Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <214@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 21:56:20 EST
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.214
Posted: Thu Nov  8 21:56:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 06:48:41 EST
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 42
Xref: godot net.religion:2230 net.motss:870

[]

>As if we needed MORE evidence that Brunson was Ken Arndt in disguise.  It
>seems, to Mr. Brunson, that one needs to "prove" one's "legitimacy" as a
>human being before one is to be "accepted" (by whom?).  Blacks and other
>minorities have worked hard and long to do this, and this validates them
>(their hands have been stamped, apparently) as real human beings in Brunson's
>eyes.  

This bears no relationship whatsoever to anything I have said.

>	But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount
>of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes.  For the N+1th time, the
>goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case
>basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the
>ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as
>human beings. 

For the N+2nd time:  There are two parties involved in the proposed civil
suit.  One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who
adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual.  The Bible-
believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning
tolerance.  In his mind homosexuals are, in a sense, criminals.  That is,
people who have forfeited their rights by their objectionable behavior.
(You are aware that thieves, for example, forfeit their rights?  Or should
they not be "discriminated" against either?).

You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind.  He WILL NOT
HIRE the homosexual.  That's all there is to it.  Arguments concerning
the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant.  The only
question is this:  who should win the suit?  Who should be vindicated
and who should be condemned.  There is no *nice-guy* way to
handle the problem.  There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about
this" approach left.  The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible-
believer refuses to change.  All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!???

For the N+2nd time:  who should win the suit *AND WHY*?

--
David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family