Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.politics,net.misc
Subject: Re: Ronald Reagan's Homophobic Career
Message-ID: <227@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 21:02:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.227
Posted: Thu Oct 25 21:02:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 09:24:05 EDT
References: <1057@bbncca.ARPA> <2809@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 46

> Good Grief.  Cant you people ever realize that some of us have
> religious feeling about homosexuality that is a valid reason
> to fight against the 'normalization' of homosexuality?  [MILO MEDIN]

What gives any belief system (or any group of adherents to a belief
system) the right to "denormalize"/outlaw/prohibit any set of behaviors
that doesn't interfere with or harm other human beings?  If anybody
has that "right" now, it's a right worth taking away.

> Certainly if a covicted rapist were wandering about trying to get
> special protection, most people would fight against this.  And thats
> the same way with this homosexual rights movement (gay is a 
> colloquialism design to be more palatable), and people who
> feel like I do will deal with it accordingly.  

If the prison system had the means to truly psychologically rehabilitate
rapists/murderers/ALL those who feel they have some sort of right to
interfere in other people's lives, then "protection" for such
rehabilitated people would be warranted, NOT to allow them to re-engage
in their anti-human activities, but rather to live their lives in peace.
What anti-human activities are homosexuals guilty of?  (By the way, I
thought "gay" was used not to make things more "palatable" for those
like you---it hasn't and it won't---but rather as a self-descriptive term
to provide a positive self-image for gay people, as opposed to the malicious
and/or more clinical terms.)

> I wont discriminate against someone in the
> workplace on this issue, but I sure wiull fight to keep society
> from considering this a normal sort of thing.  

Let's also be sure to make sure that anything else that we "just don't
like" is also not considered by "society" to be "a normal sort of thing".
("Get that raw fish and seaweed out of your mouth---you're goin' to jail!")

> It's about time people saw this for what it really is, a disgusting act
> of perversion of nature.

I assume the author is referring to his own vindictive arbitrary hatred.
Disgust is in the eye of the beholder.  What give such beholders the right
to impose behavior standards on beholdees?  And, if nature is "what happens
in the real world", how can anything that actually happens be a perversion
of nature?  Or are only one person's specific views on what is "natural" the
basis for guidelines?
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr