> budge wrote:
no, kelley wrote the below.
> > On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 at 1:43pm Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > surely you have heard that your statement is controversial
> > > --and not because i'm espousing the views of those who
> > > think that homosex is "unnatural". Rather, it's a
> > > controversial statement among those in the GLBT community.
>
> Note: Blacks did not _choose_ to be blacks in the Jim Crow
> south; they were born that way; they couldn't help it.
> That did not seem to be an argument against lynching them.
> "Jews" in Hitler's Germany had not _chosen_ their
> grandparents (or in some cases great-great-grandparents);
> they were born "that way." That did not seem to be an
> effective argument against the Final Solution.
uh, yeah, so? is this supposed to be a reply to my comment or someone else's? if the latter, why use my name in your post? if the former, i'm not in favor of 'naturalistic' arguments which was the point of my original post.
> I wasn't born a communist; that does _not_ mean that I
> have no right to be a communist.
umm, mmmkay!
> Regardless of the current empirical evidence for or
> against a "gay gene" (and I want to emphasize the
> _current_, for this kind of evidence changes constantly),
no it doesn't. the notion that biological science has much useful to say *politically* about queerishness is bullshit. (i think it unlikely to have much interesting to say at all about it, except to specialists.)
> the fight for gay rights has to be based on the premise
> that a person has a perfect right to _choose_ to be gay.
>
> There has been quibble over the term "community" several
> times on this list, but as hard (even impossible) as it is
> to write a satisfactory abstract definition of "black
> community" or "gblt community," conscious members of those
> communities go on using the terms very effectively for
> their purposes, and I think questionins of those terms
> simply aren't in good faith.
fuck you too.
so i can't fuck men unless i agree to be a member of some bogus 'community'? or i can't criticize this 'community' unless i consent to be part of it? or once i fuck a guy, i'm doomed to be a member of this 'community'? ugh.
or what, exactly?
you, who are to my knowledge, a 'heterosexual' are going to tell me -- a man that lives with and sleeps with a man -- that i am exersizing 'bad faith' when i reject representation by people who claim i have no choice in the matter? puuhhhleeeze. this is over the top even for you.
my complaint about this so-called 'gay community' is not unlike you complaint about leftists who play with the dumbocrats in electoral politics. the 'gay community' (such as it exists and i understand it) is a thoroughly self absorbed grouplet of like minded people who share nothing with me or my life.
but people assume things about me because they percieve me as 'gay'. and i'm not talking about stupid things from homophobes -- liking show tunes or floral design -- i'm talking about non-homophobes (including gay people!) that assume my politics are determined by where i stick my dick.
my politics are not defined that way, and i'm kind of tired of having to explain this. HRC does NOT speak for me. for instance, i am anti-gay marriage because i am anti-marriage period. full stop. end of story. well, this is not considered an acceptable position amongst the majority of this so-called gay community.
so i'm kind of over this 'gay community' thing and am tired of trying to explains this to so-called radicals.
(sorry if this is kind of sloppy, i'm on the road and may or may not have time to be more coherent in the next few days.)
and thanks to kell and justin, you two obviously get it. there is so much kumbya liberal bullshit on the left when this topic comes up that it makes me want to puke...
-- no Onan
"superior sound quality"