From:    Chris Sonnack
To:      Janet
Subject: Homo- Hetro- Whatever-

 JG> I find it to be the utmost in heterosexist arrogance to conduct
 JG> a discussion on this topic and not on the opposite. That is to
 JG> say, as a lesbian I DO NOT accept that heterosexuality is the norm
 JG> by which all other sexual orientations are to be judged. Why don't
 JG> we have a little discourse on the causes of HETEROSEXUALITY,...

 What drives people's sexuality is a worthwhile discussion any time,
 and both sides of the coin offer rich earth.  But as you said in a
 different post....

 Let's get something, um, 'straight' here. (Grin)  We're here to have
 this discussion because throughout millions of years of evolution
 hetrosexuality HAS BEEN THE NORM (maybe you should define what you
 mean by "norm"?).

 But just because nature has a        +
 definite kind of model in mind     H |@ @ @  @  @  @   @   @
 doesn't mean at all that She       o |@@ @  @  @  @     @      @
 intends for all Her works to       m |@@@ @  @  @  @   @   @
 be like that model.  Nature        o |@@@@  @   @  @ @  @  @   @
 doesn't view life as ultimate      - |@@@ @ @ @  @ @@ @  @  @
 goals to achieve, but infinite       |@ @ @  @  @ @@@@@@ @  @  @
 paths to travel.  Like in the        | @  @   @  @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @
 vectors to the right------------>    |@     @   @@@@@@@@@@@ @  @  @
 People are spread all over the       |   @    @ @@@@@@@@@@@ @  @  @
 place, but there's a tendancy        O-----------------------------+
 for Her to put Her people where                              Hetro-
 they have a chance of continuing
 the race.

 So lighten up, it's not arrogance, so much as that it's pretty typical
 to discuss something in terms of why something ELSE happens rather than
 what USUALLY happens.  (Talking about what USUALLY happens is still
 valuable, though.)