.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 488
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 120
Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 89 15:26:15 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: Homer wants to know if I'm gay
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sun, 24 Sep 89 09:08:05 MDT from 

>
>I'm not sure how to respond to this little bit of "fag-baiting".

     Actually I just wish you would tell me the truth.  You may not
see how it matters, but it does.

     For it matters if I would bother arguing with you.  If you WERE gay
I certainly would not spend my time trying to convince you that you
should not be gay.  I do not indulge in converting gays.  Or even in
preventing hets from trying it out.

     However once a person is gay they tend to have a viewpoint that
is self supporting regardless of the consequences to others especially
children and arguing with them is a waste of time.  If they are not
gay but just tend to feel that gays should be given equal human rights,
then argument can ensue.  Gays should not be denied basic human rights,
they like all others are human beings.  But just as an adoption agency
would not give a child to a single or unwed set of parents it is
questionable that they should give children to gay couples either.
As I said it is arguable, but not if you are gay.

>
>If I say I *am* gay, Homer will clap his hands and say, "See?
>A perverted fag! Obviously that explains his twisted views."
>
     So what if I did.  Why would you care.  That would just give
you more stuff for your diatribes.  I would probably say, 'See,
a DETERMINED gay.'  I mean has there ever in the course of history
ever been a gay who decided that it was truely an aberration?  Yet
there are many hets who have decided that it is NOT an aberration.  So hets
are able to change their minds about the deal because it does not
affect them personally.  Gays however are locked into it for life
right or wrong.  If I were actually trying to determine if it were
right or wrong, I certainly would not depend on gays to give me
the most objective answer.  Of course from hets you get mostly ignorance.
So its a hard problem.

>If I say I'm *not* gay, it gives the impression that I am rising
>to the challenge of a perceived "insult", and am concerned with
>not having people think I'm one of "them".
>
     If you were NOT gay I would marvel at your rising to their defense
so admirably and would be seriously interested in the allegances that
you might have had with gay friends etc.  For example I get pretty pissed
at sexism in the work place although I am not a female, and I get VERY
pissed at the KKK's attitudes towards Jews, because I was raised by Jews.
But I am not a Jew.  So it is possible to care about others not of your
own kind.

     Also please remember that YOU started this war by insulting the
living daylights out of Adorian principles that had nothing to do
with gays or Dykes.  This subject came later.  So you should look to how
you set the stage bt attacking what you did not fully comprehend, by the
endless dripping sarcasm tone of your voice, by the endless relentless
attacks against my motives and personality.

      It is impossible to me that there is not one Adorian principle
that you can not agree with or find admirable.  Adore has little to
say about gays and Dykes, but does offer the possibility that
spirits can be men and women according to their choice.  Is this
really so bad?  Perhaps you don't like the further idea that
manhood is a more advanced grade than womanhood within one grade,
but it is certainly obvious to me.  My lifes as a women were always
spent seeking out men who could train me until I was ready to take
on the responsibilty of being a man myself.   If this is crazy, then
perhaps Adore is wrong.  I don't think so, but thats only my opinion.

     It is certainly a far better opinion than we live but once and
die.

>Let's just say that my sexuality has little to do with the issue
>at hand, which, to my mind, is the objectionability of his
>diatribes against "fags" and "dykes".
>
     Yes but I have a right to my views and gut feelings.  If you
wish to re educate me you have the perfect forum for it here.
However you come across as if the law of the land has been violated
by my making cracks about gays and Dykes yet you have little interest
in MY experience with them and why I would feel this way.

     I used to think Lesbianism was a turn on, until I went out
with one.

>By they way, is there anyone else you'd like to smear, while we're
>at it? How about niggers, kikes, spics, or gooks, etc.? Are they
>also inferior species, still on their way up to Divine Homerhood?

     I will stick to smearing Christians and Nazis.  They are a dangerous
enough group as it is.

     You know the interesting thing is that when gays and Dykes DONT take
me to task about simple Adorian principles, I almost never say anything
about them, well almost never.  The gay and dyke issue usually comes up
because one of them starts to yap about women becoming men etc.

     Most people merely think that Adorian principles are WRONG.  My
experience is tht gays and dykes think that it is EVIL.  Thus by the
tone of their attack I begin to suspect their sexual preference.

     So, Mark since you don't have the courage of your own convictions and
refuse to say whether you are gay or not, I will assume you are and
treat you as such.  This means I will refrain from arguing with you
on the subject of Adorian principles that go against the grain of
most gays that I have known.  I cant win, so why bother.

     You on the other hand might convince me to change my mind, so
you should continue to try.

     Other people on this list have had the courage to speak their
sexual preferences, I don't see why you wouldn't.

     I have.

 Homer               Adore-l list         9/25/89*Homer wants to know if I'm ga