Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Message-ID: <1152@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 12:29:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1152
Posted: Mon Sep 24 12:29:47 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 07:15:10 EDT
References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>, <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>, <180@usfbobo.UUCP>, <2796@allegra.UUCP> <183@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 64

> 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?

By ignoring the latter group completely, since there is no reason why
a group who simply believes something to be "an abomination" has the
right to impose that view on other people who believe otherwise, and
no reason why they should be "accommodated".  As witnessed by their
failure to offer logical reasons ("I don't like it" doesn't count.
Except to them.  An example of the limits of *their* tolerance.)

> 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.

The ultimate goal of "civil rights rhetoric" is to have a world in which
NO ONE is discriminated against for arbitrary malicious reasons (which is
the only type of reason that has been offered).  The ultimate goal is
not to include any group onto a list of "protected minorities", but rather
to eradicate malicious discrimination by people who simply don't like
certain classes of people for whatever empty reason.  In a world in which
people continue to behave with the level of consideration for other human
beings that would make Jesus Christ spin in his grave, why shouldn't you
be penalized for your malice towards groups of people who think and behave
differently than you do?

> 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.
> 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.

Apparently you also haven't learned the lesson of tolerance from that
book you keep telling the rest of us to read.  All you've gotten out
of it is a springboard for showing your supposedly higher level of
morality by decreeing that all should (must) follow it.

> 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"?

There's no need to protect such people.  If they refuse to offer consideration
to other human beings, why show any special extra consideration to them?
It's just like your examples:  blacks have no choice but to be black, so
you can't blame them for being black (blame them???), so it's wrong to
discriminate against them; on the other hand, homosexuals (and I guess
Jews, too, eh?) choose to be what they are, so it's OK to be intolerant of
them.  By your logic, you choose to be intolerant of other people for no
good reason, thus it's OK to discriminate against you.
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr