Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Message-ID: <philC5sr4v.Mxp@netcom.com>
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
References: <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <15440@optilink.COM> <1993Apr20.125526.23076@cs.nott.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 19:22:07 GMT
Lines: 30

In article <1993Apr20.125526.23076@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with
    >people of ethnic minority. However, your argument again falls
    >flat on its face. You state that you, under an
    >anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate with
    >others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will. How do you
    >know that you do not associate with them now, except they may
    >be closeted? Would you like to change your argument to read
    >"forced to associate with truthfully homosexual people
    >against my will"? You have no proof that anyone you now know
    >may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your
    >argument. Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only
    >one flavour (sic) and that is the camp mincing type? Prove
    >it. You cannot.

You are quite incoherent. Perhaps YOU should be forced to associate with
some people against YOUR will. I think a nice large group of skinheads
in a locked basement for 12 hours will wonderfully educate you.

After all, as you don't believe in Freedom Of Asscoiation, you can't
complain can you.

Bloody turdlet ...


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
