Discussion of Mr. Pawlick's Feature:   
"An Intelligent Discussion About Homosexuality"  

"Intelligent Discussion" is a Fundraising Tool 
   Richard W. Lewis, Sr.

"Massachusetts News" Is Really Hatred and Ignorance 
   Marianne Orlando 

Thanks for Standing Up for the First Amendment 
   Thomas Oberst 

Homosexual Activists Engage in Propaganda and Intimidation Campaign 
   Brian Camenker 
Defending the Indefensible 
   Robert Renaud 
Homosexual activists have politicized the issues 
   Chris Cassidy 
TL Responds to MassNews Readers 

Halt the bias 
Kent Schreiner 

TL's Final Letter 
TL's First Letter 
Mr. Pawlick's First Response 
TL's Second Letter 
Mr. Pawlick's Second Response 
TL's Third Letter 
Mr. Pawlick's Third Response 

I do not wish to take away your right to an opinion, however, we must look
realistically at "Intelligent Discussion" and realize the very little intelligent about it. 

I wish for everyone to understand the truth, and not think of homosexuality as, as Mr. Pawlick so erroneously described it as "a habit that is compulsive and addictive." Is feeling safe, secure and loved a wrong habit to get into? Is the right to feel comfortable enough to live in our community  some bad addiction? As readers, we must be able to comprehend what is homophobic babble and what is truth. I do not find anything to accuse Mr. Pawlick of besides having too much time on his hands. As a community we should understand the need to not be for or against something but to stay with what is real and what is unfortunate disillusionment. As actual open minded INTELLIGENT readers we need to unite and keep literary filth such as this from coming into our homes again. 

Jess LaBrecque
Dover

Mr. Pawlick appears obsessed with homosexuality. 

He really is not. He has learned from Fallwell, Helms, Robertson et al. that this is simply a major fund raising tool. 

You disregard credible data such as FBI statistics show that 98% of child molestations are committed by heterosexuals. 

In its place you quote discredited psychologists like Paul Cameron (didn't the APA kick him out?). His connecting pedophilia to gays is not backed by any empirical evidence but.... 

You throw it out there and pretty soon you create fear.  Then you say we can solve the problem we just need money to combat these bad Gay Americans who are after your children........the bucks start rolling in.... 

Anita Bryant tried this revenue generator and it worked for a while.  Could you research her current life and let us know where she is, what she is doing and maybe who she works for? 

C'mon this country--heck this State--has children going to bed hungry every night.  Why not committ your resources to a real problem? 

Richard W. Lewis, Sr. 
Boston 

When I see hatred and ignorance distributed as "Massachusetts News," it 
gives me pause. My church choir director is a fine musician and an excellent role 
model of what it takes to be a professional.  Also, he possesses the warmth, sense of humor, and high standards that make him what I consider a "good person." And he's gay. Yet, I respect him.  That's because I don't see someone who's simply gay, 
but who's a great person. Funny thing how it works that way. 

I, and most people, tend to judge people by their character and whether or not I can find a common bond with them. 

Your treatise is clinical in nature, and reminds me of propoganda. Propoganda usually serves a lower purpose and is often used to foster hate or fear. When you spread lies, it serves no good purpose. 

Can't help it. That's how I feel, 

Marianne Orlando 
Framingham 
 

Mr. Pawlick Replies: 

I am sure that your choir director is a good person, but would you recommend that any young man smoke cigarettes or practice homosexuality?  They are bad choices.  We do not have the right to teach our young people to practice a bad choice. 

Would you please advise me where there is a "lie" in the article that I wrote.   If you can show anything even close to a 
lie, I will gladly correct it. 

I want to congratulate The Massachusetts News for this thought provoking 
work.  I have now "book marked" your URL on my computers at home and plan 
to read it daily. 

Thank you for standing up for the First Amendment and against violent gay extremists and the hate mongering religious bigots of the New Bedford Standard Times. Thank you also for giving us both sides of a story and for reporting the news rather than mindless radical propaganda. 

Thomas P. Oberst 
Sherborn 

Homosexual Activists Engage in Propaganda and Intimidation Campaign 
13 January 1999 

I have been reading with some interest the diatribe of attacks by your 
anonymous letter writer, "TL", on Edward Pawlick's excellent article on 
homosexuality. 

Over the years the homosexual activist community has invented a whole 
series of lies and half-truths to use in their propaganda campaign to 
force everyone else to accept this dangerous and (can I say it?) 
perverted behavior as a normal way of life.  In addition, they use the 
most cruel and outrageous methods of intimidation against anyone who 
dares to disagree with them. 

"TL's ranting and name-calling against Mr. Pawlick is just the merest 
example of what anyone can expect.  I've known people who have received 
threatening phone calls and threats for simply being interviewed on the 
subject in the newspaper.  It's interesting, though, that "TL" does not 
choose to identify himself, although he's happy to make nasty public 
personal comments about others. 

Over the years, I have known many, many homosexuals, both as close 
friends and family members, as well as business associates.  I can tell 
you that this is anything but normal.  These are people who are in deep 
inner pain and turmoil.  Homosexual behavior (as well as its connected 
behaviors of sado-machochism, pedophilia, etc.) is a symptom of much 
deeper things.  For example, just about every homosexual I have known 
was raped or molested as a child.  Their often serene veneer usually 
masks a very disjointed and obsessive personality.  I am not a doctor; 
this is just observation. 

As Mr. Pawlick's article points out, the most worrisome part of this 
movement is the focus on going into schools and "sensitizing" teenage 
children that having a sexual relationship with a homosexual is an 
experience that might somehow enrich them.  This message is given along 
with the other messages that homosexuality is a normal, non-addictive 
behavior, is not the least bit medically dangerous, and that any 
information to the contrary is to be considered "hateful". 
I have seen this going on in my local schools, and it is very 
disturbing.  And I have talked to the people doing it, and believe me, 
they are very focused on what they are doing. 

Finally, I could go point by point in refuting all of "TL's nonsense and 
circular reasoning.  But I just see him as an angry person caught up in 
a soul-wrenching behavior and a bizarre movement.  But it is necessary 
that all of us -- in a free society -- to stand up for the truth 
whenever we can. 

Brian Camenker 

I commend Mr. Pawlick for his restraint in dealing with one TL.  But, I'm not publishing this excellent, much-needed Net-paper, so I find no incentive to be so accommodating and tolerant of this person's psychobabble. 
 
Whoever this TL is, the initials obviously stand for "Typical Liberal". His rants are classic "liberalism is good and conservatism is evil" hyperbole, and they prove just one thing:  There are none so pathetic as those trying  to defend the indefensible. 
 
