rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/84)
> The fact is that 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.) 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. As such, the fact that people seem to have to fight for these things anew with each generation is the real "slap in the face" of the aforementioned people. (Of course, that's why social reformers of the '60s are the YUPPIES of today, who find it no longer appropriate to fight for the personal freedoms of others because they've gotten theirs---along with their Cuisinarts... ) -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/18/84)
re: > The fact is that homosexuality is a dirty, whiny, little-boy-weewee > kind of thing... > >Ah, nothing like high-level debate, citing generally accepted "facts"... Sorry about that. I realized only after posting that the phrase "The fact is that" should have been deleted. With that one correction the rest of it stands as is. Let me know if you find any other errors. > In your heart you know I'm right. > >I laughed at this slogan when it was part of a political advertising campaign; >I see no reason to accord it any more respect now. I'm glad you liked it! I thought about using the "smiley face" but that wouldn't have had quite the desired effect. -- David Brunson "May I help you?" "Please." "Thank-you!" "You're welcome."
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (09/18/84)
REFERENCE: <174@usfbobo.UUCP> Your "tolerance" merely shows that you're on an aptly named system--bobo! (Or should that be "bozo"?) (I'd include the original message, but I don't know how yet.)
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (09/20/84)
<<It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.>>
Maybe the issue here shouldn't be *gay* rights or *women's* rights,
but HUMAN rights?? We all go on about this issue in reference to other
countries, but we haven't got our own act straightened out yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is bliss, but it's revelation is not."brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/20/84)
[] >> 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"
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (09/21/84)
> (I think asking for a logical reason behind a position is the quickest > way to silence those who have nothing to say.) [Rich Rosen] Unfortunately, in Dave Brunson's case, asking for logical reasons just leads to a 62 line article without a single one. Sigh... I think Dave's hatred is much too deeply ingrained to allow him to explain or question it. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/22/84)
David Brunson writes that homosexuality is a personal/spiritual disease that can be cured, and not unchangeable characteristic such as being "black". That position is clearly based on religion and ignorance, and certainly is not scientific in basis. One of the basic ideas of sociobiology (which Dave will probably reject out of hand as "evolutionary") is that behavior may be partly determined by the genes. Genetic regulatory mechanisms can control the balances of hormones and other substances in our bodies, which subsequently control our behaviors. One example, which is not yet fully understood, is schitzophrenia. Many schitzophrenics have a chemical imbalance that when treated by drugs, returns them to normal behavior. In addition, it's been established that schitzophrenia is far more likely to occur among those with schiotzophrnics in their families, which is strong evidence for heritability. (And I think that those statistics were controlled for the alternative hypothesis of learned schitzophrenia.) This week, I read an article describing differing responses to hormones between men, women, and homosexuals. (Note that these differences were in statistical means, and do not imply any individual would display those characteristics.) Thus it is possible that some homosexuality is chemical in origin, which means that it could also be genetic. If that's so, then with the current state of medical technology, genetic homosexuals would be as "incurable" as "blacks". This is not inconsistant with reports of "cures". For all we know, homosexuality displays as much continuity of expression as schitzophrenia: ranging from none apparent to severe. This also implies that there are many heterosexuals out there who could be as easily cured of their heterosexuality, just as there are many normal people who could be driven to schitzophrenia. (Apologies to homosexuals for using schitzophrenia (with its bad connotations) as an analogy to homosexuality.) In conclusion, Dave, please spare us your ignorant and bigoted theological assumptions about the nature and cause of homosexuality.
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (09/22/84)
<<Oh, grow up!>> >> = remarks from David Brunson >> (ihnp4!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson) >>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. It seems to me that we haven't gotten as specific as you seem to think. I don't think that gays want legislation of this flavor. What we do want to see is *human rights*. Perhaps if gays were treated like others, then I expect that the quotas which you mention will be unnecessary. >>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. Homosexuality can be cured?? Do you *really* believe this? Do you really think that modern medicine/psychology/psychiatry can cure homosexuality? Perhaps a better question is: "Do you think that any of these disciplines can offer a treatment to make heterosexuals into gays??" >>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. Yeah, I suppose it is. Conversely, it is possible for straights to renounce their heterosexuality (some religious nuns, priests, brothers, etc. do this on a regular basis). Does this renunciation of their sexual nature make them any less heterosexual?? I don't think so. As for an employer's right to treat homosexuality as an "objectionable behavior," it seems to me that he should only treat this as an objectionable behavior **IF IT INTERFERES WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S PRODUCTIVITY**! Many straight couples have marriage problems, and this is often considered an "objectionable behavior" by many groups. Nevertheless, the employer is not involved unless the marriage problems start affecting the work produced by the employee. >>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*. Objectionable behavior? In many cases, this judgement of objectionable behavior comes from those who claim that they do not judge. Funny, huh? (BTW, not all gays practice homosexuality; some are quite good at it. ;-}) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center {decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ignorance is bliss, but it's revelation is not."
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/23/84)
[] >> (I think asking for a logical reason behind a position is the quickest >> way to silence those who have nothing to say.) [Rich Rosen] > >Unfortunately, in Dave Brunson's case, asking for logical reasons >just leads to a 62 line article without a single one. Sigh... Ooops! Sorry about that! The only thing I know about logic is what I learned in a course called "Logic Design". Something about NAND gates and adders and stuff. They didn't talk about "logical arguments". If you say the reasons aren't "logical", you probably know better than me. >I think Dave's hatred is much too deeply ingrained to allow him to >explain or question it. This is the second time I've seen this hatred thing. Jerry Nowlin said something similar. I definitely hate lies and sometimes react viscerally against them (having seen the disastrous results that acceptance of lies has had in my own life and the lives of some of my friends). As far as I know this is a virtue. Let me know if you can correct me on this. As for the explanation: what I'm after is a discussion on the limits of "tolerance". We are talking about two different groups of people: those who say that homosexuality is a matter of "sexual preference" and those to whom homosexuality is an abomination. The problem is this: how can we accomodate both groups in the same country? The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil rights legislation. If you would include homosexuals as a minority under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals. Is this a good thing? Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. One of my employees comes out of the closet. I confront him about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in homosexual acts and intends to continue doing so. Being a caring, loving person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire him. He goes to the local Labor Relations Board (or whatever) and reports me. A few days later a social worker comes out to the office and the following dialogue happens: -- "Mr. Brunson, we've just gotten a complaint that you've terminated an employee, a Mr. Jones, without adequate reason. Can you explain?" "Sure, always glad to help the government! Mr. Jones practices homosexuality. I found out about it and fired him!" "Mr. Brunson, it is my duty to advise you that unless you reinstate Mr. Jones immediately, you are subject to [lawsuits, fines, whatever]. Will you comply?" "Not until he *repents*." "Ahh, I see." [scribbles something in a notebook and leaves] -- Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals? Suppose I work in a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual businessmen? Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in counseling sessions? That won't work. I've already had 16 years of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet. Here's the issue: do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority. Why? What specifically do you propose? How will you simultaneously protect those who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"? -- David Brunson, A nice guy. Really.
