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!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <190@usfbobo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 05:30:10 EDT Article-I.D.: usfbobo.190 Posted: Tue Oct 2 05:30:10 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 07:23:11 EDT Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa Lines: 70 [] Some random commentary. > Again, I believe that you have a right to be wrong. If I >were denied a contract by you simply because of my homosexuality, >I would immediately begin notifying other people I did business >with and urge them not to do business with you. This is an entirely reasonable approach. I have no problem with it at all. > My proposition is that race, color, sexual orientation or >preference, creed, etc. should be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in dealing >with another person. One should only be concerned with >another's ability. And my proposition is that race, color, *most* creeds should be irrelevant, but not "sexual preference". Discrimination against persons because they are black or jewish or arab is an abomination, just as granting homosexuals, adulterers, and other aberrant individuals "rights" is an abomination. >The crucial point is abuse of power. The same way you should not fire someone >for being black, Jewish, or a Democrat, if that doesn't concern the job. >Don't forget, people can be Jewish or Democrats by choice. If you belong to >the Nth Church of Rightwing Reactionary Theology,you still shouldn't fire them, >the same way politicians shouldn't be allowed to fire Civil Service employees >of the other party, and the same way Hitler shouldn't have placed Jews, >homosexuals and other minorities into concentration camps. I am not advocating discrimination against blacks, jews, or democrats. If I were a black, jew, or democrat, I would be outraged by this association. This is an example of a tactic that is frequently used by the homosexual activist. The public is supposed to be so conditioned that the word "discrimination" triggers a Pavlovian association with Hitler, concentration camps, persecution of Jews. Jews should be indignant at being placed in the same fraternal brotherhood of sufferers as homosexuals. Are they? I'd be interested to know. > In any event, sooner or later you run into >the problem of where to draw the line at your intolerance. Should you stop at >denying them jobs? Liberty? Life? At what point do you stop "aiding and >abbetting the enemy" if not by exterminating them? There is no problem with where to draw the line. I draw it at civil rights legislation for homosexuals. The rest of your paranoia is unjustified. next article: >Deciding what is right and what is wrong is terribly difficult. >However, once a society, or an individual, decides what it will >consider wrong, I believe it's easy enough to divide those acts >considered wrong into two categories: > > Type 0 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts > another person. > > Type 1 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts > oneself, or [for the religious] because it is unpleasing > to God. How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not anyone else. -- David Brunson "Which of you convicts me of sin?"