You sir, cannot quote a few "experts" to tell me how homosexuals behave.  Are you a homosexual?  Do you have many homosexual friends and  acquaintances?  How much time have you spent in the "homosexual community?"  Have you visited the "bath-houses and homosexual bars" that you referenced?  ("Bath-houses?") 
 
This is a typical liberal "argument": because we do not participate in the "gay" lifestyle, we are not qualified to discuss it. In response to such nonsense, I cite my "Equus Principle": when I am walking by a pasture and I see something in the grass, I need not wallow in it to know what it is. 
 
TL has carefully avoided discussing the most blatant exposition of the perversity of homosexuality. I refer to the Usenet's "gay" newsgroups, those open sewers running along the Information Superhighway. And, before he but-but-buts, there is a considerable body of "straight" filth there as well. It's distressing to go to such NGs, but to know the enemy, one must scout their camps. 
 
Perhaps he can explain why, when "gay" men are less then 2% of the population, "gay" pornography accounts for half of the smut on the Internet and the newsgroups. 
 
The issue is not the existence of "straight" pornography. It is what the "gay" newsgroups portray with shameless, brazen disregard for morality and decency. Here is a group trying to pawn themselves off as the guys next door, and they display the reality of their sordid existence with utter abandon.  Almost without exception, these newsgroups are replete with graphic photos of naked men, typically no older than 25 and often in their teens, usually aroused, and more often than not engaged in that clean, wholesome sexuality that he's trying to sell us as "natural". And, TL, NGs dedicated to the posting of literally hundred of photos of naked boys give the lie to the protestation about "gay" pedophilia. 
 
THIS is the truth about homosexuality, not the sterile, white-washed mythology fostered by TL and the other liars of the left. 
 
Homosexuality is self-defining: sexual activity with those of one's own sex. Any other definition is simply playing liberal word-games. But then, when the occupant of the Oral... er... Oval Office demands the definition of "is", what else can we expect? And, when a group identifies itself as homosexual, then we are on solid ground indeed in concluding that sexual gratification is the raison d'etre of that group. 
 
One grows very tired of hearing about Matthew Shepard, the post-mortem poster boy for "gay" activism. Yes, his death was tragic. ALL murder is tragic. But I defy TL or his ilk to tell us that this murder would ever have been heard of outside of his home town had he been heterosexual, and killed in precisely the same way. His death has been cold-bloodedly exploited by left-wing extremists pressing their radical political agenda, and it demonstrates beyond question the ethical bankruptcy of the "gay" extremists. 
 
In how many gay support groups have you participated?  How many  tormented gay teens have you interviewed?  How many gay funerals have  you attended?  How loudly have you protested anti-gay violence?  Have  you marched in many "Pride" parades? 
 
Typical feel-good liberalism. All form, no substance. How many "tormented gay teens" has TL told about the long-proven, utterly disastrous medical consequences of male homosexual activity? Does he discuss with them that anal sex is the primary method of transmission for the many STD's, including AIDS,  that afflict "gay"  men in alarming disproportion to the general populace?  Does TL let them know that the life expectancy of "gay" men is 30 years less than that of "straight" men, precisely because of the adverse health effects of the unhygenic sexual practices that constitute homosexual behavior? 
 
Of course not! Truth is an inconvenience, indeed an impediment, to the liberal lie. Assuage their consciences, deceive them about how normal and natural being "gay" is, tell them "if it feels good, do it", and go off to find another kid to lie to when AIDS kills their previous victim. 
 
No, TL, I have NOT "marched in many 'Pride' parades". I see no justification whatsoever for having "pride" in one's sexual preferences. This is a dying society when the very IDEA of a "pride" parade is not scorned into oblivion. And, having seen enough graphic footage of the disgusting behavior of the marchers and their arrogant defiance of every standard of public decency, I praise God that I have NOT "marched" in these sordid tributes to amorality and degeneracy. 
 
Naturally, TL and his bedfellows (inference intended) will wail about my "hatred" of gays. But, all one needs to know is that in the liberal lexicon, hatred is disagreeing with liberals, and bigotry is winning an argument with them. They have no foundation in logic or reason for their ideological views. Their rhetoric is entirely emotional, awash in touchy-feely, cotton-candy happy-talk, an devoid of even an iota of truth. 
 
When we warn gays about the irrefutable dangers of their way of life, and tell them that it is NOT natural, we are guilty of hatred. When liberals deliberately conceal the medical and psychological perils of the homosexual lifestyle, and lie to them about the wonders of being homosexual, why, that's called compassion and tolerance and sensitivity and caring. 
 
Define "is", TL! 
 
Robert P. Renaud 
Washington, MA 

In the response to your article on homosexuality, the letter writer stated that the word "homosexual" only appeared in revisions to the Bible about 50 years ago.  I am not sure of the truth of that, but what I am sure of is that in many places through the Bible, the Book of Romans being but one prominent example, homosexuality is 
condemned in the strictest of terms.  The admonition is there that the practicing homosexual will not see the Kingdom of God. 
 
Also, the fact that it occurs throughout nature also does not mean too much, either.  I mean, all disease occurs throughout nature as well.  That doesn't mean that homosexuality is a good thing, any more than mental illness is a good (or bad) thing.  Practicing homosexuality will not continue the species, so for that reason alone, it is not "normal". 
 
AIDS is an issue because the radical homosexual community has politicized it.  AIDS began in the homosexual community and spread like wildfire because of the behavior of those infected with it.  It is true that it can affect anybody, but that does not change the fact that a heterosexual non drug user has extremely minimal risk of 
contracting it.  It is a behavioral disease, that is it is directly linked to reckless sexual or drug using behavior.  I don't see how we can rail against smoking because of the risk of cancer but not teach abstinence "because kids won't listen".  They seem to be listening to the smoking message, don't they?  But see, that is the problem.  It's 
OK to stigmatize smoking but we can't stigmatize AIDS or people with AIDS (in particular homosexuals) because it has been politicized.  I know this:  if you practice abstinence and don't do drugs, you have 0% chance of getting AIDS (being that blood transfusions account for a minimal risk at this point).  If we taught abstinence 
from the beginning, AIDS would not nearly be as prevalent. 
 
I have no problem with homosexuals per se, but I don't see why I should be forced to accept their lifestyle any more than they should be forced to accept mine. 
 
Chris Cassidy 
Tewksbury, MA 

A response to recent Letters from readers of the Mass News 
18 January 1999 
 

“Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” 
--TH Huxley. 
 

I must agree with Mr. Camenker (aside from a grammarian standpoint) when 
he says: 

“But it is necessary that all of us -- in a free society -- to stand up 
for the truth whenever we can.” 