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
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... ]bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (09/23/84)
Yipes! I find that I am ashamed that David Brunson and I are in any way affiliated with the same organization. (I graduated from USF some 15 years ago.) Suppose, however, the Bill of Rights had never been passed. Given my current opinion of Mr. Brunson my version of his example might go something like this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of religious preference. One of my employees comes out of the closet. I confront him about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in Christian acts and intends to continue doing so. Being a caring, loving person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire him. He goes to the local Labor Relations Board (or whatever) and reports me. A few days later a social worker comes out to the office and the following dialogue happens: -- "Mr. Howes, we've just gotten a complaint that you've terminated an employee, a Mr. Brunson, without adequate reason. Can you explain?" "Sure, always glad to help the government! Mr. Brunson practices Christianity. I found out about it and fired him!" "Mr. Howes, it is my duty to advise you that unless you reinstate Mr. Brunson immediately, you are subject to [lawsuits, fines, whatever]. Will you comply?" "Not until he *stops* repenting." "Ahh, I see." [scribbles something in a notebook and leaves] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [My comments on the some of the rest of his article follow:] >>Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals? Suppose I work in >>a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual >>businessmen? Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in >>counseling sessions? That won't work. I've already had 16 years >>of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet. No, I'd probably have you fined and put in the slammer. While I may be a caring person, the kind of attitude and activity you describe would be definitely illegal. Since I wouldn't want you to engage in such a lie, I'd let the government put you someplace to think about it for a while. >>Here's the issue: do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever >>that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority. Why? What >>specifically do you propose? How will you simultaneously protect those >>who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"? This is not the issue, by your own example. What we are talking about is essential civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by the supreme court. There are lots of people in this world whose activities I dislike; Nazis, Moonies, prostelytizing right-wing Chris- tians, wife-beaters, people who rip articles out of library periodicals, jaywalkers, creationists, trekkies and people who post to multiple newsgroups to name a few. It is my right to dislike them, but it is not my right to abridge their rights as members of this society because of that dislike. I don't believe anyone, but you, is talking about giving gays "protected minority" status in the legal sense of the word. Minority quotas, contract obligations and so forth are *your* Phyllis Shlaflyisms designed to conjure meaningless spectres in others minds. A lie is a lie not only when it is about fact, but when it is about potential. -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (09/23/84)
> We are talking about two different groups of > people: those who say that homosexuality is a matter of "sexual > preference" and those to whom homosexuality is an abomination. > The problem is this: how can we accomodate both groups in the > same country? [Dave Brunson] Step one: Ask those who consider homosexuality an "abomination" to to explain their position. Step two: If, after long discussion, they have insulted, ridiculed, and derided homosexuals, but can offer *no* meaningful explanation, then we conclude that these are hateful, ignorant, backward people, and that gays do, in fact, need legal protection from them. You, Mr. Brunson, have insulted, ridiculed, and derided: > sins > vile and filthy thing > filthy people > dirty, whiny, little-boy-weewee kind of thing > evil > inhuman > an emotional/spiritual disease > a lie But you've offered no meaningful explanation, though you've been asked over and over again. What should we conclude? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/24/84)
Brunson, you're incredible. Under no circumstances could our government penalize anyone for wishing to discriminate. However, it can, does, and should penalize those who DO actually commit discriminatory acts. The crucial point is abuse of power. The same way you should not fire someone for being black, Jewish, or a Democrat, if that doesn't concern the job. Don't forget, people can be Jewish or Democrats by choice. If you belong to the Nth Church of Rightwing Reactionary Theology, you still shouldn't fire them, the same way politicians shouldn't be allowed to fire Civil Service employees of the other party, and the same way Hitler shouldn't have placed Jews, homosexuals and other minorities into concentration camps. Perhaps you simply enjoy feeling tyrannical. Or perhaps you feel Christians belong in the persecution business. In any event, sooner or later you run into the problem of where to draw the line at your intolerance. Should you stop at denying them jobs? Liberty? Life? At what point do you stop "aiding and abbetting the enemy" if not by exterminating them? That is the point of civil rights legislation. Not to be mean to bigots (poor little dears!), but to keep bigotry from growing out of control. Perhaps you'd have a little more respect for those ideas if you spent some time in Iran and were subject to some righteous bigotry yourself. (I've been so very tempted to tell him "America: love it or leave it! :-)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/24/84)
> David Brunson writes that homosexuality is a personal/spiritual disease > that can be cured, and not unchangeable characteristic such as being > "black". > One of the basic ideas of sociobiology (which Dave will probably reject out > of hand as "evolutionary") is that behaviour may be partly determined by > the genes. > One example, which is not yet fully understood, is [?] schitzophrenia. I have three problems with this argument. (BTW, I have reasonable faith in the truth of evolution.) First of all, I have serious doubts about the right of sociobiologists to make claims about behavior as complex as homosexuality. The so-called science is simply to poorly developed; most of the statements made on its behalf are essentially religion. Be that as it may, I do admit that some behavioral disorders have chemical and/or structural causes in the brain. Schitzophrenia, however, is not sufficiently like homosexuality to enable me to use it in an analogy. Schitzophrenia is essentially a breakdown of personality itself, and is thus fundamentally different from homosexuality or hyperactivity. Besides, if homosexuality DOES have organic causes, shouldn't we be trying to find a cure? (only 1/2 :-)) Finally, there is always one cure for sexual disorders: celebacy. Remember that Jesus said, "If your right hand offends you, cut it off." Obviously, he doesn't mean for christians to practice self-mutilation, (if he were, I think the neck would be the place to start on most of us) rather, he is saying to do something about one's behavioral problems, even as far as avoidance of the situation entirely. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (09/24/84)
In a previous article, I criticized Dave Brunson for his narrow and bigoted views on homosexuality. There is another point I'd like to make: Even if Dave convinced me that homosexuality was wrong, I would still consider his position reprehensible. Deciding what is right and what is wrong is terribly difficult. However, once a society, or an individual, decides what it will consider wrong, I believe it's easy enough to divide those acts considered wrong into two categories: Type 0 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts another person. Type 1 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts oneself, or [for the religious] because it is unpleasing to God. I believe it is the responsibility of a society to protect its members from type 0 wrongness. At the same time, I believe it is the right of the individual to do what he damn well pleases (even if he hurts himself), as long as he doesn't wrongly hurt others. In fact, I would go as far as to say: It is a type 0 wrongness to prevent someone from engaging in a type 1 wrongness, or to persecute or harass them for engaging in a type 1 wrongness. This is a cornerstone of my personal ethics, and I think it is a fundamental principle of our political system. This doesn't mean that the principle hasn't been violated -- there are laws agaist victimless crimes, such as prostitution, in many states -- but I still believe the principle underlies our government, as it should. So, Dave, even if you did convince me that homosexuality was a "sin", it would still be a type 1 wrongness, and thus, none of your God damn business. I would still consider it wrong (type 0 wrongness, the serious stuff) for you to persecute or harass gays, to refuse to employ or sell your house to one, etc. You would still be dead wrong in my book (and, by my understanding of it, in that Book you keep talking about). -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (09/24/84)
In article <183@usfbobo.UUCP> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes:
~| The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil
~| rights legislation. If you would include homosexuals as a minority
~| under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize
~| those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals.
