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"