Re: I didn't want to have to write this

[THRH79B@prodigy.com ( KELLY D GILES I)]

>Second of all, what's wrong with being upset by Pete's homosexual
>tendencies?

It smacks of bigotry, that's what's wrong with it.  We're all Who 
fans here, and I can well understand that 
many of us are curious about the lives of Pete and Roger and John and 
Keith.  I personally don't think 
there's anything wrong with wanting to know the names of Roger's 
children, or the date that Keith died, or 
even Pete's sexual preferences.  But these little facts don't really 
have any bearing upon our lives.  
Unless you are planning to have sex with Pete in the near future, I 
don't see that you have any right or reason to be upset.

>Therefor, if Pete is gay (a point which
>I am still not completely convinced about though I am being more 
and
>more convinced as these posts continue), it really does change
>the music itself!

It might change the way you feel about the music or the performer, 
but the music itself is the same.  "Quadrophenia" would still be a 
great album if Pete only enjoyed having sex with the purple people of 
Planet X.  If I had lots of bad feelings towards the purple people 
and those who love them, then I might not want to listen to 
"Quadrophenia", but it would be me that was different, not the music.


>For those of us who have no homosexual tendencies
>whatsoever, there is a great barrier between us and a gay rock star,

>especially if a lot of the rock star's material is about romantic
>relationships.

I hope, for their sake, that none of your friends or relatives are 
homosexual.  If you feel there is a barrier between you and a person 
you have never even met just because their sexual preferences might 
not be exactly the same as yours, then I shudder to think how you 
would react if you KNEW someone close to you was gay.

If Pete was gay and you never knew, would the barrier still be there? 
 I don't think so.  The problem isn't HIM, it's YOU.

- -Yellow "Water" Ledbetter