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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <222@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:04:24 EST
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.222
Posted: Sun Nov 18 04:04:24 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 02:37:05 EST
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 67

[]

reply to comments from Steve Bellovin

We finally seem to be making some progress here.  First let me take
care of some small business which I hope won't start another round
of tangents.

>P.S.  Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political
>instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics.  Future
>discussion should probably not take place in net.religion....

I quote the stated purpose of net.religion:

"net.religion:	Religious, ethical, and moral implications of actions."

By this statement the "Gay Rights" discussion is one of the very *few*
appropriate discussions happening in net.religion.  I am asking a moral
question.  A question of right and wrong.  I don't know how I could have
worded the question any more clearly and I don't see why I am still being
misunderstood.  A question of judgement has been proposed.  I am asking
people to comment on the "ethical and moral implications" of this judgement.

>I don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed
>that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original
>posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how
>you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly
>worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious
>beliefs above the law.  Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that
>gays ought not be a protected class under the law.  You seem to be going
>a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are
>wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all.

As far as I know my only major error so far was an early attempt at arguing
that homosexuals are invalid as a minority because they can change their
behavior.  Many people correctly jumped on that.  I don't care to defend
my "poorly worded" posting because that could easily get us off the subject.
Let's just drop it.  As for the last sentence, you have misunderstood
my meaning.  But that is a tangential point and you show promising signs of
addressing the important issue in the next paragraph:

>As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly
>disagree.  I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal
>to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job
>is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well.

First of all, let me congratulate you on your membership in the ACLU.  They
do a lot of good things.  Let me further congratulate you on your second 
sentence: "any refusal to hire someone based on anything other than their
ability to do the job is *morally* wrong..."   You just said the magic words!
Now, can you explain yourself here in more depth?  Why is it *morally* wrong
to refuse to hire someone?  Please understand that I am not being obtuse.
The statement may seem perfectly obvious to you, but it is entirely alien
to me.  I can easily imagine scenarios where it *could* be morally wrong
to refuse hiring, but to make hiring a universal moral principle strikes me
as an odd proposal.  It seems to me that you must be making some assumption
about how the world works which I don't share and that you take for granted.
If you could explain your statement in more depth maybe we could find it.

A general note:  let's all be careful to stick to the issue.  We are trying
to learn about the code of morality that proponents of "Gay Rights" initiatives
subscribe to.
--
David Brunson

... better understanding through higher education.