Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ag5
From: ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Message-ID: <505@pucc-i>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 15:45:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.505
Posted: Sat Sep 22 15:45:19 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 05:41:38 EDT
References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP> <180@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: Bozo Squad Headquarters
Lines: 73
<>
>> = remarks from David Brunson
>> (ihnp4!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson)
>>The specific objection (as I have very *clearly* stated before)
>>is to legislation of a "Civil Rights" flavor that would protect
>>homosexuals in the same way that racial minorities are protected.
>>Even more specifically: hiring/enrollment/membership quotas.
>>The concept of "sexual preference" as minority identification is
>>completely bogus and should not be afforded the same status as
>>*real* minority identification.
It seems to me that we haven't gotten as specific as you seem
to think. I don't think that gays want legislation of this flavor.
What we do want to see is *human rights*. Perhaps if gays were
treated like others, then I expect that the quotas which you mention
will be unnecessary.
>>A person *is* black. A person *is* hispanic, and so on. A person
>>*is not* homosexual. Homosexuality is an emotional/spiritual disease
>>which a person can be cured from. As such, *people* should not be
>>*forced* to agree that those practicing homosexuality should be accorded
>>the same non-discriminatory treatment as members of legitimate *racial*
>>minorities.
Homosexuality can be cured?? Do you *really* believe this?
Do you really think that modern medicine/psychology/psychiatry can
cure homosexuality? Perhaps a better question is: "Do you think that
any of these disciplines can offer a treatment to make heterosexuals
into gays??"
>>If you do not agree that homosexuality is a disease then you *must*
>>agree that it is possible for a person to practice homosexuality
>>and then to renounce it (sort of like smoking cigarettes :-)). This
>>is a very different thing from *being* black, hispanic, or whatever.
>>Again, homosexuality is *behavior*; NOT a state of being. Employers
>>who find this sort of behavior objectionable should be free to treat
>>it as objectionable behavior.
Yeah, I suppose it is. Conversely, it is possible for straights
to renounce their heterosexuality (some religious nuns, priests, brothers,
etc. do this on a regular basis). Does this renunciation of their sexual
nature make them any less heterosexual?? I don't think so.
As for an employer's right to treat homosexuality as an
"objectionable behavior," it seems to me that he should only treat
this as an objectionable behavior **IF IT INTERFERES WITH THE
EMPLOYEE'S PRODUCTIVITY**! Many straight couples have marriage
problems, and this is often considered an "objectionable behavior"
by many groups. Nevertheless, the employer is not involved unless
the marriage problems start affecting the work produced by the
employee.
>>Your characterization of homosexuals (remember! "homosexuals"
>>is shorthand for "persons who practice homosexuality") as an
>>oppressed group is laughable. What about other "oppressed groups":
>>murderers, thieves, drug addicts, atheists. In some cases the
>>oppression is entirely self-imposed; in others the oppression is
>>directly inflicted by other people as a reaction to *objectionable
>>behavior*.
Objectionable behavior? In many cases, this judgement of
objectionable behavior comes from those who claim that they do not
judge. Funny, huh? (BTW, not all gays practice homosexuality;
some are quite good at it. ;-})
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is bliss, but it's revelation is not."