From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 11:10:25 EDT
Rich, on July 28th, cited an interesting part of the NYT article:
:Article:
In California in the 1950's, notes one historian, the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board "collapsed the difference between homosexual status (a
state of being) and conduct (behavior) and suggested that any behavior
that signified homosexual status could be construed as an illegal act.
Simple acts such as random touching, mannish attire (in the case of
lesbians), limp wrists, high pitched voices, and/or tight clothing (in
the case of gay men) became evidence of a bar's dubious character" and
grounds for closing it. . .
Just a comment here, for I see this myth still being perpetuated. I know
a fair number of both gays and lesbians, all either in committed
relationships or (as far as I know) celibate.
None of them I know -- NONE of them -- exhibit those particular
characteristics "everybody knows" are characteristics of the gay/lesbian
community. That there may be some, of course, who do exhibit it, is
probably true. The gals I know who are lesbians dress as ladies; the guys
I know dress as men. None of them would "stand out in a crowd."
rich remarks:
"There is no acceptable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a
state of being though notice the NY times embraces the non-existent
science here and invokes it without the caveat that even if it were true
it would not account for the majority of homosexual behavior which is
opportunistic. "
The first part of the statement is obviously true, although, by the law
of the excluded middle, "gay by nature" cannot be ruled out either. The
evidence I have looked at seems rather scanty, and hardly persuasive. As
to whether (or not) the "majority of homosexual behaviour in
opportunistic," that probably is also true, if one considers that the
majority of heterosexual behaviour is also (probably) that way.
rich remarks:
could it be that the discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization
"well established" by the '60s could also be the backlash to the
homosexual agenda which also began organizing during the sexual
revolution of the '60s? "
I think this is probably true. The backlash against those with dark skins
lobbying for equal rights in the 60s obviously was caused, in large part,
"because of those uppity n. "
Dear me -- agreeing with Rich! <G>
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 11:50:48 EDT