Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <2800@allegra.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 14:06:27 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2800 Posted: Sun Sep 23 14:06:27 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 04:40:56 EDT References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>, <180@usfbobo.UUCP>, <2796@allegra.UUCP>, <183@usfbobo.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 33 > We are talking about two different groups of > people: those who say that homosexuality is a matter of "sexual > preference" and those to whom homosexuality is an abomination. > The problem is this: how can we accomodate both groups in the > same country? [Dave Brunson] Step one: Ask those who consider homosexuality an "abomination" to to explain their position. Step two: If, after long discussion, they have insulted, ridiculed, and derided homosexuals, but can offer *no* meaningful explanation, then we conclude that these are hateful, ignorant, backward people, and that gays do, in fact, need legal protection from them. You, Mr. Brunson, have insulted, ridiculed, and derided: > sins > vile and filthy thing > filthy people > dirty, whiny, little-boy-weewee kind of thing > evil > inhuman > an emotional/spiritual disease > a lie But you've offered no meaningful explanation, though you've been asked over and over again. What should we conclude? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories