendly-like emotional bonding and the parts
    that are sexual - the sexual aspects do tend to add luster [so to
    speak] to everything else. Still, it's very clear to me from my own
    experience that my sexuality is NOT based on which sex I can feel the
    closest emotional bonds with.
    
    As you didn't distinguish between types of emotional bonding in the
    note I was replying to, and I disagreed with the statement:
    
    >If one IS able to bond emotionally with a both
    >sexes, then that person is a bisexual. 
    
    Simply, I didn't see the point in attaching "emotional bonding" to a
    definition of sexuality when the two can exist independently of each
    other. That's all.
    
    -b

Newsweek (April 26, 1993) ran an article 'Sex in the Snoring '90s' with the 
cover page 'Sex life of the American Male' (and a very short article it was too 
- lot's of smilies).

The article presented some facts and figures from various reports, Janus,
Guttmacher and Kinsey. The Guttmacher report claims that only 1% of American
men are homosexual (that is Men who have had same-gender sex exclusively
during the past 10 years) whereas Kinsey in 1948 reported that 10% of 
American men (that is Men who are more or less homosexual, for at least 3 years,
between ages of 16 and 55) are.

- Paul.
  
P.S. 'Of the men they surveyed, only 2.3% reported any homosexual contacts in 
the last 10 years, and only half of those - or just over 1% of the total - said 
they were exclusively gay in that period.'

    
    where did they get their sample?
    how many were included?  how were they chosen?  were their responses
    anonymous or confidential?
    
    -Jody

    The most recent survey numbers raise a number of questions about
    methodology:
    
    1) The questions were asked in personal interviews.  Although anonymity
    was personally guaranteed, it is unclear how truthful people are when
    asked questions like this face to face.
    
    2) The survey did not take population clustering into account.  In
    urban areas especially, gay men are often found in clusters.  Castro
    Street in San Francisco, Mt. Vernon in Baltimore, South End in Boston,
    Sheridan Square in NYC.  If the survey made no allowances for that,
    it could be like finding out there are almost no Jews in NYC by
    forgetting to poll Brooklyn.
    
    3) The "gym bag" survey went to men's health clubs to get respondants. 
    Unfortunately, another cultural phenomenon is that in urban areas some
    health clubs draw a large proportion of the gay men.  For example, if
    you polled the men who go to the health club underneath Club Cafe in
    Boston, you could draw the conclusion that 99% of the men in Boston are
    gay.  The small percentage of men found to be gay may be more of an
    indicater of how many gay men frequent non "gay clubs" and are willing
    to be identified as gay.
    
    It's also clear that Kinsey's method for gathering a survey body was
    pretty flawed to (ie: not representative of the population...he drew a
    large number of respondants from prison populations).
    
    Daniel

    
    total rathole ...
    
    FYI ... the "Club Cafe" ia a GREAT restaurant!
    
    Greg
      

    I concur...and the waiters aren't bad either!
    
    8-}
    
    Daniel

Re.376 D.Thomas,

No idea, the article isn't that specific. The Janus Report costs $24.95 and
$28 a year for Family Planning Perspectives in which the report from
Guttmacher appeared. There's also another report from Battelle Human Affairs
Research Center in Seattle but no mention of what the report was called. I'll
chip in a couple of bucks if you want to get a communal one for the notes-
conference.

The Newsweek article pulls from a variety of sources, highlights some of the 
discrepancies that appear and offers some good advice "you pays your money...
and you takes your choice."

- Paul.

    
    Actually, to me, it makes a LOT of sense that many closetted bisexual
    men are avoiding same sex partners because of AIDS. That then leaves
    only those men for whom sex with women is completely abhorrent, who
    also are not choosing celibacy.
    
    I think its quite possible that an increase in personal celibacy would
    change the figures of who is gay and who is straight... and who is bi.

    re:.375
    
    AIDS can have a BIG effect on how people respond.  Would you admit
    being gay if you knew it could mean being denied health coverage?

Re.382

I wouldn't discard the reports based on that point alone. The article also 
said, and I'll quote;

	"Annual surveys by the University of Chicago's National Opinion
	Research Center have consistently found that about 2% of sexually
	active men said they had had sex only with other men during the
	past year. In France, the government research body INSERM reported
	last year that 4.2% of French men surveyed said they had had a gay
	experience - a finding roughly consistent with those of a 1992 study
	by Britains nongovernment Social and Community Planning and Research
	group."

So we have the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, the University of 
Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, Janus, the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, INSERM and the Social Community Planning and Research group who
place the number of 'exclusively homosexual' to 'had had a gay experience' at
somewhere between 1% and 4% in the 1990's. Then we have Kinsey who reported 
'Men more or less exclusively homosexual, for at least 3 years' at 10% in 1948.

Now if I was a betting man I know where I'd place my money.

- Paul.

    The British study mentioned made note that the numbers reported for
    London were significantly higher than for most of the rest of the
    country.  They put this down to the far greater opportunity for
    homosexual encounters in London.

    Question:  these surveys seem to ask people if they've had gay sex to
    determine orientation...are there any numbers on men who identify
    themselves as gay without asking about sexual encounters?  I know gay
    men who haven't lost their gay virginity although they have had sex
    with women.
    
    Daniel

    Of the zillions of polls that we all read about ... has anyone reading
    this conference ever been "polled" .. that is to say, participated in
    one of these polls (any poll)?

    For the first time in my life I pseudo-participated in an exit poll
    during the last Presidential election and they did ask "sexual
    orientation" ... I told the pollster that I infinitely prefer
    "horizontal" .. she chuckled ... then said, with a smile, "no, do you
    like men or women or both".... I replied "well, personally I like puppy
    dogs and kitty cats better than men or women".  I think that
    effectively ended my participation and my data was not entered.

    Bubba

Living in NH, USA gives me a lot of chances to be polled every four years.  But
since I am a Yankee, I always refuse to answer any questions over the phone
or in exit polls.  

    The only time I ever got stopped at an exit poll (in Mass.), the person
    wanted to know if I was of Italian heritage!  My then husband, who is
    of half-Italian heritage, wanted to know what the consequences of
    anwering yes would be (concentration camps, gas chambers, etc?)  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    My stock answer to exit pollsters is, "Do the words 'secret ballot'
    mean anything to you?"

    Oh .. I told 'em who I voted for but when it got to the demographics, I
    made it crystal clear that I voted for Bush not because I was in any
    financial class or because I was of any particular orientation or because
    I was married and had kids or drove a particular brand of car .. I
    voted for my candidate because I was an A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N and I believe
    that he was right for America and not for *any* minority element.  I
    think that it is absolutely sickening the way the gay "community"
    appeared to support Clinton because of his "promise" too lift the ban
    on gays in the military.  This is called "self-centered".  IMHO.

    Oh well .. that's my opinion .. value it.

    bubba

    re .390, that's ironic, Jerry.  I voted for Clinton because I thought
    *my* candidate was right for America, too!!!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

	Maybe we should ban gays from the military after all.  While we're at it,
	let's ban heterosexuals too...

    re .389
    
>    My stock answer to exit pollsters is, "Do the words 'secret ballot'
    
    I'd say yes, it's redundant.  A ballot is a secret vote.

    Re .393
    
    Because most people do not make a hobby of language, many do not know
    that a ballot is by definition a *secret* vote.  (Actually, it is the
    colored ball ball or slip of paper used to cast a secret vote; the word
    is derived from Italian, ballota, a small ball.)
    
    May we now dispense with the smartass semantic analyses and proceed to
    meaningful discussion, please?

    re .394
    
    It wasn't smartass [sic].  If you want to lay on the sarcasm to try and
    trash somebody's note you might at least have the decency to use the
    language properly.

    Re .395
    
    I was not laying on any sarcasm in .394.  I was asking that you refrain
    from the pointless linguistic punctiliousness you so frequently display
    in Notes.  Had I been sarcastic, I might have remarked that your gratis
    correction of my so-careless writing was appreciated.
    
    But I did forget that you, not being an American, might be ignorant of
    American idiom; apparently you did not know that the phrase "secret
    ballot," redundant or not, is common usage in the USA.  Now you do know
    it.
    
    As for "smartass," that's another American idiom.  Its meaning is left
    as an exercise for the student.

    re .396
    
>    I was not laying on any sarcasm in .394.  I was asking that you refrain
    
    Indeed not, that was in .389.  But you knew that.
    
>    from the pointless linguistic punctiliousness you so frequently display
    
    Emphasising good communication is never pointless, which is undoubtedly
    why you have spent so much time and effort in the past arguing fine
    detail with myself and so many others.  I confess, when I saw your
    blunder I was unable to resist the temptation to return the favour.
    
>    American idiom; apparently you did not know that the phrase "secret
>    ballot," redundant or not, is common usage in the USA.  Now you do know
    
    *sigh*.  So many ignorant people, so little time.

