Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rch
From: rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Message-ID: <9654@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 04:13:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.9654
Posted: Sun Sep 23 04:13:12 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 04:40:36 EDT
References: usfbobo.180, <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>
Lines: 51

In response to David Brunson's recent posting about homosexuality not
belonging in the same class with other minorities:

First, an emotional response:  GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Now, with that safely out of the way, a more intellectual response:

The destinction which was made was basically this:  homosexuals choose
there behavior, whereas blacks, women, etc, do not.

My first question is, well what about religious groups?  Jews and Moslems
can renounce their religious beliefs and practices, so does it not follow
from your argument that they, too** are not entitled to protection from
the majority?

But moreover, what relevance does this distinction make?  The point is
that these various characteristics about a person [race, religion,
orientation, favourite colour, whether or not they recognize that
Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived {he is, by the way :-)}]
are not relevant in determining what kind of legal status a person is
entitled to.  In terms of hiring, or whatever else, the relevant
critereon is *ABILITY*.  I'm very sorry if *you* don't happen to
like a persons homosexual activities, but tough shit.  I don't like the
fact that *you* don't go home every night and listen to the Emperor
Concerto (substitute punk rock, or Tibetan folk songs here if you DO indeed
go home every night and listen to the Emperor Concerto) but I have
no business denying you full legal rights or a job because of it.  The
point is that such attributes of a person, whether inherint or chosen
are they're own business and don't effect you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

** everyone is invited to note the correct usage of the word "too".  I
have just joined this net and noticed that people are often sloppy about
this, and use "to" when they mean "too".  While this may sound like
pedantic nit-picking, I am forced to point out that it can *really*
be confusing to parse.  I only bring it up because I've noticed it
repeatedly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, this posting contains my first use of the symbol :-), now that it
was recently explained on the net.  I want you to know that I feel like
a proud father!!

			Rich Yampell

[Appropriate quote to be chosen shortly, but whatever it will be, it will
NOT be from some pompous, sacred text...]

[	...or not...	]