{original post had no questions}

In 2261, nobody much worries about categorizing people as one
thing or another...some can move in and out of various kinds of
relationships and no one thinks of it one way or another. There is no
political agenda here, or saying "you are this, and if you do that,
you're not this anymore," or conversion, or anything of the sort.

One can only wish that were more true today.

jms

Carin Ekeroth <75313.3004@compuserve.com> asks:
> Why would I choose a marginal position in society?

"My point is that orientation, that who you fall in love with, is not
a matter of choice! Why would I choose a marginal position in society?
I operate very much in the mainstream as a senior executive in a large
multinational corporation and believe me - being openly gay is not the
most career enhancing thing I've ever done by a long shot! It is not
chosen and I don't believe you can switch orientation like changing
socks."

Ah, but you see, here you are revealing your *own* prejudices.
The gay community has adopted the "ther is no choice, this is how
you're born" argument for many political and social reasons, some of
them sound and reasonable, some of them less so.

You say you want to enhance choices, but in that one paragraph
alone you are restricting the choices of others...one can not explore,
one cannot change one way or another, one is locked in for life. Now,
in many cases, this may be true...but it is not true in all places, at
all times, for all people, and the lack of tolerance for lifestyle
choices you indicate does not speak well for you.

I have many friends who are gay. I have many friends who are
bi. I know women who were involved with men exclusively for most of
their lives, then got involved with women exclusively for a number of
years. Some are still there, and happy, some have flipped back again.

The far right uses political agendas to restrict the choice of
other people..."nobody's naturally born gay, it's all teaching, and
it's against god's law," which is nonsense...and I'd hate very much to
see the same politicization going on at the *other* end of the
spectrum, in which there are only gays, and straights, and no room to
maneuver, and anybody else has something wrong with them somewhere.

You go that way, and you're just exchanging a closet for a
straightjacket. This, by my lights, is not progress.

jms

{original post had no questions}

I read what you said.

Reading and writing is what I *do*.

Perhaps what you said was not what you meant.

It's my experience that unless you can say what you mean, you
can never mean what you say.

What was written was a very intolerant message about bi's, and
based upon that point of view, you gigged the show for not applying a
political agenda. I don't think something as inherently personal and
intimate as sex should be politicized by either end of the spectrum,
and used to dismiss one class or another because of it. I'm an
extremist for tolerance.

If some portion of what I quoted back to you was reprinted
inaccurately, or paraphrased, or otherwise changed, please let me know
and I will correct it. Otherwise, what you said was what you said. It
didn't upset me, didn't make me mad, because I'm not at issue here...I
only wanted you to understand what you were saying by sending it back
to you.

jms