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: <180@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 13:59:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.180
Posted: Thu Sep 20 13:59:28 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 20:48:39 EDT
References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 62

[]

>> Homosexuality is a dirty, whiny, little-boy-weewee
>> kind of thing and the attempt to ennoble it with Civil Rights
>> rhetoric is a slap in the face to Martin Luther King, Theodore Herzl,
>> and others who have struggled for truly legitimate causes.
>> In your heart you know I'm right.
>> David Brunson
>
>Fine.  Now, explain to us why you feel your positions are valid, why
>people's rights to have the sexuality of their own choosing, the
>beliefs of their own choosing, etc., are not "truly legitimate causes".
>(I think asking for a logical reason behind a position is the quickest
>way to silence those who have nothing to say.)

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.

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.

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.

>As I've tried to say before, one fights for the rights of a group
>oppressed for no good reason, NOT because one wants to "liberate" a
>particular group, but rather because one wants to make sure that
>groups and individuals of any kind will no longer be oppressed for
>any reason.

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*.

>"So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither
>"No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother

Don't you want to be freed from this nightmare?

--
David Brunson

"... to relieve the pain and itch of swollen atheism"