Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:ag5 From: ag5@pucc-k (Leo Buscaglia) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: "Gay Rights": A conflict of values Message-ID: <528@pucc-k> Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 02:52:36 EST Article-I.D.: pucc-k.528 Posted: Thu Nov 1 02:52:36 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 02:56:49 EST References: <209@usfbobo.UUCP> Organization: your nearest bookstore Lines: 103 [] -->David Brunson --> . . . about intolerance . . . --> --> The values of most respondents say that intolerance -->of those who commit sexual sins is a great evil. Once again, it is -->a question of values. My values say that intolerance is, of itself, -->neither good nor evil. That is, it is easy to imagine situations where -->intolerance can be good, and to imagine other situations where intolerance -->can be evil. For example intolerance of racial minorities, on the basis -->of race, is a great evil. It is inhuman. Intolerance of profligates, -->on the other hand, can be a great good -- by discouraging profligacy -->and thus raising the quality of life for those who would otherwise -->have been ruined. Many detractors, however, have argued that intolerance -->itself is inherently evil -- always. First, a partial treatment of -->the "Types of Wrongness" question. Fine. Seeing through the terminology for what it is worth ("sexual sins"), and going right for the heart of the matter, David indicates that (according to his values) intolerance is neither good nor evil. This sounds OK at first. David uses racial minorities as his example; again a good choice. Keep in mind *why* these people were (and still are) discriminated against: it was thought that they were INFERIOR to the ruling classes at the time. This is sad, but true; Americans in the South during the 1800 actually believed that God destined black men and women to be their slaves because the white folks ruling the plantation were superior, that the slaves were *not* human... that black men were incapable of leading others, of showing intelligence and the like. People believed that it was *unnatural* for Africans to posess knowledge, intelligence and all that which we consider to be vital aspects of our humanity. People actually bought this bullshit, hook, line, and sinker... Why was that last paragraph relevant? Because those who are intolerant of alternative lifestyles tend to demonstrate the same kinds of attitudes... that homosexuals lead an inferior lifestyle, that homosexuality detracts from our human nature and the like. Furthermore, it does seem that Christ calls Christians to be forgiving, to turn the other cheek, and to *not* stand in judgement (since only God judges...) How does this permit David to pass judgement on my lifestyle? -->Let's consider the case of the alcoholic. Let's *not* consider the case of the alcoholic. Alcoholics *are* made, not born. In many cases, alcoholics are of weak character; this is why they can't deal with alcohol in an acceptable manner. Alcoholics *choose* alcohol; they have always had the choice to accept or reject it; some enjoy the sensation to such a degree that they choose to accept it to excess. They have chosen alcohol to the point where it no longer becomes a choice, but a reflex... (or so it seems). On the other hand, gays HAVE NOT CHOSEN to be gay. They may choose to live the lifestyle that was given to them, or they may choose to repress it and live miserably... -->further consider the case of the Skid-Row type: the person who has taken -->perversion of God's bounty to such an extreme that he has forfeited his home, -->job, friends, for liquor. Now suppose that you meet this person and he asks -->you for money. Well if you are compassionate you will find that tolerance -->morality is not sufficient to deal with the situation. . . . -->. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So what do you do? -->Well, you could feed him, give him a warm place to stay, or help out someone -->else who is already doing this -- a mission, for example. -->The case of the homosexual is very similar. By denying the poor guy/lady -->a job you know that you aren't solving his/her problems, but at least you are -->offering some resistance to the prevailing notion that homosexuality is -->an acceptable "lifestyle", and therefore making it more unattractive to -->those only marginally committed to this particular brand of self-destruction. All that you do accomplish here is that you force the gay person to keep his non-employment life and his work life entirely separate. How many people that you work with don't participate in office social events and keep to themselves? You are forcing this person to live a lie in order to provide for basic needs. This doesn't sound very humanitarian and com- passionate to me.... -->What does the Man of Compassion do in this case? Well there is no difference. -->If the sinner, the enemy (it is, as one contributor recently noted, good -->to know who you're enemies are) of righteousness, the liar against the truth, -->the defiler of those things that are holy and good, needs food, then feed -->him. . . . . . "You shall not see your enemy's donkey or his ox fallen -->down by the way, and turn away your eyes from them; but you shall surely -->help him to lift them up again" ... and so on. But you *don't* aid and -->abet the enemy in unrighteousness. I see. Employing someone (which permits that person to seek basic sustenance and the like) goes against what the man of compassion does by feeding the "sinner?" Now you *do* have me confused... More on this tomorrow... at a more sane hour... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 {allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"