crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (07/10/84)
Back in the days when I "thought" I was straight and was trying my hardest to prove it to myself and the rest of the world, I came across an article about a Mormon lawyer in Palo Alto (I believe). The article listed the man's credits and among them was the "distinction" of having successfully defeated a Gay rights ordinance. I was also a Mormon at the time, and had been brought up on love of God and country and how important it was that we have to continually fight for our liberty or else we would lose it. I was also taught that we should be politically active in the community. However, I (even as a "straight" person) was absolutely shocked to read a Mormon newspaper praising a Mormon attorney for working to defeat and abridge the liberties of a large segment of the population on the grounds that what they were doing was "morally wrong". At the time I also thought being Gay was "morally wrong", but I also thought it was morally wrong to work to defeat other people's rights. OK, enough of the intro. Here's the question. I will grant to the Falwellian's that their Bible could be interpreted as saying that being Gay is a sin against God. I will also grant that they believe the same and have the right to preach to each other about the evils of being Gay as long as they wish. I've granted you something, now you grant me something. Grant me that Gay people as a whole are NOT out to convert the world to being Gay. Neither are they trying to impose their values on anybody, and for the most part just want to earn a living and live in peace and pursue their lifestyle without harrassment. Given the above, can somebody PLEASE explain to me how people can justify taking away a person's rights to pursue employment and housing on the moral basis as is being argued today? OK so God doesn't like it. So, its evil, mean, rotten, and downright revolting to you? So what? Does that mean that Gay people should not be able to have the same basic rights as everybody else. Should they be instantly zapped into hell? What? Why don't you just come out and say it so the rest of you can see you for what you really are. And THEN find a justification for what you are advocating in YOUR OWN BIBLE! It just doesn't hold water to me and never did. OK so the Vietnamese eat dogs and cats (or are PERCEIVED as doing so by the general population). There's probably something in the Bible that states how revolting THAT practice is. To me personally, I don't understand it and would never do it. But does anybody have a right to say that Vietnamese people don't have a right to equal housing and employment simply because they eat dogs and cats? Even of ONE of them aet MY cat, I still don't think denying them AS A GROUP their basic rights is justitiable. Well, this simple question turned out to be quite long-winded, but I don't think anybody has ever addressed this question and answered it rationally. I have heard a lot of rhetoric and name-calling from both sides, but I haven't seen any justification for denying the rights of any GROUP of people whose lifestyle you or even God find to be morally offensive. John "I've looked at life (and lived it) from both sides now" Crane
ted@teldata.UUCP (07/18/84)
******************************* I'll answer your question since this is an issue my wife and I have discussed on several occassions (We are both hetro.). Gays have no special rights and no legislation is needed to grant them any rights. Before you start flaming hear me out. Gay people are entitled to the same protections from discrimination as everyone else, no more, no less. The only legislation needed is to have the category "sexual preference" included in the list of reasons for none discrimination. I wish to make one exception. Teachers and youth counselors. Here's why. To most parents the possibility of their child being or becoming a homosexual is an abhorent thought. As parents in a democratic society these people have the right limit the exposure of their children to ideals they disagree with. Another issue is the tax break for married persons. I happen to disagree with that tax break and would remove it from hetro marriages rather than add gay marriages.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/84)
> As parents in a democratic society these people > have the right limit the exposure of their children to ideals they > disagree with. Even if that includes independent thinking, I suppose. :-( -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (07/21/84)
I agree with a lot of what you said. However, you did NOT answer my question. My question was not whether or not gays should have special rights encoded in the law, but: how religious groups can justify ACTIVELY FIGHTING Gay rights legislation on the grounds that they consider the Gay lifestyle (whatever that is) to be MORALLY WRONG. As for counselors and teachers being gay, the question is not whether we should allow them (for they already exist in abundance), but the question is what if one of them decides to "come out" or is "discovered"? Can they legally be fired? Employment right legislation would ensure that they could not be fired simply because they are gay. Also, I know of no gay counselor or teacher who is actively or even passively recruiting anybody into their ranks. You are either gay or straight or somewhere in between. Nobody recruits you either way. You just ARE. I am the father of four children. I try to teach them right and wrong (as I see it) in the home. I then have to trust that they have minds of their own and will make the right decisions when they are out in the world being exposed to any number of different ideas and lifestyles. If they later in life decide that my teachings are wrong and somebody else's are right, then so be it. They are intelligent beings and have the ability and freedom to have their own opinions. So much for gay teachers and counselors. John Crane
asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (07/26/84)
===== How many times are we going to have to listen to this absurd argument? > Gays have no special rights and no legislation is needed to grant them any > rights. Before you start flaming hear me out. Gay people are entitled to > the same protections from discrimination as everyone else, no more, no less. > The only legislation needed is to have the category "sexual preference" > included in the list of reasons for none discrimination. > > I wish to make one exception. Teachers and youth counselors. Here's why. > To most parents the possibility of their child being or becoming a homosexual > is an abhorent thought. As parents in a democratic society these people > have the right limit the exposure of their children to ideals they > disagree with. If children learned their sexuality from their teachers, where do you think all the gays in the world came from? To the best of my knowledge, I *NEVER* encountered a gay adult until I was in college. None of my teachers were gay. (Well, actually, who can say for sure, but none of them were open about it if they were.) An entire lifetime of straight role models didn't make me grow up straight. Why do people think that a single gay person is going to make their children gay? -paul asente decwrl!asente