Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!fortune!crane
From: crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: An Innocent (I think) Question
Message-ID: <3760@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jul-84 19:35:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.3760
Posted: Mon Jul  9 19:35:41 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 02:48:48 EDT
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 61


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