Well, discrimination against people who discriminate
against homosexuals certainly isn't right. (One should have the
right to be wrong.) But then, neither is discrimination against homosexuals.
~| Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government
~| has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
~| One of my employees comes out of the closet. I confront him
~| about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in homosexual
~| acts and intends to continue doing so. Being a caring, loving
~| person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged
~| and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire 'him.
Two questions:
1) How is firing an employee that is gay being 'caring'
and 'loving'?
2) What is the 'lie' involved here, and how is he
confusing himself and others?
~| Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals? Suppose I work in
~| a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual
~| businessmen? Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in
~| counseling sessions? That won't work. I've already had 16 years
~| of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet.
Again, I believe that you have a right to be wrong. If I
were denied a contract by you simply because of my homosexuality,
I would immediately begin notifying other people I did business
with and urge them not to do business with you. Of course, the
easiest way to get around the government agency's refusal to
award contracts to homosexuals would be to privatize the agency.
Therefore, if you didn't like the way agency X did business, go
to agency Y.
~| Here's the issue: do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever
~| that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority. Why? What
~| specifically do you propose? How will you simultaneously protect those
~| who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"?
I am against quotas, skin color notwithstanding. To me,
they simply imply "Well, youre not REALLY good enough to get this
position, but the government says we have to let 'your kind' in,
so, ...". Neither do I believe that homosexuals should be a
"protected" (whatever that means) minority. If you start saying
that 10% of all jobs should go to gays/women/people of
color/whatever, you have just about guaranteed that NO MORE THAN
10% of all jobs will go to gays/women/people of color/whatever.
My proposition is that race, color, sexual orientation or
preference, creed, etc. should be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in dealing
with another person. One should only be concerned with
another's ability.
--
Mike Simpson, BBN
msimpson@bbnccf (ARPA)
{decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/24/84)
> As for the explanation: what I'm after is a discussion on the > limits of "tolerance". We are talking about two different groups of > people: those who say that homosexuality is a matter of "sexual > preference" and those to whom homosexuality is an abomination. > The problem is this: how can we accomodate both groups in the > same country? By ignoring the latter group completely, since there is no reason why a group who simply believes something to be "an abomination" has the right to impose that view on other people who believe otherwise, and no reason why they should be "accommodated". As witnessed by their failure to offer logical reasons ("I don't like it" doesn't count. Except to them. An example of the limits of *their* tolerance.) > The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil > rights legislation. If you would include homosexuals as a minority > under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize > those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals. The ultimate goal of "civil rights rhetoric" is to have a world in which NO ONE is discriminated against for arbitrary malicious reasons (which is the only type of reason that has been offered). The ultimate goal is not to include any group onto a list of "protected minorities", but rather to eradicate malicious discrimination by people who simply don't like certain classes of people for whatever empty reason. In a world in which people continue to behave with the level of consideration for other human beings that would make Jesus Christ spin in his grave, why shouldn't you be penalized for your malice towards groups of people who think and behave differently than you do? > Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government > has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. > One of my employees comes out of the closet. I confront him > about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in homosexual > acts and intends to continue doing so. Being a caring, loving > person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged > and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire him. He goes > to the local Labor Relations Board (or whatever) and reports me. > Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals? Suppose I work in > a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual > businessmen? Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in > counseling sessions? That won't work. I've already had 16 years > of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet. Apparently you also haven't learned the lesson of tolerance from that book you keep telling the rest of us to read. All you've gotten out of it is a springboard for showing your supposedly higher level of morality by decreeing that all should (must) follow it. > Here's the issue: do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever > that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority. Why? What > specifically do you propose? How will you simultaneously protect those > who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"? There's no need to protect such people. If they refuse to offer consideration to other human beings, why show any special extra consideration to them? It's just like your examples: blacks have no choice but to be black, so you can't blame them for being black (blame them???), so it's wrong to discriminate against them; on the other hand, homosexuals (and I guess Jews, too, eh?) choose to be what they are, so it's OK to be intolerant of them. By your logic, you choose to be intolerant of other people for no good reason, thus it's OK to discriminate against you. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rap@oliven.UUCP (09/24/84)
. >>I think Dave's hatred is much too deeply ingrained to allow him to >>explain or question it. > >This is the second time I've seen this hatred thing. Jerry Nowlin >said something similar. I definitely hate lies and sometimes react >viscerally against them (having seen the disastrous results that >acceptance of lies has had in my own life and the lives of some of >my friends). As far as I know this is a virtue. Let me know if >you can correct me on this. > >FROM: David Brunson Dave, I think that if this was the second time (and this will be the third) that you have seen someone call you a hatefull person you had better start looking into yourself for the reasons why. I hate lies too. So much in fact that I would rather risk putting myself into big trouble than to tell a "little white lie". You, however, go far beyond that. I agree that to dislike lying would be virtuous. But to start passing laws against people whom you think are living a lie is definitely NOT virtuous. >As for the explanation: what I'm after is a discussion on the >limits of "tolerance". We are talking about two different groups of >people: those who say that homosexuality is a matter of "sexual >preference" and those to whom homosexuality is an abomination. >The problem is this: how can we accomodate both groups in the >same country? Two comments. First, you totally ignore the group that believes that that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but of being. Second, how can we NOT accomodate both groups of people. Or do you want to begin treating the homosexual people as the Jews were treated in Germany. >The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil >rights legislation. If you would include homosexuals as a minority >under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize >those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals. Good for us! That is exactly what we need. Strong laws to prohibit discrimination against EVERYONE. Even "Kingdom sorts of guys". Yes, Dave, I would even want to prohibit discrimination against someone who wants to discriminate against others. > Is this >a good thing? You're damn right it is! >Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals? Suppose I work in >a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual >businessmen? Then you would be an abomination to the Teacher who taught his followers love and forgiveness. After all, he never did teach condemnation, did he? > Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in >counseling sessions? That won't work. I've already had 16 years >of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet. You're a hard man. Not an attack, an observation. >Here's the issue: do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever >that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority. Why? No, I advocate legislation that protects all people. No matter what their race, religion, origin, preference or education. Why? Because I believe discrimination is wrong. No matter what. > How will you simultaneously protect those >who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"? Hey, if you break into someone's house you're going to be busted aren't ya? >-- >David Brunson, A nice guy. Really. No, I really don't think so. I'm sure that you like to think of yourself that way, but I think that the only other people who would agree with that opinion are the people you go to church with. BTW, you do go to church don't you? Thought so. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
rap@oliven.UUCP (09/25/84)
>Finally, there is always one cure for sexual disorders: celebacy. >Remember that Jesus said, "If your right hand offends you, cut it off." >Obviously, he doesn't mean for christians to practice self-mutilation, >(if he were, I think the neck would be the place to start on most of us) >rather, he is saying to do something about one's behavioral problems, >even as far as avoidance of the situation entirely. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Jesus said, "If your right hand offends *YOU*, cut it off." Doesn't say anything about if it offends anyone else. :-) Just a quip, but maybe a serious one. You still have to prove that it is a behavioural problem. So far, no one has. Maybe no one will. I kind of doubt it. In any case, if you can prove that it is a behavioral problem, DO IT NOW! -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/25/84)
Wingate writes: > I have three problems with this argument. (BTW, I have reasonable faith in > the truth of evolution.) First of all, I have serious doubts about the > right of sociobiologists to make claims about behavior as complex as > homosexuality. The so-called science is simply to poorly developed; most > of the statements made on its behalf are essentially religion. > > Be that as it may, I do admit that some behavioral disorders have chemical > and/or structural causes in the brain. Schitzophrenia, however, is not > sufficiently like homosexuality to enable me to use it in an analogy. > Schitzophrenia is essentially a breakdown of personality itself, and is > thus fundamentally different from homosexuality or hyperactivity. > > Besides, if homosexuality DOES have organic causes, shouldn't we be trying > to find a cure? (only 1/2 :-)) The first paragraph is a misunderstanding. I did not say that sociobiology has explained homosexuality. I'm sorry if I what I wrote could be construed that way. My purpose was to show that there could be naturalistic explanations for homosexuality, as well as theological ones, and to chide Brunson for being so careless (benefit of the doubt :-)) as to ignore that possibility. However, schizophrenia is not necessarily a "breakdown" of some "normal" condition. "Normal" is an abstraction with no real existence. Allow me to present an analogy. Many of us are familiar with behavioral game theory which shows that there can be an equilibrium between hawks, doves, bluffers and various other strategic behavioral classes. Is any one of those classes abnormal, a breakdown of another, inferior, or bad? No. The most you can say about any one would be that it is a minority. The same MAY be true of various degrees of schizophrenia. Anthropologists have studied schizophrenia in numerous cultures, and have found some societal niches in which schizophrenics perform quite well as people with much status (for example as shamans.) The scientific attitude towards schizophrenia should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It may not be right to inflict a cure on what could be an adaptive survival strategy, just as it may not be right to sterilize people who don't fit some other societally determined standards. The same is true of homosexuality. It is neither inherently bad, nor disadvantageous, nor a disease. Nor should "cures" be inflicted without the consent of the individual, either by laws or social pressure from bigots.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/26/84)
> Jesus said, "If your right hand offends *YOU*, cut it off." Doesn't say > anything about if it offends anyone else. Actually, I checked up on this one... This is a synoptic passage shared by Matthew and Mark. In Mark 9 circa verse 35, it says "If you hand or foot causes you to SIN [footnote says "lit. 'stumble'" in my RSV], cut it off." In both places the context is quite plain. > In any case, if you can prove that is is a behavioral problem, DO IT NOW! Well, it's clearly behavior, so I'll have to assume you mean the problem part. As far as those who are not christians are concerned, for now I make no claims at all. For those who are, the Bible seems rather clear. If you are a christian and think you have homosexual feelings/inclinations/ desires/whatever, abstain from sex. C. Wingate
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/26/84)
(followup to Charley Wingate's message) Wingate says the Bible is clear (in prohibiting homosexual behavior for Christians). OH YEAH?? In a (hopefully) few days I'll post a summary of analyses of Biblical texts (those listed by Don Caprio in his fairly recent posting) that traditionally (actually, mainly in the 20th century) have been con- strued to justify Christian homophobia: the analyses are John Boswell's as they appear in his book CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE & HOMOSEX- UALITY. Complacent & homophobic Christians, watch out!!! See you in a few days! Cheers, Ron Rizzo
johnson@saturn.UUCP (Mark Scott Johnson) (09/26/84)
> If you are a christian and think you have homosexual feelings/inclinations/ > desires/whatever, abstain from sex. Being a Lutheran, I can't resist quoting brother Martin, in the context of some discussion over what precise actions were or were not sinful: "Sin boldly! But believe and rejoice in Christ more boldly still!" In a more serious vein: Many Christians believe that there is little difference (from a "sin" point of view) between performing a sinful action and *desiring* to perform a sinful action. Remember, of course, that I'm pretty clearly in the "saved by grace thru faith" camp, so cataloging sins seems rather unimportant to me. -- Mark Scott Johnson CSnet: Johnson%hplabs@csnet-relay.csnet ARPAnet: Johnson%hplabs@csnet-relay.arpa USENET: {allegra,decvax,Shasta,ucbvax}!hplabs!johnson
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/02/84)
[C'mon in! The water's fine!] Thank you for your interest in this topic!! There isn't enough time to respond to each comment, but I'll handle what I can. Anyone who wants to help out is more than welcome. First of all, let me assure everyone that I recognize the folly of trying to teach morality to those not interested in a covenant relationship with the Creator. No one can accuse me of the non- biblical position of "trying to convert" anyone, and these postings are definitely no exception. Secondly let me point out that there is definitely an attempt to legislate civil rights for homosexuals. In fact, there is a bill before congress which addresses just this issue -- HR 427. There's probably not much chance of it getting very far. This time. Many misconceptions can be cleared up by a second hypothetical example: Once again I am an employer. This time there are two applicants for one position. A statement of requirements is on file in my personnel department. Requirements for the position include a Master's degree in Computer Science/Engineering and at least two years of experience in designing, say, CAD/CAM applications. One of the applicants, Howard Jones, is a homosexual who exactly fills the requirements. The other is Susan Cohen, an observant Jew who meets the education requrement but lacks the necessary experience. Some will say "how do you know about their non-job related backgrounds"? Okay. Let's say I went to school with Howard Jones. When he showed up for the interview I asked him, "hey Howard, you still a homo?" And he said, "Sure am, Dave." Susan Cohen wore a Star-of-David pin to her interview which provoked a discussion of, among other things, her family life, synagogues in the area where she might like to attend if she gets the job and so forth. Now there are two things happening here. First of all, being a Bible-believer, I am intensely interested in opportunities to take advantage of the provision for goys under Abraham's covenant -- "I will bless them that bless you...". If Susan wants the job, I will tend to favor her for it because she is a practicing jew. Secondly, Howard calls himself a "Christian" and attends the local Metropolitan Community Church. This, as you all know, is an abomination to me. So who will I hire? Susan Cohen, of course. The way I look at it, I'd have to be out of my mind to hire Howard over Susan no matter how much experience Howard has or how immediately he could be making money for me. How will the state judge this? Howard definitely had the paper qualifications. Susan didn't. Howard was definitely discriminated against because he is a homosexual. Susan definitely received extra consideration beyond her qualifications because she is jewish. Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last episode of discrimination. How about this one? -- David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/02/84)
[] Some random commentary. > Again, I believe that you have a right to be wrong. If I >were denied a contract by you simply because of my homosexuality, >I would immediately begin notifying other people I did business >with and urge them not to do business with you. This is an entirely reasonable approach. I have no problem with it at all. > My proposition is that race, color, sexual orientation or >preference, creed, etc. should be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in dealing >with another person. One should only be concerned with >another's ability. And my proposition is that race, color, *most* creeds should be irrelevant, but not "sexual preference". Discrimination against persons because they are black or jewish or arab is an abomination, just as granting homosexuals, adulterers, and other aberrant individuals "rights" is an abomination. >The crucial point is abuse of power. The same way you should not fire someone >for being black, Jewish, or a Democrat, if that doesn't concern the job. >Don't forget, people can be Jewish or Democrats by choice. If you belong to >the Nth Church of Rightwing Reactionary Theology,you still shouldn't fire them, >the same way politicians shouldn't be allowed to fire Civil Service employees >of the other party, and the same way Hitler shouldn't have placed Jews, >homosexuals and other minorities into concentration camps. I am not advocating discrimination against blacks, jews, or democrats. If I were a black, jew, or democrat, I would be outraged by this association. This is an example of a tactic that is frequently used by the homosexual activist. The public is supposed to be so conditioned that the word "discrimination" triggers a Pavlovian association with Hitler, concentration camps, persecution of Jews. Jews should be indignant at being placed in the same fraternal brotherhood of sufferers as homosexuals. Are they? I'd be interested to know. > In any event, sooner or later you run into >the problem of where to draw the line at your intolerance. Should you stop at >denying them jobs? Liberty? Life? At what point do you stop "aiding and >abbetting the enemy" if not by exterminating them? There is no problem with where to draw the line. I draw it at civil rights legislation for homosexuals. The rest of your paranoia is unjustified. next article: >Deciding what is right and what is wrong is terribly difficult. >However, once a society, or an individual, decides what it will >consider wrong, I believe it's easy enough to divide those acts >considered wrong into two categories: > > Type 0 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts > another person. > > Type 1 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts > oneself, or [for the religious] because it is unpleasing > to God. How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not anyone else. -- David Brunson "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/02/84)
> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) > Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss > Subject: Re: Gay Rights > Message-ID: <185@usfbobo.UUCP> > Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 03:05:46 EDT > .... > How will the state judge this? Howard definitely had the paper > qualifications. Susan didn't. Howard was definitely discriminated > against because he is a homosexual. Susan definitely received > extra consideration beyond her qualifications because she is > jewish. > Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my > door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better > qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." > So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last > episode of discrimination. How about this one? > -- > David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire Jail, no -- it's a civil offense, carrying civil penalties. And yes, I do think you should be liable under the proposed statute. Absolutely, no question about it -- this is exactly the kind of behavior the law is intended to prevent. (I should note parenthetically that your "preference" for a Jew, for you own religious reasons, is quite likely in violation of existing laws against religious discrimination. And I should also note that as a Jew, I find your patronizing attitude *extremely* offensive.) --Steve Bellovin
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (10/02/84)
>> Deciding what is right and what is wrong is terribly difficult. >> However, once a society, or an individual, decides what it will >> consider wrong, I believe it's easy enough to divide those acts >> considered wrong into two categories: >> >> Type 0 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts >> another person. >> >> Type 1 wrongness: an act which is wrong because it hurts >> oneself, or [for the religious] because it is unpleasing >> to God. >> >> [Me] > How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful > things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not > anyone else. > > [Dave Brunson] No, Dave, you got it all screwed up. Do you see the word "okay" anywhere in my article? What I said is that people have a RIGHT to lead their lives as they choose, as long as they don't hurt others. Whether what they do is "okay" or not is irrelevant IN THIS CONTEXT. I can affirm a person's right to make such choices without condoning their actions. This is a crucial distinction, which you fail to understand. Think about this: I support freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything that's ever said. For example, I consider your opinions reprehensible, but I'll defend your right to express them. (On second thought, Dave probably won't understand this example, since he has publicly stated that book-burning is not wrong per se.) -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (10/04/84)
<.> > (David Brunson) > .... > How will the state judge this? Howard definitely had the paper > qualifications. Susan didn't. Howard was definitely discriminated > against because he is a homosexual. Susan definitely received > extra consideration beyond her qualifications because she is > jewish. > Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my > door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better > qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." > So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last > episode of discrimination. How about this one? No doubt about it. If jail is the legal punishment for discrimination you should probably be there already. It sounds like you want the right to decide who and what you can discriminate against. Why should you have that right? Do you know better than all the rest of us? This country is run according to laws that are written and passed by the officials we elect. Why don't you send your nasty articles to your congressman and senators. You have a right to your opinion, and you also have the right to voice it. They let the KKK hold marches and pass out literature. That doesn't make their opinions correct either. One issue I'd like to get some feedback on relates to this hiring scenario. What if the actual qualifications of the 2 applicants were equal. Would the interviewer then have the right to use sexual preference as the basis for the hiring decision? What group should this be discussed in? It has no particularly religious overtones, but I'm not that familiar with alternate groups. > And my proposition is that race, color, *most* creeds should be > irrelevant, but not "sexual preference". Discrimination against > persons because they are black or jewish or arab is an abomination, just > as granting homosexuals, adulterers, and other aberrant individuals > "rights" is an abomination. As a former cohabitater, I guess David would probably lump me in his group of aberrant individuals. I'm married now, all nice and legal. That doesn't mean I've "repented". I just made my commitment in a different way this time. Why can't he get it through his head that homosexuals are just expressing their sexuality in a different way than he does. Why should they repent? David Brunson really amazes me. I think he's a closet homosexual atheist out to discredit christianity. Nobody could really be that mixed up. > David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire He's extraordinary...for sure! Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (10/04/84)
<<stay out! The water's poisoned!>> This whole discussion of discrimination is getting sillier by the minute. . . >>Susan Cohen wore a Star-of-David pin to her interview which >>provoked a discussion of, among other things, her family life, >>synagogues in the area where she might like to attend if she >>gets the job and so forth. I thought employers weren't supposed to ask this sort of stuff. If a prospective employer asked this stuff of me, I'd tell him/her/it to stick it up their wazoo! >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First of all, being >>a Bible-believer, I am intensely interested in opportunities >>to take advantage of the provision for goys under Abraham's >>covenant -- "I will bless them that bless you...". If Susan >>wants the job, I will tend to favor her for it because she is >>a practicing jew. If I were Susan, I would be both insulted and scared. Insult comes from being hired for a job for reasons other than her qualifications. (If another woman wanted the job, would you hire Susan because she had larger breasts?!?) Fear comes from the possibility that she might get canned if a Christian with the appropriate credentials (who isn't gay) comes along and wants the job. Would you can her because she's a Jew? When would you start to use the Bible to discriminate *against* her because she's Jewish? >>I'd have to be out of my mind to hire Howard over Susan >>no matter how much experience Howard has or how immediately >>he could be making money for me. Not to mention a poor businessman. . . >>So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last >>episode of discrimination. How about this one? You betcha! Off to the hoosegow with you! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center {decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- " . . You'd better smile when they watch you, smile like you're in control. . ." -- *Smile*, Was (Not Was)
urban@spp2.UUCP (10/04/84)
In article <usfbobo.185> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes: >(...verbiage describing Howard the qualified homosexual job applicant and Susan Cohen the less experienced Jewish applicant) >So who will I hire? Susan Cohen, of course. The way I look >at it, I'd have to be out of my mind to hire Howard over Susan >no matter how much experience Howard has or how immediately >he could be making money for me. The way I look at it, any corporation in America would be have to be out of its mind to hire you as a personnel manager. Hope you aren't expecting a career in management, you're not going to have an easy time of it. Mike
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/05/84)
. >Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my >door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better >qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." > >So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last >episode of discrimination. How about this one? > >-- >David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire You got it right, Dave. Discrimination is wrong. Thats all there is to it. I don't care if there laws to support you decision or refute it. Discrimination is wrong. Now you understand my position, right? -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/05/84)
. >How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful > things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not > anyone else. > >-- >David Brunson I have an alternative aproach. Teach that you should take care of yourself and not seek to injure yourself, but neither should you persecute thoes who do injure themselves. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/08/84)
<.> > > (David Brunson) > > > Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my > > door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better > > qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." > > > So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last > > episode of discrimination. How about this one? > >No doubt about it. If jail is the legal punishment for discrimination you >should probably be there already. It sounds like you want the right to decide >who and what you can discriminate against. Why should you have that right? >Do you know better than all the rest of us? This country is run according to >laws that are written and passed by the officials we elect. Precisely! That's why it is important to gather this sort of information -- so that citizens can be aware of exactly what is meant by "Gay Rights". We now know that it means throwing people in jail for refusing to grant jobs to homosexuals. Now citizens can make an informed decision whether this is the sort of legislation they want and can instruct their elected representatives accordingly. > Why don't you >send your nasty articles to your congressman and senators. Well, first of all, the articles aren't nasty. I point out to my detractors once again that I have never resorted to personally abusive comments. What's more, I don't feel the slightest inclination to do so now, either!! Even after the many undeserved insulting remarks that have been directed at me lately. Secondly, that's not a bad suggestion!! I mean, now that I know what the Gay activists are really after, I have a "special interest" in opposing them! Does anyone know of groups opposing Gay Rights that I could support? Or better yet -- missionary efforts that have proven successful? > You have a right >to your opinion, and you also have the right to voice it. They let the KKK >hold marches and pass out literature. That doesn't make their opinions >correct either. I don't get it. What does the KKK have to do with this? -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/08/84)
[] Reply to comments from Henry Mensch >>Susan Cohen wore a Star-of-David pin to her interview which >>provoked a discussion of, among other things, her family life, >>synagogues in the area where she might like to attend if she >>gets the job and so forth. > > I thought employers weren't supposed to ask this sort >of stuff. If a prospective employer asked this stuff of me, >I'd tell him/her/it to stick it up their wazoo! Well Susan was the one wearing the pin. Maybe she is proud of her religious convictions and likes to talk about them. I didn't make her fill out an application that asked these questions. It was just a warm, friendly spur-of-the-moment exchange. You know, the kind that unsuspicious, warm, friendly, wholesome, decent people have every day. >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First of all, being >>a Bible-believer, I am intensely interested in opportunities >>to take advantage of the provision for goys under Abraham's >>covenant -- "I will bless them that bless you...". If Susan >>wants the job, I will tend to favor her for it because she is >>a practicing jew. > > If I were Susan, I would be both insulted and scared. >Insult comes from being hired for a job for reasons other than >her qualifications. (If another woman wanted the job, would you >hire Susan because she had larger breasts?!?) >Fear comes from the possibility that she might get canned if a >Christian with the appropriate credentials (who isn't gay) comes >along and wants the job. Would you can her because she's a Jew? >When would you start to use the Bible to discriminate *against* >her because she's Jewish? As for the insult, I left something important out of the original scenario. You see, Susan sufficiently impressed me with her technical knowledge, grades, outstanding achievement in an area different from that of the job in question, that I was convinced of her ability to rapidly make up for lack of experience. No, I would not hire based on breast size, and no, I won't can her if a Christian comes along who is ripe for the job. I also don't know of any possible way to use the Bible to discriminate because of Jewishness. In fact, the idea of using the Bible, a book by, for, and about Jews, to discriminate against Jews, is absurd. (Augustine's "witness-people theory" is unscriptural -- more if there's interest). >>I'd have to be out of my mind to hire Howard over Susan >>no matter how much experience Howard has or how immediately >>he could be making money for me. > > Not to mention a poor businessman. . . Wanna bet? This is the bottom line of the whole discussion. As a businessman I want to make decisions that will cause my business to prosper. I *believe* that God will approve of the business (that is, make it prosper) if I act uprightly in its administration. The subject scenario presents a moral choice. Do I favor someone who is wicked but can be of some immediate benefit, or someone who has character, who behaves uprightly, but may take longer to bring up to speed? Turning away Susan for Howard would be like spitting in the face of a true friend for a quick buck. It would be vile. Obscene. Spineless. Unprincipled. Immoral. WRONG. My Bible says God don't like it. "Love your enemies": a true saying, but not at the expense of your friends. >>So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last >>episode of discrimination. How about this one? > > You betcha! Off to the hoosegow with you! This may be a silly discussion, but it is certainly an enlightening one. -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/10/84)
> Precisely! That's why it is important to gather this sort of information -- > so that citizens can be aware of exactly what is meant by "Gay Rights". > We now know that it means throwing people in jail for refusing to grant > jobs to homosexuals. Now citizens can make an informed decision whether > this is the sort of legislation they want and can instruct their elected > representatives accordingly. The goal of advancing minority rights is NOT to make lists of protected minorities ("OK, discriminating against blacks, Jews, ... that's wrong because they fought and paid their dues and are now 'legitimate minorities', but discriminating against gays, atheists, people named Brunson, that should be allowed!"), but rather to ensure that unjust persecution and discrimination against *any* group of people is agreed upon as WRONG. It's that simple. -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (10/11/84)
I know I'm going to regret this in the morning, but.... Brunson>> Jews should be indignant at being placed in the same >> fraternal brotherhood of sufferers as homosexuals. >> Are they? I'd be interested to know. Okay. *I'm* a Jew and I'm not indignant. Why shouldn't we be placed in "the same fraternal brotherhood"? We were placed in the same ovens. (I told you I'd regret it.) By the way, I do find it offensive that you use the term "goy" fairly frequently in your postings. That is a derogatory term that isn't socially acceptable (where I come from, at least), no matter who it refers to. I find it doubly offensive that you use it to refer to yourself. Am I paranoid, or does this use carry a slightly patronizing tone? And just another note: Who ever said that being Jewish and being homosexual were mutually exclusive? -Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus} rayssd!hxe
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (10/11/84)
Seems to me we're talking about whether equal protection is really equal protection or not. In both the Canadian and U.S. Constitutions there's a guarantee that everyone is entitled to equal protection and due process (actually, the Canadian provision comes into effect next year). This means that if you're hiring, you're supposed to treat all the candidates the same way; whether they're gay, Jewish, socialist, or eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches has (for almost all jobs) no relevance. In the case of Howard and Susan, the position was advertised as being open to the most competent qualified applicant. If the position had been as a minister at Jerry Falwell's church, then neither Howard nor Susan would have been qualified: Howard would presumably have been unable to accept instructions from his employer re counselling gay people, while Susan would not have the ordination credentials required by a Baptist church. But the vast majority of jobs don't impose such requirements. I would certainly never dream of asking the sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or political attitudes of an individual I was considering hiring; and, even if information on these subjects was volunteered, I would do the best I could to ignore it. One has to treat individuals alike, simply because otherwise one could *never* be fair. This, of course, has nothing to do with my private attitudes. I might well consider that someone (say a regular viewer of Jimmy Swaggart) had religious beliefs that were harmful to them. The obvious thing to do in that case is to keep my mouth shut. As long as such issues are kept out of the workplace (it's one thing to be open about such things, and quite another to be dogmatic), it's really not appropriate for an employer to comment. Finally, let me say that I find David Brunson's remarks tiresome.
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/11/84)
. >> If I were Susan, I would be both insulted and scared. >>Insult comes from being hired for a job for reasons other than >>her qualifications. (If another woman wanted the job, would you >>hire Susan because she had larger breasts?!?) >>Fear comes from the possibility that she might get canned if a >>Christian with the appropriate credentials (who isn't gay) comes >>along and wants the job. Would you can her because she's a Jew? >>When would you start to use the Bible to discriminate *against* >>her because she's Jewish? > >As for the insult, I left something important out of the original >scenario. You see, Susan sufficiently impressed me with her >technical knowledge, grades, outstanding achievement in an area >different from that of the job in question, that I was convinced >of her ability to rapidly make up for lack of experience. I see. That is, I see that you have changed the scenario to give your position more credibility and power. The point, however, is still that you have discriminated against one person because of his sexual preference and and for another because of her religious preference. This makes for discrimination on grounds which are illegal. No matter what you feel about it you and your business could easily be liable for prosecution. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/12/84)
. >> You have a right >>to your opinion, and you also have the right to voice it. They let the KKK >>hold marches and pass out literature. That doesn't make their opinions >>correct either. > >I don't get it. What does the KKK have to do with this? >-- >David Brunson The KKK hold the same views of Black People as you hold about Gay People with the possible exception that being black is not a matter of choice. They are also regarded by most of the country as reactionary and crackpots. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/14/84)
. >> == David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire > == Somebody Else >>As for the insult, I left something important out of the original >>scenario. You see, Susan sufficiently impressed me with her >>technical knowledge, grades, outstanding achievement in an area >>different from that of the job in question, that I was convinced >>of her ability to rapidly make up for lack of experience. > >I see. That is, I see that you have changed the scenario to >give your position more credibility and power. I must have been successful if that's all you have to say! >The point, however, is still that you have discriminated >against one person because of his sexual preference and and >for another because of her religious preference. This makes >for discrimination on grounds which are illegal. No matter >what you feel about it you and your business could easily be >liable for prosecution. Is this fact or wishful thinking? Can you give the statute title, section, paragraph, whatever? -- David Brunson, M.N.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/16/84)
