Click here to return home.

Go back one page

Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and 
credit to the original author.

Ezekiel J. Krahlin


© 2001 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,,
            alt.activism, alt.homosexual
Subject:    Re: Confusing gay rights with civil rights
            for blacks is an insult...
From: Chief Thracian 
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 13:07:39 -0700
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:21:04 -0700, "Stan Rothwell"

>Stop playing games. Homosexual behavior refers
>specifically to engaging in sex with other members
>of the same sex.

Wrong. Just because the unfortunate, clincially-cold term
"homosexual" contains the syllable "sex", does not really mean
that gay people revolve around sex and nothing else...implying
by virtue of what that word implies, that all gays are sex

A better term to describe gays is "homo-affectional", for many
gays prefer to associate with each other, not based on any
sexual attraction, but based on a common ground of a long and
proud history of suffering through the many abuses wrought by
the heterocentric majority. Similar to why Jews, or Gypsies,
or Native Americans prefer to congregate among their own kind.
This is why lesbians and gay men enjoy each others company,
rather than dallying with straights. And it has nothing to do
with the sex act per se...and everything to do with a strong
and comradely bond.

Homosexual behavior extends into ethical, spiritual and social
dimensions far beyond mundane sex. Just like heteros, even
more so when you consider the courageous history of gay
struggles that heteros could never know. The word
"heterosexual" also contains syllable "sex", yet we all
realize that opposite-sex bonding encompasses dimensions of
affection and social gregariousness that often do not include
the sex act.

In fact, the energy of the sex interest adds spice to the
association...and this is no less true for gays, as for
heteros. Even if it doesn't really go anywhere (such as bed).

Who we prefer to spend our quality time with, who we choose
for a lover or friend, are important and necessary aspects of
being gay...just like, and no different from, why heteros
choose to associate with each other, over gays.

However, there is now arising a new, and inspiring trend of
gay-identified straight men who appreciate, even admire, their
bonding with gay men (without any sexual interest) as a much
more loving, saner alternative to conventional, hetero macho

>It degrades and blurs the definition of marriage.
>It's not your institution, nor your place to make
>decisions as to what that means. End of story.

Sorry, but the story does *not end with you, arrogant het
buffoon! The modern institution of marriage was STOLEN from
gays, by the violent, hetero majority. In medieval times in
Europe, gay monks often bonded in loving, intimate
relationships. So they eventually created a marriage contract
to affirm a loving commitment to each other, for their entire
lives. As time pondered on, these marriage vows were copied by
heteros, and eventually usurped and claimed as their own, in
order to stigmatize gay people.

So, yes, originally, our modern marriage vows were by and for
gay partners only. Now, another social innovation started by
gays, is what we call "domestic partners". There is presently
an effort by heterocentric monsters, to eliminate domestic
partner contracts for gay couples...but allow it for
alternative styles of hetero bonding (such as classmates
sharing a household, or an invalid mother living with her
daughter; two examples among many).

>Sorry, buddy, I like in the SF Bay area, where
>most of them refer to themselves as gays, and the
>militant ones call theselves "queers".

That is not being militant, that is being progressive, even
radical. You are like so many Fundamentalist zealots: defining
any gay who is outspoken about his demand for equality, as
"militant". Actually, being militant involves forming your own
militia or vigilante group, and aggressively demanding your
rights at the end of the barrel of a firearm.

>You might be able to put your BS over on someone
>from Des Moines, but those of us around here know

You don't know squat; you think you are so smart but, sadly,
we gays have an IQ that soars way above your own. But you are
so stupid, you don't even realize this...instead, believing
you know it all, when it comes to gays.

>Nice of you not to get it. Once again, you have
>the same constitutional rights as straights do. No
>more, no less...

No we don't, because the Constitutional Rights that should be
our birthrate as it is for all hetero Amerikans, are
constantly being denied and trampled on my the majority of
bigots who haunt this sorry nation, and run our present
Supreme Court.

>Have you ever heard the term "discretion"? I
>wouldn't even choose to discuss certain aspects of
>my personal life with other adults who are close
>friends, yet the militant gays have no problem
>talking about their "lifestyle" to minors and
>others in a public setting...

As I already stated, you will never be intelligent enough to
give other than an anti-gay, knee-jerk reaction to any person
who calmly explains why gays are still fighting for equality.

