From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: Re: The Evidence
Organization: Santa Cruz
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <15177@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <113567@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <cjkC4MCwp.8ox@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
># #If homosexuals did keep themselves in the privacy of their own home, this 
># #wouldn't be a problem.  However, there are various 'cliques' (sp?) that
># #don't.  They want to present the argument that it is just as moral and
># #right as heterosexuality.
># 
># You know, I'm offended by newspapers publicly announcing weddings.
># Heterosexuals should keep their nutpials out of the public eyes. They
># should be banned from wearing wedding rings. From having legal recognition
># of marriage.
># 
># Anything that's public and sexual don't mix.
>
>The difference, of course, is that we are right, and you are wrong.
>If you are a minority that wants freedom, it helps to not be 
>obnoxious about it.  It does not surprise me that as groups like

TRANSLATION- you minorities stay in predesignated areas.  We the majority
are 'right', anything you do is 'wrong', since might makes right, and
the majority always rules.

>Queer Nation become increasingly belligerent in their public 
>demonstrations, that violence against homosexuals rises.  Anything
>that reminds the crazies who like to beat up homosexuals of their
>presence is going to aggravate things.


Oh- crime prevention at its best.  Well let's extrapolate this, maybe if 
you didn't display all of your private property, then those nasty theifs
wouldn't go after it.  And don't carry any money, that way those muggers
won't bother you.

>
>And you still don't realize that either way it is, says that homosexuals
>are very dangerous to children.
>
># 
># So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
>
>The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.  The sexual
>predatory component that glorifies the pursuit of "candy-ass" and
>"hairless cocks" in the words of Le JoJo, the typical homosexual.

Oh I did not know that Le JoJo is a typical homosexual.

Stop making statements about something you know nothing about, that is
gay people.  You make your sweeping generalizations with no grounding 
in reality.


What I hope is not true- That you are a typical heterosexual.  Anyone want
to comment on this?

And if you are typical then I can start extrapolating a lot of interesting
conjectures about heterosexuals.

>-- 
