NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12445

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12445 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10867 alt.politics.clinton:19209 alt.politics.bush:15032 alt.politics.homosexuality:8530
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!harp
From: [e-mail] (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:00:51 GMT
Lines: 111

[e-mail] (Walter Smith) writes:

>I'm a little confused here.  Most people don't think "Sex is a horrible, dirty thing".

On the contrary, most people are raised to feel guilty about the
sexual thoughts that permeate their brains during adolescence.  If
they weren't, people wouldn't be embarrased or ashamed when speaking
about sexual topics.

Speaking from the perspective on a former teenage boy, how many of you
hid any "dirty" pictures or magazines you might have had?  Why did you
hide these from your parents?  Obviously because you were afraid of
being caught with them.  You knew they were "wrong".

[Note the use of quotes in the above paragraph.  I want to avoid
starting a debate about pornography here...]

>On the other hand, you said you were monogamous; and then said "...that you
>only share with the one you love" part.  Are you only monogamous out of safety
>or are you monogamous out of love?  Why do you feel monogamy is the right
>thing to do?

I'm monogamous for emotional reasons (call it "love" or what you
will), safety reasons, and just plain habit.  I could never even get
the hang of just dating (that is, casual non-sexual dating) more than
one person at a time.  I prefer to be with one person only.

My personal opinion about monogamy is that it's a good idea for both
emotional and health reasons.  However, I understand that some people
don't share my views.

>> In my opinion, the reason that lesbigay people have the reputation
>> they do is because most straight people think that the outspoken ones
>> are the only ones out there.

>Yeah, it tends to be the same with Christians...

Agreed.

>> The teachings of YOUR God conflict with the views of billions of
>> people on this planet.  What gives you the right to force them on
>> others?  You may say that you are not forcing these views on anyone,
>> but the default in this country tends to suit your views, so you
>> simply don't notice.

>Greg, you were doing good till there.  Wheather or not Christianity
>conflicts with other religions around the world isnt the point; we're
>talking about the US.  Please don't mess up a good line of thought with
>needless exxageration.

I don't think I did.  The U.S. isn't an independant entity from the
rest of the world.  We should pay attention to that fact when
educating our children, who will live in a much "smaller" world than
we do even now.

It's not like Christianity is the official state religion here, either
(though you might not know it from looking).  I seem to remember a
group of people who came over here on a boat to escape that sort of
thing in the 1620s.

Just because the majority (and I'm not sure I believe that anyway) of
people here are Christians, does that mean we can ignore the Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, etc?  Not to mention the Agnostics and Atheists.  In
fact, though I'm sure most people dislike it very much, we have no
right to supress Satanists' rights either.

>> In the case of sexuality, we must stop teaching by default that
>> homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong.

>How does the school system teach that now?  They don't teach it
>at all.  They may, by the typical examples of families used, teach
>that a hetro family is 'normal', but that doesn't mean by default
>that they teach a homosexual fmaily is wrong.

School age children tend to compute that anything abnormal is somehow
wrong.  Overweight children are teased, as are those who present any
sort of birth defect, or even a severe overbite.

I recall that one of the most common insults as I grew up was calling
someone a "fag" or saying that they were somehow homosexual.  This
occured long before most of us knew what sex _was_.

The option for schools here is to either present no heterosexual
situations or to provide access to some examples of homosexual ones as
well.  The former is nearly impossible, and the latter is strongly in
disagreement with most people's views.  I don't have a solution for
this.

>> kids this at home (or hand them off to the church like so many
>> parents) that's fine by me.  Just don't be surprised when their
>> opinion is in the minority.

>Well, first of all, I don't know *anyone* who just "hands their kids
>over to the chuch".  Nice but of anti-religious-slam, though.  As for
>their opinions being in the majority, I think the opposite is true.
>I think the majority things homosexuality is not a 'good thing', but
>also think that diversity should be tolerated, and people should not
>be harassed or persecuted for it.

I guess it depends where you look.  I run into a lot of people who are
willing to _say_ that they think homosexuality should be tolerated,
but in practice they don't tolerate it.  People's voices suddenly drop
to a whisper to mention that they think that so-and-so may be gay.
I'm sure I would see more of this is I was a homosexual trying to make
it in today's world.
--
[e-mail]------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure