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.