    RE: .397
    
    This is a perfect example of why I have become a read only in this
    file. Too bad....lots of interesting things to discuss. Why bother
    though, when the discussions turn into battles over who can cut the
    other person down the best. If I want crap like this, I go into 
    SapBox where the rules, if any, are clear. Here, I though that the
    discusions would be of interest to men....not a bunch of imature
    children trying to see who has the biggest stick.
    
    Back to read only.
    
    Marc H.

    That's a damn shame, Marc...I've come to really respect your notes
    elsewhere and it's a shame this file is loosing your input.
    
    FWIW -- I agree with you about the lack of discussion.
    
    Daniel

    re: .376
    
    I don't think anyone answered the question about the Battelle
    sample size. I believe it was in the 3000+ range.
    
    Richard

    WHO WOULD CHOOSE A LIFE OF HARASSMENT?  A CONSTANT FEAR OF RIDICULE AND
    POSSIBLE BODY HARM?  WHO WOULD CHOOSE A WAY OF LIFE THAT CAN CAUSE SUCH
    DISSENTION BETWEEN A PERSON AND HIS FAMILY; FRIENDS; CO-WORKERS; AND
    SOCIETY AT LARGE?
    
      HOMOSEXUALITY A CHOICE.  I THINK NOT!!
    
    

       18.41
    

     IN REPLY TO:  "THERE ARE MANY CASES WHERE HOMOSEXUALS HAVE CHANGED THEIR
    ORIENTATION WITH THE HELP OF PSYCHOTHERAPY"
    
    I'D LIKE TO SEE DOCUMENTATION ON THAT DISCOVERY.  I BELEIVE IT HAS
    DESTROYED LIVES; FROM THE INSIDE OUT.  IT IMPLIES YOU
     ARE ABNORMAL SEEKING TO BE 'NORMAL'.  IF YOU DON'T CHANGE YOU FEEL
    HOPELESS AND THAT DESTROYS YOU.  IF IT DOES; IT IS USUALLY ONLY FOR A
    PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL WHO YOU REALLY ARE SURFACES AGAIN.  
    
    I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THIS "TREATMENT" AND
    HAVE BECOME WELL ADJUSTED INDIVIDUALS IN SOCIETY?  
    
    WE HAVE TO ACCEPT WHO WE ARE AND ALLOW OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.  TO
    PROMOTE TREATMENT IS TO SAY THAT THERE IS A SICKNESS OF THE MIND OR
    BODY.
         

    .401
    
    "People would not choose a harmful life style etc."
    
    People do it often.  Cigarettes, liquor, drugs, risky unprotected
    sex behavior, driving fast..... the list is endless.
    
    I do NOT think gays choose that life style but the argument that 
    no one would choose a harmful life style THEREFORE it PROVES being gay
    is not a matter of choice doesn't wash with me. 
    
    To make sure everybody heard what I said and won't take exception to
    what I said, I did NOT say gay is a matter of choice.  I SAID that
    the premis that 'no one would choose a harmful life style' proves
    that being gay is not a matter of choice is incorrect.
    
    I am sure some would say that being gay isn't a harmful life style
    anyway.
    
    Jeff

    I used to have two male cats who were homosexual.  Guess they must have
    "chosen" it huh?
    
    -e

    Maybe KILLRB::ADR (great node name, BTW) doesn't realize that s/he is
    "shouting" by using uppercase?   OTOH, could be s/he intends to shout,
    how would I know?
    
    Reminds me of when I started learning ASL.  I was fingerspelling a word
    for which I did not know the sign and pushed my hand slightly
    forward, then back, to separate each letter (can't remember why that
    seemed like a good idea).  One of my hearing friends reached over and
    stilled my hand, telling me that I was "shouting."   Ah, well, live and
    learn...
    
    aq    

I agree with Jeff that .401 uses some very bad logic to reach a conclusion
that is probably true.

Just to expand the moral tone of his examples, consider some other people 
who have subjected themselves to fear, harassment, ridicule and in some
cases bodily harm

	Christians in the early Roman Empire

	Anabaptists, Puritans, Quakers ...

	communists, fascists, Fabians, abolitionists ...

	vegetarians, naturists and survivalists ...

	the first guy to buy a Nehru jacket

	the last guy to buy a Nehru jecket


Some of these folks may have operated under compulsion, and some of the
compulsion may have been pathological, but I think a lot of them were
making a free choice.