You don't have to discuss your being heterosexual to anyone,
for in our society where heteros are the vast majority, it is
tactily *assumed you are straight, unless otherwise shown or
told. When a gay person lets it be known to others that he's
gay, he is making everyone aware that not everyone is
heterosexual, and that because of this, they need to not
insiste that everything that anyone does or says must be
couched in hetero-defined expectations.

There is nothing indiscreet about a gay person letting others
know he's gay. This is not hurting any children who may be
present, more than heteros proclaiming their love
for their partners, and even displaying such affection with
kisses and hugs.

It is just as wrong for a hetero to use explicit sexual
descriptions to a very young child, as it would be for a gay
person. So when a kid asks about gay couples, there is no
problem with an intelligent reply such as: "Some people fall
in love with others of the same gender...and their love is
essentially the same as hetero couples." You do *not get into
specific sexual descriptions when explaining to a kid, about a
married hetero couple...and there is no problem in this
matter, in describing a gay couple.

It is only heterocentric bigots who insist in defining gays as
sexual perverts and addicts...and thereby think that
mentioning to a kid that gays have partners of the same sex,
is somehow harmful. It is not. You just don't want to heal
yourself of your own ugly homophobia...and choose to poison
the minds of innocent children with images of monsters, when
describing gays...thus transmitting this trite and ugly
bigotry to the next generation.

>But then again, I'm not actively recruiting sex
>partners. Isn't that what promotion of the gay
>lifestyle is really about?

If anyone's doing some hard-core recruitment, it's heteros,
far beyond gays. Heterocentrism is so forceful it permeates
all our mainstream entertainment and material productions. Why
are so many salt and pepper shakers created with boy-girl
motifs (the boy is salt, the girl is pepper)...yet none with
same-sex motifs? Why are all romantic adventure movies
celebrating hetero relationships...instead of also producing
some where the main characters are two men or two women, in
love; with one saving the life of another, and they live
happily ever after? In fact, I like to call movie theaters
"heterocentric indoctrination centers", for that is the main
purpose they serve (in the guise of entertainment).

There is so much advertising catering to hetero sex fantasies,
you'd think our society *had to constantly broadcast hetero
dogma, else we'd all slip into gay behavior, if we weren't
perpetually bombarded by this straight propaganda. Good grief,
women's big tits are used to sell everything from chocolates
to cars to clothing! It's pathetic, because it also
perpetrates the evil, macho notion that women are nothing but
sex objects for the satisfaction of straight men.

>Why else whould you seek to have groups to talk to
>teens about their sexual confusion?

You are just too dumb to figure this out yourself; yet the
answer is obvious, to anyone with an IQ of at least 90.
Educating young people at an early age, that homosexuality is
a normal variation of the human experience, nips in the bud
the potential for bigotry and violent attacks against our gay
citizens. If we don't reach them when they're still very
young, then it is often too late to undo the exposure to
homophobic ideas that is so prevalent in our Amerikan families
and communities.

This is no different than any other kind of bigotry: that the
earlier you reach children about its wrongness, the more
effective are the results in cultivating respect towards those
different from themselves. This goes for teaching about
African Americans, Asians, disabled people and so on...and
should also be applyed to gay folks.

>What's your grievance? That you can't shack up
>with some guy and have the State pretend you're

Heteros have the sanctioned options to either shack up OR
marry with someone they love. Gays only have a very limited
right to shack up... and usually with great risk towards
bashing by violent heteros. They have no choice to marry and
dedicate their lives to their partners, with all the
privileges and perks that go with it, as do straight couples.

And that is indeed, our grievance, which you treat so
flippantly...because you are essentially a bully, who gets his
rocks off by insulting people who are stigmatized by a
majority ignorance. I guess you think it's a prideful thing to
be just like most people, even when you are committing a
heinous offense. This is how Nazis took over Germany, by
appealing to the bully in us all. And those who fell for this
ploy, were you obviously are.

>I wouldn't bend over ANYWHERE near the likes of
>you. :O(

Another fallacious attitude by stupid heteros: that just
because you're male, any gay would be all over you in a flash,
if you permitted. But gays have good taste, and wouldn't go
for someone as butt-ugly as yourself, even if your were 100%
gay since infancy. I'm afraid you live out your entire life,

But hey, that's probably your life already! What a happy
thought; I think I'll go out and celebrate. Happy Gay Pride

Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian