The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/u/usmcgay3.txt

Text File | 1993-03-17 | 9KB | 200 lines

This is in reply to Al Giersbach's reply to a letter from John Muciek

Dear Sir,

    Thank You for uploading your reply to the letter that was uploaded by
John Muciek. The views expressed in your reply say more about the attitude
that gays express toward the straight male and female.
    First allow me to make a few observations, or assumptions. I assume
that, by the "title" of your reply, you are gay. For those that didn't read it,
download it. Also allow me to assume that you think of yourself as a
Christian.
    In the opening paragraph of your reply you start by insulting John's
intelligence and religion. A common tactic for gays, by doing this they
sneak in a feeling that this person is on the extreme. And that their view is
biased and therefore not worthy of discussion and/or belief.
    A continuation of the alienation is present on the second line of the
reply. "Did you know that a 'psychologist' who is quoted everywhere by
evangelical, bornagain so-called christians..." And again in the next line "His
results are being spread around by so-called 'christians' like you, but only in
a distorted form worthy of Hitler's Nazi propaganda." I'm sorry but John
Muciek did not quote or even make reference to this psychologist, Paul
Cameron. It seems that in order to make a point against John's personal
statement you introduced a subject, Cameron, that was not even mentioned
in the original manuscript.
    You continue your reply by giving a professional background of
Cameron, and how he was removed from the American Psychological Assoc
and the American Sociological Assoc for unethical behavior and for
"consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting sociological research".
You continue by making a observation that Cameron has not been
published in a reputable scientific journal for the last twenty years. The only
person that quoted his work was YOU! And since you have already stated
that Cameron has such a bad habit of misrepresentation of the facts then
don't you also condemn your own numbers? The point is that YOU are the
one using Cameron to justify your stand point, and since you did such a
good amount of research into his unethical practices then your argument
not John Muciek's is the one out in left field.
    The next point is the "raw, undoctored numbers" from Cameron's own
survey. I have looked at the numbers and there seems to be a strange
phenomenon reoccurring in the data. For one point the totals add up to 64
people are engaged in this activity and for another 443 people are engaged
in that activity. By the way the largest number is 1182 people answered.
There can only be one of two reasons for this discrepancy. One, that the
person that asked the question only asked 64 people about the topic. Or the
majority of the people didn't engage in that activity at all! So, if you assume
that the highest number of replys, 1182, is the amount of people asked then
the numbers are actually:

People engaging in sadism, masochism, bondage
Heterosexuals:        409
Homosexuals:        34
Not engaging at all:    739

Fist in anus Activity
Heterosexuals:        45
Homosexuals:        19
Not at all:            1118

People engaging in urination perversions
Hetero:        90
Homo:        12
Not at all:        1080

People engaging in defecation perversions
Hetero:        34
Homo:        7
Not at all:        1141

Enema fetish activity
Hetero:        45
Homo:        5
Not at all:        1132

Sex with animals
Hetero:        58
Homo:        6
Not at all:        1118

Men paying for sex
Hetero:        439
Homo:        12
Not at all:        731

Men acting as a prostitute themselves
Hetero:        63
Homo:        9
Not at all:        1110

Participating in orgies
Hetero:        416
Homo:        42
Not at all:        724

Having sex in a public restroom
Hetero:        116
Homo:        29
Not at all:        1037

Men who performed oral sex on another male
Hetero:        50
Homo:        41
Not at all:        1091

Performed anal sex
Hetero:        1121
Homo:        61
Not at all:        0     (this is the max. number)

Ever had a STD
Hetero:        907
Homo:        40
Not at all:        235

Oral anal contact
Hetero:        1006
Homo:        51
Not at all:        125

Had sex in front of others
Hetero:        470
Homo:        33
Not at all:        679

Had sex in public
Hetero:        334
Homo:        20
Not at all:        828

    Well by my count I would have to come to another conclusion than
you did. I would have to say that MOST of the people that were questioned
were quite normal and not at all "a pretty foul group". In my opinion I would
have to say that most of the not at all group is heterosexual, though I must
admit some of the not at all group must be homosexual. And even my
assessment of the numbers is taking into account that the number of people
questioned is the 1182 number that I used. It can be said that the number of
people questioned could be over 10,000 but it cannot be said that it is any
less than the 1182. The reason for the change in the numbers is that not
everyone in the world has experienced the situations listed and therefore
there must be those that are in a category of not at all.
    As for the constant name calling of Christians that you engaged in for
the reply to John's letter I can only argue this. If you agree that being a
Christian is in part following the Bible and trying not to sin. My personal
views go beyond this menial definition of Christianity, but for the sake of
argument I have simplified it. Then how can you continue to practice the
acts of homosexuality. It clearly states in the Bible that it is wrong and is
punishable by God to be homosexual. The following scriptures clearly state
this:

Romans 1:18-32
    "...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the
men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with
lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ..."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
    "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the
greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom
of God."

    These two scriptures CLEARLY state that the acts of the homosexual
is not righteous and WILL be punished by God.
    In the beginning of this reply I stated that I assumed that you
considered yourself a Christian. If you follow a homosexual lifestyle how can
you even consider yourself a Christian?
    In your reply you state "...you neo-nazi 'christians' ..." imploying the
common tactics of the homosexual community. Making John Muciek seem
to be the one that has the extremist view. The fact of the matter is that if
you consider the Biblical scriptures above you cannot state that John's view
is one of a neo-nazi or extremist anything. And that his views are based in
scripture and that the only one here that is spreading propaganda is you. It
then seems ironic to look back at your reply and examine it relatively
closely. Your initial arguments are based in the idea that John Muciek's
ideology is much like that of Cameron. Then you continue with the idea that
Cameron is such a non-trustworthy "psychologist" that his views border on
that of Hitler and the neo-nazis. But then you use the data collected from
Cameron's research to provide a basis for the argument that heterosexuals
are the perverted ones. By your own admission Cameron played with the
data until it fit what he wanted. How can anyone then look at your outset of
the supposed raw data from Cameron and believe that he didn't doctor it as
well. Since you stated that he was "kicked out" of two major associations of
professionals in his field and that his ethics are out the window, we are then
supposed to believe that he recorded every answer, even the answers that
he didn't want to hear. I think that you defeated the basis of your argument
when you discounted Cameron to the point that he seemed almost a pal of
Hitler.
    In closing I would like to wish John Muciek good luck and keep up
the good work. I hope that what you are doing will make a difference.
    And to you Al Giersbach, in the future think out your argument before
you write it down and present it in a well-defined format. That way it will
take a longer time for people like me to pick your argument apart and prove
you wrong.

                    Thanks for reading this much,

                        Brad Bowers