rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/24/84)
The following is a blatant attempt to influence how you vote on November 6th. It's addressed to all voters who think they may vote for Reagan, but especially to closet Republicans, [Ll]ibertarians, and gay people. (The views expressed herein are my own, & not those of my employer.) To my mind the foremost reason for not reinstating Ronnie is his inveterate homophobia. I wish to dissuade voters who entertain any of the following notions: 1) Reagan is personally a Nice Guy, free of prejudice himself, but politically allied with conspicuous homophobes, whom he ignores or tries to contain; 2) Reagan's a bigot, but also a staunch defender of privacy and unhampered free enterprise; this, say Libertarians, makes civil rights laws redundant & unnecessary (& obnoxious); 3) Reagan is a nasty idiot, who can't tell an "individual right" from a hole-in-the-wall, but the direction or EFFECT of his administration is beneficial. No matter how dreadful specific Reagan policies, programs, or appointees are, a net good must result. In defense of 1)-3), one could cite two actions: -- In 1978, in his newspaper column, Reagan was the first major California politician to publically oppose the Briggs Initia- tive (which would have allowed local school boards to dismiss teachers "advocating sexual lifestyle", a phrase which was left undefined). Reagan was out of office then, with no constituents to answer to; opposition to the Initiative didn't necessarily imply tolerance, but rather a desire not to undercut teachers' authority & most educational and teachers' organizations had already come out publically against the initiative (with an eye to his political future, Reagan may've wished to conciliate(?) California educators, whom he'd utterly alienated as governor by making godawful John Bircher Max Rafferty education czar). -- It is said (this isn't more than a rather pious rumor) that Reagan helped to kill Roger Jepsen's bizarre Family Protection Act by in- action, etc. (A third matter, Terry Dolan's giving THE ADVOCATE, a gay biweekly, an interview 2 years ago, for which he caught a lot of flak from other Reagan supporters, is in the realm of PR, a pretty shaky basis for a belief in Reagan's tolerance). The truth is that appeal to antihomosexual bigotry has been a staple of Reagan's political career from its very outset. In 1967 he cam- paigned for governor of California largely by obsessively charging that the University of California at Berkeley was a "hotbed of homo- sexuality & communism". This "queer smear" derived entirely from a nonviolent & rather minor campus controversy: the editor-in-chief of the undergraduate paper, The Daily Califorian, had published a series of articles on homosexuals in the Bay Area. The series was done in an objective, social-scientific vein (the editor was a sociology major). University regents, as timid as ever, ousted him from the editorship, but the student senate (I think) reinstated him. Big deal. Apparently Reagan thought it was, especially for his political ambitions: he won the election. In 1967 no New Right existed, and the far right had virtually no power or influence, even locally. Reagan could not have then been the poli- tical captive of militantly homophobic supporters. Altho' fagbaiting is a venerable tradition in American politics, usually employed in the desperate final days of a losing campaign to slander opponents by innu- endo, few politicians have made the blatant, indiscriminate, repeated, & lengthy use of it that Ronald Reagan has. CONTINUED: MORE DIRT TOMORROW Cheers, Ron Rizzo "Why, dahling! The Left is what's left over, the Right is what's wrong, & the Middle-Of-The-Road is no place for a lady." -- Electra Collage, Miss Ballot-box of 1947 Washington, AC/DC
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/25/84)
Good Grief. Cant you people ever realize that some of us have religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality? Certainly if a covicted rapist were wandering about trying to get special protection, most people would fight against this. And thats the same way with this homosexual rights movement (gay is a colloquialism design to be more palatable), and people who feel like I do will deal with it accordingly. Everyone has the right to their own lifestyle, but they also must face the consequences of their decisions. I wont discriminate against someone in the workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society from considering this a normal sort of thing. IKts about time people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act of perversion of nature. Milo
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (10/25/84)
>From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) >Good Grief. Cant you people ever realize that some of us have >religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason >to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality? > >I wont discriminate against someone in the >workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society >from considering this a normal sort of thing. IKts about time >people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act >of perversion of nature. > Here's a man who's past ten or so submissions *defend* nuclear weapons and *he's* talking about "perversion of nature"? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps you can explain to me how one avoids discrimination while at the same time making statements like "I will fight to keep society from considering this a normal sort of thing?" Kind of a "separate but equal" doctrine. Or rather, separate but unequal. What religion is it, Milo, that teaches such intolerance? Mike Kelly
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/26/84)
> Good Grief. Cant you people ever realize that some of us have > religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason > to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality? [MILO MEDIN] What gives any belief system (or any group of adherents to a belief system) the right to "denormalize"/outlaw/prohibit any set of behaviors that doesn't interfere with or harm other human beings? If anybody has that "right" now, it's a right worth taking away. > Certainly if a covicted rapist were wandering about trying to get > special protection, most people would fight against this. And thats > the same way with this homosexual rights movement (gay is a > colloquialism design to be more palatable), and people who > feel like I do will deal with it accordingly. If the prison system had the means to truly psychologically rehabilitate rapists/murderers/ALL those who feel they have some sort of right to interfere in other people's lives, then "protection" for such rehabilitated people would be warranted, NOT to allow them to re-engage in their anti-human activities, but rather to live their lives in peace. What anti-human activities are homosexuals guilty of? (By the way, I thought "gay" was used not to make things more "palatable" for those like you---it hasn't and it won't---but rather as a self-descriptive term to provide a positive self-image for gay people, as opposed to the malicious and/or more clinical terms.) > I wont discriminate against someone in the > workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society > from considering this a normal sort of thing. Let's also be sure to make sure that anything else that we "just don't like" is also not considered by "society" to be "a normal sort of thing". ("Get that raw fish and seaweed out of your mouth---you're goin' to jail!") > It's about time people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act > of perversion of nature. I assume the author is referring to his own vindictive arbitrary hatred. Disgust is in the eye of the beholder. What give such beholders the right to impose behavior standards on beholdees? And, if nature is "what happens in the real world", how can anything that actually happens be a perversion of nature? Or are only one person's specific views on what is "natural" the basis for guidelines? -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/28/84)
> Cant you people ever realize that some of us have > religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason > to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality? Yes, I do. But that is not enough. Some religious groups oppose dancing, Christmas trees, drinking any alcohol, etc .... And I assume it is their Covenant with God to choose not to do these things, which is their Constitiutionally protected right which I, too, will defend. Your relationship with your deity is entirely your own business. However, you do not have the right to keep me from dancing, setting up Christmas trees, or drinking alcohol, because my relationship to my deity is entirely my business, not yours. Religious freedom implies religious tolerance. > Certainly if a convicted rapist were wandering about trying to get > special protection, most people would fight against this. And thats > the same way with this homosexual rights movement [...] No, your analogy fails here. A rapist physically violates the security of another human being without their consent. Homosexual activity is done with the consent of the parties envolved (NB: if it isn't done with consent that's rape, too, and should be punished accordingly). In California, the Legislature has decided that sexual acts between consenting adults (of unspecified gender) are not illegal. I suspect other states have passed similar laws. > [...] Everyone has the right > to their own lifestyle, but they also must face the consequences > of their decisions. No argument from me here. (Homosexuals have plenty to worry about of which I'm sure they are aware). > I wont discriminate against someone in the > workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society > from considering this a normal sort of thing. I'm glad you will not discriminate in the workplace on this issue. But you aren't asked to consider this sort of thing as normal. You aren't even asked to like it. The only thing reasonably expected from you is to live in harmony with others, and to be tolerant of those who are different from you, that's all. I'm sure you'd want the same treatment, no? > It's about time > people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act > of perversion of nature. OK, let's say it is. Let's say that picking my nose is a disgusting act of perversion of nature. Whatever. That's your choice to see it that way. You don't have to like that, either. But at least allow other people to be different from you. If you can show me how you feel that homosexuality hurts you personally I'd like to dicuss that, too. -- ~ Oh, friends, no more of these sad tones! ~ Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/28/84)
First of all, this seperate but unequal stuff is BS. Black people arent doing anything wrong by being black. Race is no reason to segregate, and the Bible says nothing about people of different races being inferior, quite on the contrary, it calls for brotherhood and equality in God's sight. There is no excuse for rascism, its a sin just like homosexuality. But homosexuality is a sin, and we should treat it that way and say that its ok. All this talk about people being born homosexuals is just BS. Its a diliberate act of choice. And as such, its a violation of God's laws. Period. Now a homosexual can realize he's sinning and repent, and ask for forgiveness just like any Christian has done. We all sin, the difference is whether you admit to the sin and are sorry, or you blatently declare that you are not breaking law. And thats what I am opposed to, because once society views homosexuality as being normal, its not considered a sin, and therefore man views get more and more seperated from God's view. That's my point. Thats the reason I wouldnt discriminate against a homosexual, because people have the freedom to do what they want, and suffer the consequences, good or bad. But its the societal impact that I'm concerned with. With regards to my debate on nuclear weapons, I am not advocating war, no sane person would do that. What I am advocating is rationality in dealing with the issue. And its this sort of fuzzy thinking about casualities by SEVENER types, devoid of any facts or rationale, that causes stupid actions on the part of the U.S. which weaken our national security and make the world that more dangerous. Its a call for rationality. Because its that rationality which keeps the peace. And its peace that I am arguing for, real peace, not the illusion of it. And I think Peace is a very Christian thing to advocate. Milo
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (10/29/84)
In article <2877@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes (Milo's statements are preceded by '>+>' ): >+> First of all, this seperate but unequal stuff is BS. Black people >+> arent doing anything wrong by being black. Race is no reason >+> to segregate, and the Bible says nothing about people of different races >+> being inferior, quite on the contrary, it calls for brotherhood and >+> equality in God's sight. There is no excuse for rascism, its a >+> sin just like homosexuality. But homosexuality is a sin, and >+> we should treat it that way and say that its ok. All this talk >+> about people being born homosexuals is just BS. Its a diliberate act >+> of choice. And as such, its a violation of God's laws. Period. One of these days, we'll all 'wake up' and be able to separate sexuality from religion. Milo, I don't follow what you're saying here. Racism is discrimiation against someone on the basis of his/her skin color or national origin. Homosexuality is not discrimination, unless you claim that I am discriminating against a straight woman by not going to bed with her. :-) >+> Now a homosexual can realize he's sinning and repent, and ask for >+> forgiveness just like any Christian has done. We all sin, the difference >+> is whether you admit to the sin and are sorry, or you blatently declare >+> that you are not breaking law. And thats what I am opposed to, because once >+> society views homosexuality as being normal, its not considered >+> a sin, and therefore man views get more and more seperated from God's >+> view. That's my point. Thats the reason I wouldnt discriminate >+> against a homosexual, because people have the freedom to do what >+> they want, and suffer the consequences, good or bad. But its >+> the societal impact that I'm concerned with. First, I would much rather do my own thinking than have God do my thinking for me. Second, if people have the freedom to do what they want, why are you so concerned about what they do? As long as they are not trying to force their views upon you, they should be free to do as they wish. As a gay male, and as a person of color, I don't believe that because I am gay (or Black), I have a 'right' to certain things. However, I do believe that as an American, I have a 'right' to freedom of association, job opportunity, etc. Finally, I invite you to elaborate on the 'societal impact' of not viewing homosexuality as a sin. Oh yeah, almost forgot. I plan to vote for Reagan. -- >> don't shoot me, I'm just trying to be rational ... << Mike Simpson, BBN msimpson@bbnccf (Arpanet/Internet/CSNet) {decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,masscomp,sunybcs,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet) 617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/30/84)
. > I wont discriminate against someone in the >workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society >from considering this a normal sort of thing. IKts about time >people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act >of perversion of nature. > > Milo I have to disagree with your last statement. There are instances where homosexual activity has been observed in the animal kingdom. There were some articles in net religion about it last year. I am trying to look them up for you. My real point, however, is that it does happen in animals as well as people. If that be the case, then you cannot call it a "perversion of nature." -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/01/84)
From Milo:
"All this talk about people being born homosexuals is just
BS. It's a deliberate act of choice."
Do you say that from personal experience ;-), or did GOD tell you
it was so?
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcyali@utai.UUCP (Yawar Ali) (11/07/84)
> ..................................................All this talk > about people being born homosexuals is just BS. Its a diliberate act > of choice. And as such, its a violation of God's laws. Period. > ........................................................................... > With regards to my debate on nuclear weapons, I am not advocating war, no > sane person would do that. What I am advocating is rationality > in dealing with the issue. And its this sort of fuzzy thinking about > casualities by SEVENER types, devoid of any facts or rationale, > that causes stupid actions on the part of the U.S. which weaken > our national security and make the world that more dangerous. > Its a call for rationality. Because its that rationality which keeps > the peace. And its peace that I am arguing for, real peace, not the > illusion of it. And I think Peace is a very Christian thing to advocate. > > Milo Mr. Medin would seem to be hoist upon his own petard. On the one hand, he rants and raves about the need for "rationality" and hard, scientific data on various claims that are made about the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons. Yet, he seems to have no inhibitions, whatsoever, against claiming factual status for his own, unsupported speculations about the factors that determine sexual orientation. Where is the scientific data, the "numbers" that back up Mr. Medin's assertions? Or are we to fall back upon "God's laws" for the rationale here? Yawar Ali Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Toronto { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!utai!yali
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (The human frog) (11/08/84)
> > Good Grief. Cant you people ever realize that some of us have > > religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason > > to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality? [MILO MEDIN] > > What gives any belief system (or any group of adherents to a belief > system) the right to "denormalize"/outlaw/prohibit any set of behaviors > that doesn't interfere with or harm other human beings? If anybody > has that "right" now, it's a right worth taking away. > Rich, I think you're a little confused here. I'm surprised you haven't heard about the small sect of Californians who consider being gay to be of high religious significance. Their fight against the normalization procedure is simply to preserve purity of form. The only problem that I can see with this is that their views become so introverted that they lose the part of their brains' that are used for spelling and grammar. > > Certainly if a covicted rapist were wandering about trying to get > > special protection, most people would fight against this. And thats > > the same way with this homosexual rights movement (gay is a > > colloquialism design to be more palatable), and people who > > feel like I do will deal with it accordingly. > > If the prison system had the means to truly psychologically rehabilitate > rapists/murderers/ALL those who feel they have some sort of right to > interfere in other people's lives, then "protection" for such > rehabilitated people would be warranted, NOT to allow them to re-engage > in their anti-human activities, but rather to live their lives in peace. > What anti-human activities are homosexuals guilty of? (By the way, I > thought "gay" was used not to make things more "palatable" for those > like you---it hasn't and it won't---but rather as a self-descriptive term > to provide a positive self-image for gay people, as opposed to the malicious > and/or more clinical terms.) > Rich, I think you've missed the point. The point Milo makes about convicted rapists clearly and convincingly proves that special rehabilitation centers should be established for gays. That is why we have begun the Discipline Center for Correct Thought. Our first location will be in San Francisco. What's more, the term gay simply came from the creators being 'a'ltered g'u'ys; thus 'gays'. I'm sure Milo knew this. > > I wont discriminate against someone in the > > workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society > > from considering this a normal sort of thing. > > Let's also be sure to make sure that anything else that we "just don't > like" is also not considered by "society" to be "a normal sort of thing". > ("Get that raw fish and seaweed out of your mouth---you're goin' to jail!") > Rich, I just don't see what raw fish has to do with Ronald Reagan. > > It's about time people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act > > of perversion of nature. > > I assume the author is referring to his own vindictive arbitrary hatred. > Disgust is in the eye of the beholder. What give such beholders the right > to impose behavior standards on beholdees? And, if nature is "what happens > in the real world", how can anything that actually happens be a perversion > of nature? Or are only one person's specific views on what is "natural" the > basis for guidelines? > -- Rich, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think it's quite obvious that a bee keeper should be able to enforce how visitors hold his bees. Milo has hit the nail on the head; but then I don't suppose you've ever had a bee drop pollen on you. Take my word for it, it is truly a "disgusting of perversion of nature." > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/09/84)
I would hold that it is not morally justifiable for society to pass laws which explictly impose sanctions upon any individuals who perform acts privately between consenting adults, even if it is "disgusting". If God doesn't like it, let him undertake to do the punishing. Conversely, I believe that is is justifiable to prevent them from promulgating homosexuality, or other deviations, in the public schools. However, it is likewise not justifiable to force a private businessman (or churches) to hire homosexuals, especially those whose outward behavior is flamboyant or offensive to his customers. He should be able to choose his own employees according to what he feels suits his needs.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/13/84)
Well, lets get it clear here. MY arguments with regards to Nuclear strategy and homosexuality are totally disconnected. You can look at many facts and historical evidence with regards to strategic questions. You have no such guide when dealing with the origins of homosexuality. Now, I thought I made my points clear enough regarding why I feel the way I do about homosexuality, and why I am concerned about its societal effects. My faith is a very rationale thing for me. I see the Bible as being very consistent with itself, but I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to 'prove' the Bible or my faith to anyone, thats not my role in the scheme of things. I could talk about how almost all religions condemn homosexuality or that its inconsistent with procreation, but I'm not because the folks on this news group are sick and tired of discussions on this topic. I will respond to personal mail, but this is the wrong newsgroup to discuss this in. Milo
jsol@bbncca.ARPA (Jon Solomon) (11/13/84)
Sigh, would someone enlighten me as to why most religious people refuse to
justify their religion? I think it would be most amusing to see someone try
to justify why their religion is the only religion :-)
--
[--JSol--]
JSol@Bbncca (Internet)
{decvax, wjh12, linus}!bbncca!jsolkay@flame.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (11/14/84)
[nibble, nibble] >Conversely, I believe that is is justifiable to prevent them >from promulgating homosexuality, or other deviations, in >the public schools. Fine, OK, justify it. >However, it is likewise not justifiable to force a private >businessman (or churches) to hire homosexuals, especially those whose >outward behavior is flamboyant or offensive to his customers. Who said anything about forcing anyone to hire homosexuals? There can't be many jobs that require the employment of a homosexual, per se; one usually merely requires the services of an employee. Kay. -- "Serendipity: finding something useful on the net" ... mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!kay
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (11/14/84)
(......)
Even though some people aren't the most practicing members of their religious
groups, they still hold their religious beliefs/socio-moral beliefs and as such
cramming the acceptibility of homosexuality down their throats would be highly
distasteful, at best (No pun intended). It took thousands of years for our
society to evolve to its present level; to expect overt public acceptance of
homosexuality immediately is unwise, if not downright foolish. My own religious
beliefs consider homosexuality an "abomination"; nevertheless, for me to public-ly announce this through various media would be forcing my beliefs on everyone
else, a wrong unto itself. The discussions on this net should be kept as free
of religious issues as possible; that's why we have net.religion, anyway. To
force belief/value systems on anyone is not the purpose of this net, mature
discussion is!
"Let's be careful out there..."
A. J. Rowley
--
There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark...
-"Eclipse", Pink Floyd