Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Message-ID: <183@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 02:12:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.183
Posted: Sun Sep 23 02:12:34 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 06:58:45 EDT
References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>, <180@usfbobo.UUCP>, <2796@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 76

[]

>> (I think asking for a logical reason behind a position is the quickest
>> way to silence those who have nothing to say.)  [Rich Rosen]
>
>Unfortunately, in Dave Brunson's case, asking for logical reasons
>just leads to a 62 line article without a single one.  Sigh...

Ooops!  Sorry about that!  The only thing I know about logic is
what I learned in a course called "Logic Design".  Something about
NAND gates and adders and stuff.  They didn't talk about "logical
arguments".  If you say the reasons aren't "logical", you probably
know better than me.

>I think Dave's hatred is much too deeply ingrained to allow him to
>explain or question it.

This is the second time I've seen this hatred thing.  Jerry Nowlin
said something similar.  I definitely hate lies and sometimes react
viscerally against them (having seen the disastrous results that 
acceptance of lies has had in my own life and the lives of some of
my friends).  As far as I know this is a virtue.  Let me know if
you can correct me on this.

As for the explanation: what I'm after is a discussion on the
limits of "tolerance".  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?

The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil
rights legislation.  If you would include homosexuals as a minority
under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize
those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals.  Is this
a good thing?  Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example.

Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government
has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
One of my employees comes out of the closet.  I confront him
about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in homosexual
acts and intends to continue doing so.  Being a caring, loving
person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged
and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire him.  He goes
to the local Labor Relations Board (or whatever) and reports me.
A few days later a social worker comes out to the office and the
following dialogue happens:
--
"Mr. Brunson, we've just gotten a complaint that you've terminated
an employee, a Mr. Jones, without adequate reason.  Can you explain?"

"Sure, always glad to help the government!  Mr. Jones practices
homosexuality.  I found out about it and fired him!"

"Mr. Brunson, it is my duty to advise you that unless you reinstate
Mr. Jones immediately, you are subject to [lawsuits, fines, whatever].
Will you comply?"

"Not until he *repents*."

"Ahh, I see."  [scribbles something in a notebook and leaves]
--
Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals?  Suppose I work in
a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual
businessmen?  Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in
counseling sessions?  That won't work.  I've already had 16 years
of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet.

Here's the issue:  do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever
that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority.  Why?  What
specifically do you propose?  How will you simultaneously protect those
who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"?

--
David Brunson,  A nice guy.  Really.