I consider that to be one of my Guiding Principles. 

It is important to remember that the ability to discern the Truth is 
essential to one’s character.  It is not something that can be dictated 
to us.  Each and every one of us must be able to determine what is the Truth. 

I become uneasy whenever someone tells me that they’re speaking “The 
Truth.”  Why do they need to mention that?  Just say your piece and I 
will determine what is True.  Whenever ANYONE says, “This is the Truth,” 
I immediately consider them suspect. 

It was poignant of Mr. Camenker to say, “…the homosexual activist 
community has invented a whole series of lies and half-truths to use in 
their propaganda campaign…” 

THAT is exactly what I was thinking about Mr. Pawlick’s “Intelligent 
Discussion….”  I now wonder if “lies,” “half-truths,” and “propaganda” 
are part of ALL activist campaigns. 

“Homosexual behavior (as well as its connected behaviors of 
sado-machochism, pedophilia, etc.)…” 

Come, come now, Mr. Camenker; you surely know that I will not let you 
get away with THAT.  I know that your letter represents your opinion; 
but you simply MUST be able to back it up with facts.  Your 
parenthesized comment is completely wrong.  Insupportable sensationalism 
will NOT earn you credibility. 

“As Mr. Pawlick's article points out, the most worrisome part of this….” 

Oh, don’t be shy, sir.  Mr. Pawlick’s article quotes YOU.  You might as 
well say, “As ‘I’ have pointed out….”  Ummm…  What “movement?”  What 
“focus?”  What “sensitizing?”  WHAT is being taught in MA schools? 
SURELY it must be a matter of public record, isn’t it? 

Rather than enthralling us with your acumen, can you point us in the 
direction of the curriculum? 

“Finally, I could go point by point in refuting all of "TL's nonsense 
and circular reasoning.” 

Please do, it would be better than making a weak, “wet blanket” 
statement.  Precisely WHAT “nonsense and circular reasoning?” 

“But I just see him as an angry person caught up in a soul-wrenching 
behavior and a bizarre movement.” 

I shouldn’t say this out loud, but I giggled when I read that!  Your 
opinion is very, VERY far off base, sir!  Take it from someone who 
knows. 

Mr. Renaud, 

It’s ironic that you accuse me of psycho-”babble” just before launching 
into one of your trademark, liberal-phobic tirades.  All of us who have 
read your previous Letters (on other topics) recognize your antics. 
It’s almost as ironic as your use of the word “hyperbole.” 

Am I a Liberal?  I didn’t know that I was, and don’t identify myself as 
such.  Indeed, if Trent Lott and Dick Armey had not made certain 
comments about homosexuality, I would have identified myself as “mostly 
Republican.”  (Well, at least until the Republican Congress became 
Internet porn publishers.  I would have HAD to draw the line there.) 

So, go ahead; declare me an enemy, if you must.  I just wanted you to 
know that I am neither “typical,” nor “A Liberal.”  Oh, but 
congratulations on knocking down the straw man that you set up.  Before 
YOU but-but-but, just make a note on the pitfalls of pigeonholing 
people. 

I note, with amusement, your (apparent) keen interest in Internet 
pornography.  You mentioned percentages.  Where did you find those 
“figures?” (“Inference intended.”) 

Statistics regarding pornography on the Internet are notoriously hard to 
pin down, and are enormously controversial.  And, NO, I have not 
“carefully avoided” a topic which had not been previously mentioned. 
YOU were the first to bring up pornography.  Find your point. 

“THIS is the truth about homosexuality…” 
Darn it, there you go telling us “the Truth.”  Refer to my opening 
comments, above. 

“Homosexuality is self-defining…” 
If so, why do you continue, AND give an incomplete definition?  “Desire 
OR behavior” would be accurate.  Of course, you only needed the 
“behavior” part to support the “lifestyle” arguments.  I can understand 
why you wouldn’t be completely open on this. 

Figuratively, I have a plaque attached to the headboard of my bed.  It 
is engraved with these indelible words:  “Homosexuality is NOT a 
lifestyle.”  I had a few extras produced, and would like to make a gift 
of one.  I think you need it. 

“How many ‘tormented gay teens’ has TL told about the long-proven, 
utterly disastrous medical consequences of male homosexual activity?” 

I have told none at all.  I do not lie to children. 

“Does TL let them know that the life expectancy of "gay" men is 30 years 
less than that of ‘straight’ men…” 

No, of course I would not say that to children.  YOU MIGHT, but I 
certainly wouldn’t.  (See my comment, directly above.) 

“And, having seen enough graphic footage of the disgusting behavior of 
the marchers and their arrogant defiance of every standard of public 
decency, I praise God that I have NOT ‘marched’ in these sordid tributes 
to amorality and degeneracy.” 

Umm… Uhhh…  What did you just say?  I was momentarily distracted by some 
very colorful images of the blatantly heterosexual spectacle of “Mardis 
Gras.”  Sorry, I’ll try to stay more focussed. 

Here’s what annoys me about media coverage of gay events: There could be 
ten thousand normal, average, working folks (and their friends and 
families) quietly marching together; and WHAT do you see on TV?  Some 
mustachioed guy wearing a leather jacket and a tutu, rollerblading down 
Main Street.  C’mon, that’s really, REALLY unfair. 

“Naturally, TL and his bedfellows…” 
Yuk, yuk.  You “IS” a laugh riot. 

To Chris Cassidy: 

“…the letter writer stated that the word "homosexual" only appeared in 
revisions to the Bible about 50 years ago.” 

It is my understanding that the RSV (Revised Standard Version) of 1946 
was the first Bible translation that used the word “homosexual.”  Since 
there are no words in ancient Greek or Hebrew for “homosexual,” the 
translation of ANY Bible word as such is a glaring error. 

I’m familiar with the Bible passages used to “condemn” homosexuality. 
I’m surprised that you chose Romans as your example, for it is widely 
acknowledged that Paul is difficult to interpret.  Even Peter warned 
about Paul’s apparent lack of writing skills (II Peter 3:16-18). 

There are ample scholarly and religious discussions about the “anti-gay” 
Bible passages.  The fact that they are so seriously argued gives me 
reasonable doubt about the “proclaimed” original intention of the 
messages. 

“Practicing homosexuality will not continue the species, so for that 
reason alone, it is not ‘normal’.” 

The overwhelming majority of human sexual contacts do NOT result in 
offspring.  Therefore, procreation is an inappropriate benchmark for 
determining sexual “normalcy.”  Non-procreative sex IS the norm. 

AIDS is an “issue” because it is a killer disease.  It kills more people 
worldwide than malaria.  AIDS is not a “gay disease,” it is a human 
disease. 

Constantly associating “AIDS and gays” is doing a grave injustice to 
non-gay people.  They think that if “AIDS is gay,” then “not-gay means 
no AIDS.”  This misguided thinking, this “I’m-not-gay Immunity,” is 
having disastrous results, worldwide, RIGHT NOW! 

Start preparing your answers to AIDS-infected heterosexuals who will 
ask, “Why did you keep saying ‘gay, gay, gay?’” 

(Does anyone else appreciate the irony of a gay man warning the 
heterosexual population about AIDS?  I could just shrug my shoulders and 
say, “Why should I bother?  They’ll find out.  We did.”  That would be 
appallingly insensitive of me.) 

Finally, you SHOULD teach children about safe sex (including 
abstinence).  It is vital information that they NEED in order to protect 
themselves.   I think that to do anything less constitutes negligence. 

TL 

Your "Newspaper" is the most biased piece of writing that I have ever 
read.  Please just live your life and stop trying to impose your 
unsolicited ridiculous ideas and right-wing fanatical beliefs upon 
anyone else.  I am appalled that I received this "article" in the mail 
today.  I will be sending it back and if I ever receive any 
communication from you again my husband will consult his law partners 
regarding the action we can take to prevent you from sending biased 
information through the mail. 

Kent Schreiner 

Dear Mr. Pawlick: 

I would like to thank you for having given me the opportunity to express 
my views on your site.  I think that we have discussed some very 
important topics. 

It is good to see you express your primary points without the use of 
certain “terms.”  All discussions are more intelligent when they do not 
rely on catch phrases and shock value. 

I agree that one’s sexual activity is a very private matter, and should 
remain so.  Sexuality, on the other hand, is a universal human trait; 
and we should not shy away from open discussion.  I think that we have 
demonstrated that here. 

Nobody should be denied competent, professional help with what they 
determine to be self-destructive behavior.  This is, of course, an 
individual decision; everyone should be happy with himself or herself. 

If there is, indeed, an attempt to shut down intelligent discussion; I 
agree that it is unfair.  I think that folks like you and I will 
continue to discuss regardless of who tries to shut us down. 

I appreciate the time and effort you have spent on our exchange. 

TL's Third Letter 
7 January 

I am at a total loss to understand your insistence that Matthew Shepard 
went to the NON-GAY bar “looking for sex.”  You have no proof; you are 
making an insupportable allegation.  The Times article is outdated, and 
the quotes therein have been disproved by sworn testimony in a court of 
law.  I am astonished at your recalcitrance. 

You objected when I said that you would do something in a particular 
situation.  You said, “That is unfair.  He has no knowledge of what I 
would do.”  I agreed and apologized. 

Now, you sir, have NO KNOWLEDGE of what Matthew Shepard was doing that 
night.  This is inarguable.  I don’t understand why you continue to obsess upon this tawdry “sexcapade” fantasy. 

As a publisher (and as a former, practicing lawyer), you surely know 
what the word “libel” means.  I call upon you to PROVE your published 
statement that Matthew Wayne Shepard, on the night of October 6, 1998, 
entered the Fireside Bar in Laramie, Wyoming, looking for sex. 

Prove it, or lose it.  That’s all. 

You sir, cannot quote a few “experts” to tell me how homosexuals 
behave.  Are you a homosexual?  Do you have many homosexual friends and 
acquaintances?  How much time have you spent in the “homosexual 
community?”  Have you visited the “bath-houses and homosexual bars” that 
you referenced?  (“Bath-houses?”) 

In how many gay support groups have you participated?  How many 
tormented gay teens have you interviewed?  How many gay funerals have 
you attended?  How loudly have you protested anti-gay violence?  Have 
you marched in many “Pride” parades? 

In other words, sir, exactly what are YOUR qualifications for making 
such sweeping statements about homosexuality? 

“From what little I have read on the subject, homosexuality is a 
wonderful life where everyone wants to be together, whether in San 
Francisco, Greenwich Village or Provincetown, to share this wonderful 
lifestyle.” 

I give you great credit, sir, for so publicly acknowledging your 
ignorance.  We simply must continue this discussion, so that you no 
longer rely upon Myth, Misperception, and Hearsay, to formulate your 
opinions about homosexuality. 

We have already seen that one of your “three researchers” is a disgraced 
scientist, that he has a long history of “distorting data;” and that his 
“gay lifespan” study uses ridiculous, unscientific methods.  The fact 
that you choose to stand by him is noble; foolish, I think, but noble. 

And Jeffrey Satinover (another “researcher”), your apparently favored 
psychiatrist, who has been published by NARTH (the anti-gay 
psychological group), and who has been a guest speaker of The Family 
Research Council (in my opinion, a “heterosexual activist” 
organization.  {Remember those horrible ads?}); well, Satinover seems to 
speak in a foreign language.  Have you read much of his work?  Perhaps 
it would be more appropriate for me to ask, “Have you understood much of 
his work?”  “Have you had much of his work interpreted for you?”  I 
would be happy to provide references to some of his deeper discourses, 
to serve as examples. 

Your third, and final, “researcher:” E. L. Goldman.  Ummm… Who is this? 
I can’t find any information, nobody seems to know. 

You expect us to believe you when you say that homosexuality is “more 
dangerous than cigarettes.”  To support your point, you bring forth 
three “researchers:” One who nobody should believe, one who nobody 
understands, and one who nobody recognizes. 

Very weak, sir, very weak.  You need better “experts.” 

(Say, let’s try a little experiment of our own.  You’re a publisher, 
let’s publish our own “gay lifespan” study.  Just post a questionnaire, 
homosexual respondents only.  And they answer only one question: “How 
old are you?”  C’mon, this could be very exciting, and you would have 
some first-hand data to quote.  Let’s give it a shot, I’ll help.  Interested?) 

You have, however, made some valid points. 

“And yet, there are mothers who beat their children, abandon them and 
even kill them.  Would you allow these bad examples to nullify your 
feelings about motherhood?” 

And yet, very small minorities of pedophiles are homosexual.  Will you 
allow these bad examples to influence your feelings about gay men? 

“Myths About Male Sexual Abuse 

Adapted from a presentation at the 5th International Conference on 
Incest and Related Problems, Biel, Switzerland, August 14, 1991. 
(Excerpt –TL) 

Myth #2 - Most sexual abuse of boys is perpetrated by homosexual males. 

Pedophiles who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation 
any more than pedophiles who molest girls are practicing heterosexual 
behaviors. While many child molesters have gender and/or age 
preferences, of those who seek out boys, the vast majority are NOT 
homosexual. They are pedophiles.” 

I hope that I’m making myself understood.  You say that a tiny fraction 
of the population is homosexual.  I say that a TINY FRACTION of the 
homosexual population are pedophiles.  Whatever number of homosexual 
pedophiles are about, there are vast multiples of non-homosexual 
pedophiles preying on children, and they like little boys as much as 
they like little girls.  They are attracted to “childishness,” that is 
their fetish; not genitalia. 

Your attempt to highlight “homosexual pedophilia” is misguided.  If you 
truly wish to protect children from predatory pedophiles, you must 
definitely shift your focus.  Like I tell my friends with children, 
about pedophiles: “I’ll hold them down, while you pull their fingers off 
with a pair of pliers.”  I don’t know how to better express myself on 
this topic, but I will strenuously resist your every effort to equate 
homosexuality with the disturbing sickness of pedophilia.  As much as 
you are loath to admit it, these are incomparable.  You are attempting 
to remove the splinter in my eye, before removing the plank from your own. 

“However, you must realize that organized, homosexual advocates are 
trying very hard to stop them from doing so, which is a blatant attempt 
to violate their civil rights.” 

I also understand that organized, heterosexual advocates are trying very 
hard to deny MY civil rights.  As I mentioned before, YOU suggested 
taking steps to circumvent anti-discrimination regulations.  I could not 
help but notice that you chose to NOT deny that. 

I deserve equal rights and protections, my friend, not “special” 
rights.  Married couples (it would be redundant of me to say, “Married, 
heterosexual couples”) enjoy many benefits.  Health insurance, survivor 
benefits, and so on.  Does it not seem to you that they enjoy “special 
privileges” because of their sexual orientation?  Yet, is that not what 
they accuse of homosexuals?  Something’s very fishy, here.  Think about it. 

I am certainly not suggesting that you teach children that homosexuality 
is an attractive alternative.  You should, however, let them know that 
there are homosexuals (there are), that it is normal for some people to 
be homosexual (it is), and that they should not abuse, oppress, attack, 
disrespect, KILL, or try to change them because they are homosexual 
(they shouldn’t).  This seems very reasonable to me; and, it’s better 
than the kids learning about it “on the street.” 

Your inflammatory attempt to make me seem like a Bible-basher is beneath 
you, sir.  Religious beliefs are very personal.  Indeed, mine are so 
personal that I choose to not discuss them in this forum, and I insist 
on this being a non-religious discussion. 

I encourage all to practice their religious tenets; providing, of 
course, that such practice does not include the oppression of others. 
That should be all that we need to say on the matter. 

By all means, “embrace” the suffering homosexuals.  Those homosexuals 
(and heterosexuals) who are deranged by their sexuality need an outlet; 
a loving, guiding hand. 

Just leave the rest of us alone.  We’re quite well, thank you, and it’s 
presumptuous of anyone to suggest otherwise. 

Mr. Pawlick Replies to TL's Third Letter: 
I wanted to make three main points in "An Intelligent Discussion": 

1) Anything that happens in a person’s bedroom should be a private 
matter. It used to be.  Most people do not care what homosexual people 
do in their bedroom.  Let’s put it back there where it belongs. 

2) We must not allow the homosexual activists to deny professional help 
to those homosexuals who desire to change. 

3) It is totally unfair to attack Christianity in an attempt to 
shut-down all intelligent discussion of homosexuality. 

As much as I appreciate TL's interest, I think that we have lost sight 
of the main points of the article and been side-tracked onto marginal 
issues.  Our readers should read the original article, and TL's 
comments, and judge for themselves. 

TL's Second Letter  
The following excerpt is pertinent to our discussion: 

By Robert W. Black, The Associated Press, Laramie, Wyo., Nov. 20 

The lead investigator, Sheriff’s Detective Sgt. Rob DeBree, testified 
that McKinney, 21, admitted to the beating and implicated his friend 
Henderson, also 21. According to DeBree, McKinney said that robbery was 
the main motive but that Shepard was chosen as a target because he was 
gay. 

DeBree said McKinney “admitted Matthew did not hit on them or make 
advances” in the Fireside Bar, but that they lured him out intending to 
rob him and burglarize his house. 

Both the girlfriend and McKinney’s father had said that Matthew “made 
advances” to the “suspects.”  With this sworn testimony, we now know 
that that is not true.  We can view this as a sad attempt to “blame the 
victim.”  (Besides, the “Humiliation Defense” didn’t work for Jonathan 
Schmitz, the convicted killer of Scott Amedure.) 

That is why it is “obscene” of you to say, “[Matthew] went to a bar 
looking for sex…”  It is “offensive to decency.”  I know that dead crime 
victims have no rights, but they deserve truth, and respect. 

I do not wish to think of you like that, and hope that you were merely 
misinformed. 

However, I must agree with you here: You say that it was “unfair” of me 
to say “you, and others like you” would act in a predictable manner. 
You are right, I do not know you (or others like you), and I cannot 
possibly know how you would act.  We are each and every one, an 
individual.  I agree, and I apologize. 

Mr. Pawlick, I do not wish to start a religious argument with you.  I 
tried to make my point as concisely as possible.  The Bible undergoes 
constant revisions, retranslations, and reinterpretations.  It is not 
carved in stone, is not an immutable text. 

Taken in snippets, it can be used to “prove” many things.  To 
demonstrate my point, I merely have to point to a certain Baptist 
minister in Topeka, Kansas; who once said he could “prove” that the 
Bible says it’s okay to beat your wife. 

He also says that I should be put to death because I’m gay.  He can 
“prove” it with the Bible. 

I’m sorry, but my mind just shuts off when the old 
“Leviticus-Sodom-Paul-Timothy-Romans” arguments get trotted out.  I’ve 
been through it, it’s tiresome.  I just close my eyes and think of Jesus 
Christ’s one and only recorded reference to Leviticus: “Love Thy 
Neighbor…” Then I try to think of nothing, which is what He had to say 
about homosexuality.  It certainly did not seem to be a matter of 
“tremendous importance” to Him, and I respect that. 

I am sorry that you feel that there is an attempt to “shut down” all 
Christian discussion of homosexuality.  I hope that I encourage 
“Christian Discussion.” 

As for those homosexuals who seek professional help to “change” (a 
euphemism for reorientation); I say, go ahead.  Let them.  If they ask 
my advice, I will tell them that they are pursuing quackery, and I will 
show them why I think that way.  If they want to pursue it, it’s no skin 
off my nose. 

I will, however, continue to speak out against those who advocate such 
quackery. 

I must point out that when I referred to “practicing pedophiles, who 
show no remorse,” I was not referring to NAMBLA.  I was referring to the 
predatory monsters that prey upon our children. 

I took your advice, and visited the NAMBLA website.  No, I did not check 
out the “stream of intellectual discussion,” because I was sure that I 
would become disturbed and angry.  I did, however, try to find the size 
of their roster.  Out of the millions and millions of gay men in North 
America, I wanted to know how many would sign on to a group like this. 

I couldn’t find it.  How many members do you think this splinter group 
has?  A couple of thousand, perhaps? 

Over the years, I have met hundreds, if not thousands of gay men.  NOT A 
SINGLE ONE of them mentioned NAMBLA in anything but a derisive tone. 
You can say, “NAMBLA, NAMBLA, NAMBLA” all day; it means nothing to me, 
or to any gay man that I have ever met. 

Sir, I respectfully request that you abstain from taking The Exception, 
and trying to make it The Norm. 

I would like to address your primary point: 

“We're teaching a lifestyle in the schools of Massachusetts which is deadlier than cigarettes.” 

That says a lot.  I don’t know how to address it all at once.  I’m 
struggling to keep my knee from jerking.  Maybe if I take it a piece at a time… 

What is a “gay lifestyle,” Mr. Pawlick?  I don’t ask this question 
idly.  Indeed, I have asked it many times before.  I have never received 
a straight answer.  Either nobody is willing to state what is a “gay 
lifestyle;” or, nobody knows what it is.  Let’s try to solve this 
mystery. 

I’m gay; I must be living a “gay lifestyle,” right?  So, a “gay 
lifestyle” must mean: Being a professional, loving one’s friends and 
family, opening one’s heart and home, being truthful, open, honest, 
fair, caring, compassionate… 

Wait.  I’m being immodest.  I do have a few close, gay friends; let’s 
look at their “lifestyles.” 

Ummm… Actually, theirs are not much different from my own.  What’s most 
noticeable is that they have been in years-long relationships, whilst I 
have not.  One’s a classically trained pianist; another’s an 
entrepreneurial graphic designer.  The others are an IBM executive, a 
computer/ chemical engineer, a student, and a Professor of Philosophy at 
a prestigious New York University. 

What do you think THEIR “gay lifestyles” are like? 

I hope you get my point, sir; I will not allow you to say that 
homosexuality is a “lifestyle.”  As I said before, “We are each and 
every one, an individual.”  “Not a monolith,” so to speak.  Do you 
agree? 
 

Finally, I must put to rest your proclamation that homosexuality is 
“more dangerous than cigarettes.” 

Your statement (according to your endnotes) is based on the work of Paul 
Cameron.  Just for reference, let us point out that Paul Cameron is a 
self-styled “expert” on homosexuality.  What makes him “an expert?” 
Well, talking about it a lot, apparently. 

In 1982, and in 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association censured him. 

In 1983, he was expelled from the American Psychological Association (APA). 

In 1984, A Texas judge charged that Cameron made “misrepresentations” to the court. 

In 1985, Cameron compared AIDS to rabies. 

In 1986, he suggested that people with AIDS be branded on their 
foreheads with the letter “A,” and be put under house arrest. 

In 1987, he stated that his goal was to “destroy homosexuality.” 

Cameron has admitted publicly that he developed his ideas about 
homosexuality before he gathered his evidence, rather than proceeding 
from the evidence to the conclusion, as most researchers are trained to 
do. (Geraldo.) 

Drs. Robert D. Brown and James K. Cole, former colleagues of Cameron, 
put it thus, “Cameron’s credibility as a scientist whose data and data 
analyses can be trusted has been seriously compromised by evidence that 
he has systematically distorted data to support assertions he has made 
regarding homosexuality.” 

(Quote) 
Text of Resolution by the American Sociological Association 

(Passed by the ASA Council at its August, 1986 meeting in New York) 

"The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states 
that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent 
misrepresentation of sociological research.  Information on this action 
and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals 
in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, 
and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological 
associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request 
that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media 
appearances." (end quote) 

Wow, that’s quite a mouthful. 

(Mr. Pawlick, are you SURE that you want THIS guy’s work to be the 
thrust of your arguments?) 

Let’s get right to the bone of Cameron’s “study:” 

“Gay men with AIDS have an average lifespan of 39 years.  Gay men 
without AIDS have an average lifespan of 41 years.”  (This is where you 
got the “more dangerous than cigarettes” argument, isn’t it?  The 
“they'll still live 30 years less than married men” argument, right?) 

How did Paul Cameron arrive at these frightening figures? 

By reading the obituary columns in gay newspapers in the mid-eighties. 

A Query: 
How can one arrive at an average LIFESPAN by reading death notices? 
Isn’t that like standing alone in a cemetery, and then publishing a 
report that one is the only living person?  Seems silly, doesn’t it? 

Did Cameron expect to find “Life Notices” in the obituaries?  “Mr. 
Smith, a gay man, has celebrated his fifty-seventh birthday by 
bench-pressing three hundred-twenty pounds?”  He didn’t interview any 
living homosexuals.  Has he never heard of a Control Group?  Can anyone 
truly believe that the ravages of AIDS would knock only two years off a 
man’s life? 

As much as I appreciate your willingness to engage in reasonable 
discourse, Mr. Pawlick, I sputter in astonishment at your reliance on 
such discredited data.  Perhaps you can begin to see why I was so… 
disturbed… at finding your discourse on the cover of a “news source” for 
so long. 

I am anxious to hear your reply. 

Mr. Pawlick Replies to TL's Second Letter: 
I am at a total loss to understand why it is obscene for me to believe that Matthew Shepard was looking for sex in Laramie, Wyoming.   We have bath-houses and homosexual bars for that very reason.  For someone who is a part of that lifestyle, there is nothing wrong with it.  Why does this raise such an emotional reaction?  Even the New York Times believes this was a valid assumption. 

As far as the Bible is concerned, you cannot quote a few “nuts” to tell me what the Bible says.  You can take the most wonderful thing in the world and attempt to destroy it if you wish.   For example, in America we have always put “motherhood” on the highest pedestal and glorified it.  And yet, there are mothers who beat their children, abandon them and even kill them.  Would you allow these bad examples to nullify your feelings about motherhood?  The same is true of the Bible.  Some of the best and some of the worst things have been done in the name of Christ.  I will continue to look at the wonderful people I have known in my life who are Christians.  You may choose to look at some of the bad people who masquerade as Christians. 

I am sorry that your “mind just shuts off” when you hear about the Bible.  It is true that Jesus wanted us to love our neighbor.  So when I see a farmer-friend of mine smoking cigarettes, should I try to get him to stop?  I believe it is a very foolish lifestyle and he knows I think so, but I can’t bug him about it, can I?   I sure would like to get him to stop, but he will not stop being my friend if he doesn’t.  But, as the former head of the Teachers Committee for  an elected  School Board for over 10,000 students, I certainly would not want him to be a teacher who is telling our children that smoking is a very wonderful thing.   How about if I see a young boy who is thinking about trying homosexuality?  Am I loving him by permitting him to start?  Would I want a teacher telling him it’s just another lifestyle choice? 

I am happy to see that you do not want to stop other homosexuals from attempting to “change.”   However, you must realize that organized, homosexual advocates are trying very hard to stop them from doing so, which is a blatant attempt to violate their civil rights. 

Although you are not a pedophile and most homosexuals are not, it is three times more common among homosexuals than among others.  And the group that is pushing it most actively with a very sophisticated website, is exclusively homosexual. 

Is this a “lifestyle?”   I attempted to use a word in my article which would not offend you.  From what little I have read on the subject, homosexuality is a wonderful life where everyone wants to be together, whether in San Francisco, Greenwich Village or Provincetown, to share this wonderful lifestyle.  We have homosexual poetry, philosophy, etc.  I did not make it a lifestyle.  The homosexuals did.  I will not use “sexual preference,” because that is obviously a word which is used to carry a connotation of approval of the practice.  It carries the idea that this is just another choice which a person makes in life.  I am at a loss as to what word to use.  I imagine that no matter what I use, someone will castigate me for it unless I submit to them and use “sexual preference.” 

 I am at a total loss to understand how you can question my statement that homosexuality is “more dangerous than cigarettes.”  For years and years, we have witnessed the tremendous rallies to “Find the Cure for AIDS.”   We heard that the homosexual community is being decimated by this disease.  And yet you question me when I agree with you.  How can you argue about that?   What about all of the other diseases which I list to which homosexuals are prone? 

Your answer to the above paragraph is to criticize Paul Cameron, who was only one of three researchers who did the research that I cited.    Obviously, I have no clue as to all of your negative comments about Cameron, but it is unnecessary to our discussion.  I must wonder, however, if everything you say is true, why were these three scholars giving a paper to the Eastern Psychological Association in 1993?  Is everyone at that Association also a “nut?”  Meanwhile, I would like to quote once again the psychiatrist Jeffery Satinover: 

“In April 1993 three researchers [including Paul Cameron] presented a paper to the Eastern Psychological Association in which they analyzed the age of death for nearly seven thousand homosexuals and heterosexuals by obituary notices in a large number of gay and a smaller number of large non-gay newspapers.  They found that the gay male lifespan, even apart from AIDS and with a long-term partner, is significantly shorter than that of married men in general by more than three decades.  AIDS further shortens the lifespan of homosexual men by more than 7 percent. 

“Because of the researcher’s [sic] rough and ready methodology, these findings have to be considered preliminary.  Their data for heterosexuals and for gay men with AIDS, however, are very close to similar data from other, more reliable and replicated sources, as are the differences found between the life spans of married and unmarried men and women.  These findings should serve as a warning about the potential seriousness of the problems associated with homosexuality and the extent of the risk that people may be taking in entering into this way of life. 

“In the current political atmosphere the whole notion that homosexuality is dangerous must appear inflammatory.  But consider for a moment.  If these findings are true (and while the life span research has only limited value, the more rigorous medical findings are incontrovertible), how could anyone with a heart for the sufferings of others stand by in silence?  Given the risk, the only ethical approach to assisting men and women who consider themselves homosexual — and especially youngsters still wrestling with their emerging sexual feelings — must at the least include a willingness to help them change not only the ‘high risk behaviors’ but the homosexual ‘orientation’ itself.  There is considerable evidence ... that homosexuality is actually no more difficult to change than the high-risk behaviors themselves.” 

A response from the Publisher.  I'd like to thank the reader for his letter.   He feels very strongly about the subject, and that is understandable.   Hopefully, he and I can carry on a reasonable dialogue.   I would like to put just a few thoughts here, but the rest of my comments will be at the bottom, after his letter.  I hope he answers my comments.  My goal in printing this piece was three-fold. 

1) What happens in a person's bedroom used to be a private matter, but we are far from the bedroom nowadays.  We're teaching that homosexuality is an attractive alternative; when, in actuality, it is a much more dangerous matter than smoking cigarettes. 

2)  Many activists are attempting to dictate that all homosexuals will be denied professional help if they attempt to change. 

3) An unfair attack on Christianity is being made in an attempt to shut down all discussion of homosexuality. 
 

TL's First Letter:  

I believe that you have displayed very poor judgment by 
posting this discourse ("An Intelligent Discussion about Homosexuality:  Will Massachusetts Listen?") on your website, then disappearing until January 
4th.  It seems that you don’t want to “discuss” anything at all, and 
would prefer to avoid reasonable responses to the innumerable 
inaccuracies, speculations, questionable and discredited statistics 
contained in your misguided disquisition. 

In my eyes, your proclamation of “the Truth” amounts to a bald-faced lie. 

I am a gay man; and I am not a member of, or a contributor to, any 
so-called “homosexual activist” group.  I am a responsible suburbanite, 
and a well-respected Investment Industry professional.  I am not: sick, 
infected, perverted, compulsive, an addict, a rapist, or a pedophile. 
Your inferences that I may be any of those things are incredibly 
disturbing. 

I was horribly offended at Part I of your so-called “In-Depth Feature 
Story.”  Constant repetition of choice phrases, and references to 
anti-gay “experts,” will not give credibility to your story. 
Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle,” a “habit,” a “behavior,” a “choice,” 
an “illness,” or a “danger to children.”   Your every reference to it as 
such become empty, meaningless comments.  Homosexuality is a normal 
sexual orientation, with ample examples occurring in the natural world. 

Personally I hope that there is NOT a "gay gene;" because it is 
frightening to think of what you, and others like you, would do with 
that information.  “Your fetus is healthy, Mrs. Jones, but he’ll be 
gay.  Would you like me to take care of that for you?”  “Yes, thank you 
doctor.” 

Even so, I believe that there often is a natural predisposition to 
homosexuality.  (I am confident that I have been gay my entire life, and 
my memory stretches back to early childhood.)  The fact that 
homosexuality becomes increasingly likely for each son that a woman 
bears lends support to the theory that there is certainly a genetic 
element, if not an actual gene. 

Modern anti-homosexual activists have been trying to “change” 
homosexuals (often forcibly) for about one hundred years.  They’ve tried 
physical and pharmaceutical castration, testicle transplants, artificial 
testosterone implants (the Nazis at Buchenwald), incarceration, drugs, 
counseling, prayer, hypnosis, and Electro-Shock Therapy.  All methods 
were (and are) miserable failures, leaving the victims psychically and/or physically scarred. 

Yet, the current crop of anti-gay activists continues to try to seduce 
more victims.  First by telling them how “sick,” “troubled,” and 
“sinful” they are, how much they need “help;” then saying, “We have the 
way!  It can be done; it’s a GREAT success!  Come to us you poor gay 
things, you sick sinners; we can straighten you right out!” 

Thanks, but; NO, thank you.  The presupposition that there is something 
wrong with me is pompous and self-serving of the Christian Radical 
Right.  I am happy and gay, and have no desire to change. 

The best scientific minds on the planet have condemned the horrible 
“reorientation therapies:” Not only because of the dismal failure rate, 
and the damage inflicted on the victims; but because, quite simply, 
there is nothing wrong with being gay. 

Anyone can change his or her behavior, but sexual orientation is NOT “a 
behavior.”  It is an essential component of one’s psyche. 

Your attempt to equate HIV and AIDS (and, astoundingly, a host of other 
diseases) with homosexuality has probably caused another thousand 
heterosexuals to become infected.  These are HUMAN diseases, as an 
unfortunately large part of southern Africa’s population is now 
demonstrating.  In some of the most anti-homosexual areas on the planet, 
as much as 25% of the populations are infected with HIV and AIDS. 
(That’s Total Population, not “Homosexual Population.”)  To blame all 
this on a minority is shortsighted, at best; and deadly to the 
misinformed masses, at worst. 

Your opening comments suggested that Education was the thrust of your 
arguments.  Yet, when you finally arrived at this crucial topic, you 
deferred to someone else for opinion.  I presume that he is the same 
Brain Camenker of Massachusetts Interfaith Coalition fame.  The one who 
has his email address listed on the Massachusetts Republican Party 
website; the leader of STAND UP, Newton, the group that fought to 
prevent the Board of Aldermen from recognizing domestic partnerships. 
The Brian Camenker who disrupted the very school committee meeting that 
he had “arranged.”  You have effectively eviscerated your own message, 
by bringing in what I see as a “one-man protest” to make your point for 
you.  I cannot take him, or you, seriously. 

And, by “gay clubs” in schools, I assume you mean “Gay-Straight 
Alliances.”  It’s no surprise that these groups, which espouse mutual 
respect and understanding, should come under attack from those who 
oppress openness, honesty, and fact. 

It is especially despicable of you to even suggest that homosexuals have 
anything to do with prison rape.   In fact, the overwhelming majority of 
male-on-male rapes victimize, and are committed by, heterosexual males. 
Likewise, the vast majorities of pedophiles identify themselves as 
heterosexual, and are remarkably indifferent to the gender of their 
victims. 

To hint that I would have even the faintest proclivity of pedophilia is 
incredibly offensive (indeed, nauseating).  I believe that pedophiles 
are sick people who need our help; and those practicing pedophiles, who 
show no remorse, are monsters that will burn in hell forever.  Unlike 
homosexuality, pedophilia is an illness and not a “sexuality.” 

I refuse to address your paranoid delusions about your competitors.  So, 
you’re not The Boston Globe.  Hooray.  It’s sad how you equate blatant 
discrimination with Free Speech; and, how you propose taking steps to 
circumvent non-discrimination regulations. 

You should have stopped at Part I.  Your Biblical arguments, predictable 
and tired, have been thoroughly refuted elsewhere.  Of course the 
current revision of the Bible “condemns” homosexuality; considering that 
it was Church leaders who interpreted it for you.  The word “homosexual” 
did not appear in ANY Bible revision until about fifty years ago. 

The Christian Right is one of the largest political lobbying groups in 
the country, and the Church is the largest landholder on Earth.  Your 
pitiable attempt at creating some great, local, anti-Christian 
conspiracy (based largely on a single article) is worthy of Oliver 
Stone. 

Finally, it is downright OBSCENE of you to suggest that Matthew Shepard 
went to that bar “looking for sex.”  Were you there?  Did he approach 
you, proposition you?  Even his MURDERERS said that he did NOT approach 
them.  They entrapped him, kidnapped, robbed, tortured and killed him. 

Your disgusting, sordid attempt to turn an innocent victim of 
cold-blooded, self-described homophobes, into some promiscuous tramp, 
has sealed your fate by me. 

I hope that all intelligent, enlightened, and informed readers will now 
join me in erasing your now-questionable “News” site from our bookmarks, 
and our memories. 

CC:  The Boston Globe, The Boston Phoenix.  The statement of the publisher 
of The Massachusetts News (referenced above) mentions your publications 
by name.  I would like you to see my response. 

Mr. Pawlick Replies to TL's First Letter:  
The reader's letter is obviously from an intelligent man.   It is not an ad hominem attack, although it does wander into that category a few times.   For example, when he talks about a "gay gene," he says, "[I]t is frightening to think of what you, and others like you..."    That is unfair.  He has no knowledge of what I would do. 

He says "there often is a natural predisposition to homosexuality."   Note that he uses the word, "often," which means there is not always a natural predisposition.  No one disagrees with his statement.   As a matter of fact, in section 3 that is stated very clearly. 

When he says that pedophiles are "monsters that will burn in hell forever," I am a little taken aback.  I do not know any of these people, but I am sure they will not agree with his statement.  If you take a look at their website,  www.nambla.org  you will discover a stream of intellectual discussion from professional type people about how this sex is a benefit to young people.   It helps their mental health, they say. 

The discussion in Part II, about Christianity, is not "a pitiable attempt at creating some great, local anti-Christian conspiracy."   We cite both of our major Boston newspapers.   We could cite more but we will be happy if we can get people to read even this much. 

It is not obscene to say that Shepard was looking for a sexual partner.   Why is that obscene?   The New York Times reported on October 16 that the girl friend of the murderers said that "the primary motive was robbery, but that he was also embarrassed when Shepard made a pass at him at the Fireside."    The Times also reported that two months before he was killed, Shepard was in an altercation with another man who claimed that Shepard approached him.  None of that is particularly surprising or the Times would not have reported it. 

When he says that the word, "homosexual," did not appear in Bibles until about fifty years ago, I fail to understand.   So what?   None of the quotations from the Bible that I used had that word at all. 

Frankly, there are many things that I would rather write about than homosexuality.  However, the successful push to get this lifestyle out of the bedroom and into the streets and schools of Massachusetts is affecting all of us.   If we do not start to talk about and teach the truth, whatever it may be, in this and other subjects, our society will be in serious trouble.