[net.religion] Brunson on "accepting" people

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/84)

> So homosexuals are homosexual from birth.  Fine.  Now explain why
> people intolerant of homosexuality are not that way from birth.
> (please don't -- there's enough boredom in this group as it is).
> It still comes down to the issue very narrowly and precisely stated
> above.  One of the parties must be aggrieved and the other vindicated.
> The obvious intention is to "prove" that homosexuals are a sort of
> race -- similar to blacks, and they should therefore come under the
> Civil Rights umbrella.  I don't accept that.  Why can't we remain 
> pluralistic?  Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on me through
> legislation?  Are you sure that you want this to come down to a power
> struggle?

As if we needed MORE evidence that Brunson was Ken Arndt in disguise.  It
seems, to Mr. Brunson, that one needs to "prove" one's "legitimacy" as a
human being before one is to be "accepted" (by whom?).  Blacks and other
minorities have worked hard and long to do this, and this validates them
(their hands have been stamped, apparently) as real human beings in Brunson's
eyes.  But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount
of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes.  For the N+1th time, the
goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case
basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the
ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as
human beings.  If you would deny someone housing/employment/loans due to some
vindictive arbitrary dislike that YOU might have, that is clearly
discriminatory.  It's not a question of adding new validated groups to an
accepted list (though that's what Brunson does, putting Jews high on this
"OK peoples" list because he thinks this will get him into heaven), it's a
question of not discriminating against ANYONE based on arbitrary dislike.
And your whole argument consists of nothing but your arbitrary dislike.

> "Which of you convicts me of sin?"

And who gave you the right to convict others of (your own arbitrary definition
of) sin?
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr