Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <238@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Nov-84 04:57:50 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.238
Posted: Tue Nov 13 04:57:50 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 01:16:46 EST
References: <214@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 79

> >	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?).

Some person may refuse to accept the arguments of society that smashing
the windows of other peoples' cars is not a good thing to do.  In their
mind, the people who attempt to stop them from doing this are infringing
on their rights.  My response?  Tough.  Just because Bible-believing citizens
don't like gays doesn't mean we have to honor their views.  Just because they
think gays are, in a sense, criminals doesn't mean they are criminals.

> 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*?

Well, one thing I understand is that if you don't have anything worthwhile
to say, saying it at 150dB doesn't make it any more worthwhile.  Fine.
Nobody will change your mind.  I hope you realize that by abjuring reason,
you've probably blown your chances of changing anybody else's mind.  Indeed,
there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem.  Society either has to
be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays.  I think it should be nasty
to the "Bible believers".  Their actions directly and provably harm gays.
The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing
the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker.  I operate -
and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle
that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm
other people is *immoral*.  That's right, immoral.  We don't pussyfoot around
here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here.  Therefore the
gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned.

OK.  You probably dislike this conclusion.  Either 1) you have a *purely*
rational argument against it ("gays are doing themselves and others harm
because their action is a sin" don't cut it) - in which case, please present
it or 2) you dislike it because it disagrees with a strongly- but not
rationally-held conviction of yours - in which case, you are probably turning
more people against you than you are convincing to support you, and you
are making a public nuisance out of yourself, so stop it.
> 
> David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family

Bullshit.  In your ideal world, I'd seriously consider getting my tubes
cut.  I'd not want to subject any child of mine to a world in which people
who disagreed with their values, without being demonstratably and objectively
harmed by the consequences of those values, could enforce their judgements
against their ways of life.  Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed
by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's
hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be
able to afford food without getting paid by an employer.

If your intent is to disrupt net.motss, you've certainly succeeded.  If your
intent is to make people aware of your plight, and sympathetic to it,
I suspect you've failed.  If that is your intent, please don't annoy us
with further postings; it might prompt us to work harder against political
candidates who support your view, and leave you more isolated than before.
(Hmmm... maybe discrimination against what you call "Bible believers" is good
for them, as they're hurting themselves by their sins against humanity...)

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy