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... ]