--- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "oneradiantbeing" > > <oneradiantbeing@> wrote: > > > > > > This comment is in response to "sgrayatlarge." who erroneously > > > compared adult homo-eroticism (homosexuality) with incest and > > > bestiality. > > > > David, I think you missed the poster's point. In your > > letter to the editor, you had written: > > > > "We will never become a nation that breathes integrity > > so long as there is not a safe atmosphere wherein people > > of all sexual persuasions can live openly and equally." > > > > It appears to me that he was suggesting your phrase > > "all sexual persuasions" was too sweeping, since it > > would include bestiality, incest, and pedophilia, > > among other sexual practices for which even you would > > probably not want this country to provide a "safe" > > atmosphere. > > > > You probably didn't mean "all sexual persuasions" to > > be taken that broadly, but there was no need for you > > to take such a nasty swipe at sgrayatlarge for > > pointing out that your use of language was sloppy. > > He explicitly said he didn't think there was anything > > wrong with homosexuality, so your charge of homophobia > > is quite unwarranted. > > I agree that David Spero's language was sloppy. But, I don't see where > sgrayatlarge specifically said he didn't think there was anything > wrong with homosexuality. He says, "The reason why David Spero wrote > of a Palm Springs newspaper is because of the high % of gays living > there, so he is simply being politically correct and has a welcome > audience. Nothing wrong with that." The "that" with which there is > nothing wrong is in the previous sentence, and it is not specifically > about homosexuality. He could be saying that there's nothing wrong > with writing a politically correct letter to a newspaper from a city > with a large gay population, where such a letter would be welcomed. > Sgrayatlarge's language is vague enough that I would not assume his > comment to mean that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with > homosexuality.
I take your point (although as it turns out he *doesn't* think there's anything wrong with it). But the phrase "nothing wrong with it" has become almost a cliche in regard to being gay, so it's an automatic association. Plus which, if someone sees nothing wrong with there being a high percentage of gays living in Florida or with someone writing a letter to the editor in support of their interests, chances are pretty good the person doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality itself either. If he'd used "pandering" instead of "politically correct," that would be another story. But his language generally was pretty neutral. I just got no homophobic vibe from what he wrote.
