brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/04/84)
[] Old business: Can we PLEASE stick to the subject??!? I don't care what you do or don't think a Christian should be. I don't care about ignorant speculation on the character of Y'shua. The question before the house has been very narrowly put and the usefulness of this discussion depends on keeping it that way. Let me say it again. Maybe this time it will stick. There are 2 people involved in our proposed civil dispute. One is a homosexual looking for a job. The other is an employer who refuses to hire homosexuals. One party in the dispute will be vindicated, the other condemned. Under current law, the employer will be vindicated and the homosexual condemned. Some would have this reversed. Since you want to change things, the burden is on you to explain to us why you want the change. I submit that no matter what you think a Christian should or shouldn't be like (who said the employer has to be a Christian?) it is morally WRONG to favor a homosexual and penalize IN ANY WAY, whether by jail or lawsuit, the employer who would discriminate against him. You are lightly talking about throwing a (presently) law-abiding human being in jail or forcing him out of business. I'll say it again. It doesn't matter WHY the employer wants to discriminate. It doesn't matter whether he is or isn't a Christian. The question boils down to one of right and wrong. Is it right to penalize someone who refuses to hire homosexuals? Why? Earlier in the discussion someone said that he would inform his business associates of the discriminatory actions of the employer and encourage them to boycott him. I have no objection to this at all. It allows for pluralism. Why can't the rest of you be satisfied with this? Why do you have to change the laws of the country to force your morality on the rest of us? New business: 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? >--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") >There are people whose religious beliefs dictate that widows should be burned >alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands.* There are people whose >religious beliefs dictate that blacks are inherently inferior and that racial >discrimination is justified. There are people whose religious beliefs support >terrorism and holy war. > >There are also people whose religious beliefs dictate that all men are >brothers, that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and that if we try >hard enough we can live in peace. > >Religion can take many forms and can be an integral part of the best and the >worst in humanity. When it works for the good, I believe in giving religious >belief the utmost respect. But when it works for fear, hatred and oppression, >religious belief deserves only one thing: toleration. > >I am willing to let you believe in your homophobic religion as you see fit, >but I'll be damned if I'll respect your homophobia merely because it is based >on "religious belief." This was not a direct reply to my comments but it appears to be relevant. First of all, the term "homophobic" is ridiculous. There is no "phobia" about it. Secondly, you aren't saying anything. What do you mean when you say you are "willing to let you believe in your homophobic religion as you see fit"? Are you conceding the inappropriateness of legislating "Gay Rights"? If so, why don't you just say it plainly? And what do you mean when you say "I'll be damned if I'll respect your homophobia merely because it is based on 'religious belief'"? I'm not asking you to respect my belief. Only to tolerate it. You seem to say that you are willing to tolerate a belief that "works for fear, hatred and oppression". I have no idea what sort of belief you are talking about, but what EXACTLY do you mean by "toleration"? -- David Brunson "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/07/84)
It's important to get one point clear: the issue of "choice" surrounding
one's identification as a gay person is IRRELEVANT to any discussion of its
ethics or morality. Something objectively considered "bad" simply does not
become "good" because the agent exercises no free will. I fear that those
who would make a case for the "But-I-was-born-this-way" argument are
unwittingly using the same arguments as Brunson and his kind: weak
arguments which presuppose that being gay is inherently bad. To argue from
that point is to concede the discussion from the beginning. The
existential state of having a sexual preference for others of the same sex
is morally and ethically neutral. "Choice" has nothing whatsoever to say
about it. There are gay people who have been involved in heterosexual
relationships, but who have "chosen" their gay relationships and there are
others who have always limited their relationships to the same sex. Is one
group "better" than another? Of course not!
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA