Date sent: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Lagusta Pauline Yearwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: i'm not gay, but...
Originally to: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Heya ecofems,
>
> I've been reading these messages, and I'm always alarmed about how even
> enlightened, progressive, obviously non-homophobic people feel the
> need to preface every comment that defends gay rights with the "I'm not
> gay, but..." or "by the way, I'm straight" disclaimer. I understand that
> on one hand maybe you do it because you think it will make your argument
> stronger (you believe in this so strongly that you will fight for it
> although you are not *it*), but it smacks of an icky kind of separatism.
> Wouldn't it seem that part of what you are fighting for would be that
> people wouldn't have to be so uptight about their preferences, that they
> wouldn't feel the need to create these us vs. them categories (even if
> "us" is helping out "them")?
>
> It reminds me of all the people in my women's studies classes who are so
> obsessed with making it known that "i'm not a feminist but..." then go on
> to say something classically, obviously feminist.
>
> Just some thoughts,
>
> Lagusta
Point well taken, and I was considering that my outing myself as a
hetero inferred that my argument was being made on its own merits,
without subtext, and that I was employing no personal agenda in
making it, or in taking the position I took. Joe
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 18 09:41:42 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:40:16 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
i dun know what this is, but im not supposed to be on this list, I would like
to be removed
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 18 10:39:40 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:37:26 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
Hi!
This topic went way off tangent - Maybe some people are just reading things
out of context? I wanted to know why the topic of overpopulation was a
heterosexual topic? Why did it not affect gays? Then why would a couple -
who (I assumed did not live together or have any relationship want a surrogate
mother to give birth to a child?- where's the family or love structure there?)
My mistake -
Let me say again _ I personally feel that any love is good love! I think
people are becoming heterophobic!
Peace!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 18 10:40:12 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:38:50 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size and parenting
In a message dated 98-10-17 20:36:01 EDT, you write:
<< my view is that what nurtures children is a stable, caring and
supportive environment. >>
Hi!
Great definition - I agree! Thanks!
Peace!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 18 10:44:55 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:44:43 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
In a message dated 98-10-17 16:58:01 EDT, you write:
<< voluntary population control. Joe
>>
Hi!
You are still saying that if voluntary population control is not the answer
then MANDATORY population control is? How would this work Joe? Who would
decide? This is how the discussion started before it went off on a tangent!
I said I AGREE population control should be considered by intelligent,
rational, earthloving people - I said I DO NOT AGREE that it should be
MANDATORY! That is NOT an option.
It's like saying: I agree that they should shut down all papermaking
companies and only leave recycled paper and tree-free paper, soy-based ink
printing companies standing. That would be great - BUT it is not a viable
option - It could never be re-enforced! It is not an option - neither is
Mandatory population control.
Peace!
Angela