[] From: manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) >Seems to me we're talking about whether equal protection is really equal >protection or not. In both the Canadian and U.S. Constitutions there's >a guarantee that everyone is entitled to equal protection and due process >(actually, the Canadian provision comes into effect next year). This >means that if you're hiring, you're supposed to treat all the candidates >the same way; whether they're gay, Jewish, socialist, or eat peanut butter >and jelly sandwiches has (for almost all jobs) no relevance. We are talking about homosexuals. NOT Jews, NOT socialists, and NOT people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There are STILL sodomy laws on the books in most civilized states (talking about the U.S.). What we are talking about is a proposed radical shift in U.S. public policy. It is currently NOT illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Some are proposing to make discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Currently homosexuality is illegal and discrimination against homosexuality is legal. HR-427 and other proposed initiatives seek to make homosexuality legal and discrimination against homosexuality illegal. >But the vast majority of jobs don't impose such requirements. I would >certainly never dream of asking the sexual orientation, religious >beliefs, or political attitudes of an individual I was considering >hiring; and, even if information on these subjects was volunteered, >I would do the best I could to ignore it. One has to treat individuals >alike, simply because otherwise one could *never* be fair. I don't run my business the same way you do. Why will you force me to conform to something that is abhorrent to me? >This, of course, has nothing to do with my private attitudes. I might >well consider that someone (say a regular viewer of Jimmy Swaggart) >had religious beliefs that were harmful to them. The obvious thing to >do in that case is to keep my mouth shut. As long as such issues are >kept out of the workplace (it's one thing to be open about such things, >and quite another to be dogmatic), it's really not appropriate for an >employer to comment. My religion IS, in fact, practiced in the workplace. I believe that God will prosper me according to my righteousness. Your definition of righteousness is disgusting to me. Why can't we just leave things the way they are? Why will you have me thrown in jail, or legally forced out of business because I refuse to accept your warped morality? >Finally, let me say that I find David Brunson's remarks tiresome. I would like to be more entertaining. Unfortunately I am faced with the mundane and sober task of stemming an increasingly perverted tide of public opinion that will redefine me from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. -- Your friend, David Brunson
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (10/18/84)
In article <usfbobo.205> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes: >We are talking about homosexuals. NOT Jews, NOT socialists, and NOT >people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There are STILL >sodomy laws on the books in most civilized states (talking about the U.S.). >What we are talking about is a proposed radical shift in U.S. public >policy. It is currently NOT illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Whoa! Homosexuality does not constitute prima facie evidence for sodomy nor is sodomy a practice restricted to gays. Granted that specific forms of sexual behavior may be against the law and that you have the right to discriminate against those who break the law, it is incumbent upon *you* to prove the violation. Innocence without proof of guilt is a right that everyone enjoys, fortunately, though it appears you would like to change that. (You would be amazed at the sexual practices that are against the law in North Carolina -- as a monogamous happily married person I regularly violate state statutes. Fortunately only Jesse Helms is interested in prosecuting these sorts of things.) -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (10/22/84)
I guess I support legislation to make what David Brunson stands for illegal. Then he will shut up and stop making pro-Brunsonite remarks: he is, after all, a believer in following laws.
arwen@sdcc3.UUCP (arwen) (10/22/84)
[] Normally I don't answer these questions, but I did read a followup answer, and so: I'm Jewish, and I don't mind at all being put in the same "brotherhood" as gays. Like, why not? Both groups have been persecuted through the years. And there's a lot of overlap between them (a good friend of mine is a lesbian and a Jew, it's not at all uncommon). So what? -- -=< Lady Arwen >=- ...sdcsvax!sdcc3!arwen "I don't even *have* a little dog Toto!"
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (10/23/84)
> We are talking about homosexuals. NOT Jews, NOT socialists, and NOT > people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There are STILL > sodomy laws on the books in most civilized states (talking about the U.S.). > What we are talking about is a proposed radical shift in U.S. public > policy. It is currently NOT illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. > Some are proposing to make discrimination against homosexuals illegal. > Currently homosexuality is illegal and discrimination against homosexuality > is legal. HR-427 and other proposed initiatives seek to make homosexuality > legal and discrimination against homosexuality illegal. Actaully, it depends somewhat on how the constitution is interpreted as to waether or not it is legal to discriminate against anyone! And I'm glad to say that those few states that still have sodomy laws are having them struck down by the courts if they won't get their own house in order. Currently Texas is in court over the issue. > I don't run my business the same way you do. Why will you force me > to conform to something that is abhorrent to me? Don't run a business if you do want to discriminate. > My religion IS, in fact, practiced in the workplace. I believe > that God will prosper me according to my righteousness. Your definition > of righteousness is disgusting to me. Why can't we just leave things the > way they are? Why will you have me thrown in jail, or legally forced out > of business because I refuse to accept your warped morality? Your religion should be practiced everywhere, why do you not follow it? Remember Jesus's "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do you not practice the second most important commandment, according to the benchmark of the man you try to pattern your life after. > I would like to be more entertaining. Unfortunately I am faced with the > mundane and sober task of stemming an increasingly perverted tide of public > opinion that will redefine me from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. You are a bigot and a hypocrate. You should not be allowed to let the effects of the former ruin other people's lives. You should think about the latter and ask if Jesus wants his church run on that basis. Richard Brower
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/27/84)
. >>>As for the insult, I left something important out of the original >>>scenario. You see, Susan sufficiently impressed me with her >>>technical knowledge, grades, outstanding achievement in an area >>>different from that of the job in question, that I was convinced >>>of her ability to rapidly make up for lack of experience. >>>[David Brunson] >> >>I see. That is, I see that you have changed the scenario to >>give your position more credibility and power. >>[me] > >I must have been successful if that's all you have to say! >[David Brunson] Not hardly! What you did do is blow all to hell any possible credibility that you may have had (which wasn't any by my standards) and shown us all that you will change your story to fit your position when it pleases you. The fact that I said little only shows that I didn't need to say much to point out the fallacy of your position. >>The point, however, is still that you have discriminated >>against one person because of his sexual preference and for >>another because of her religious preference. This makes for >>discrimination on grounds which are illegal. No matter what >>you feel about it you and your business could easily be >>liable for prosecution. >>[me] > >Is this fact or wishful thinking? Can you give the statute >title, section, paragraph, whatever? >[David Brunson] No, I cannot give statute, title, section, paragraph or whatever. But, will you deny that you know discrimination on religious preference is illegal? -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap