Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Leeper's amazing misperceptions Message-ID: <354@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 21:56:38 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.354 Posted: Fri Mar 29 21:56:38 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 07:48:11 EST References: <22@bbnccv.UUCP> <350@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <49@bbnccv.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 83 Quotes from sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) Fri Mar 29 02:24:35 1985: > > Yes, I certainly would object to an ad such as Steve proposed asking for > > Christians (or members of any other religion) exclusively to share a > > dwelling. In fact, I would make sure the state attorney general knew > > about the advertisement, since it is illegal to discriminate on religious > > grounds in housing. > > > > "Liberation" is not all a bed of roses. You have to live by the same > > standards you make the oppressors live by. You may not like it in some > > cases, but it is the price that has to be paid to end discrimination. > > Otherwise you just have a new double standard. > > Sounds like my response to Evelyn pressed one of Tim's pre-programmed > buttons. I would save the tirade against religion for another more > appropriate newsgroup. What the Hell are you talking about? I am deeply religious; I am even the moderator of a religious mailing list. (And unlike your religion, mine embraces homosexuality and bisexuality.) What "tirade" are you referring to? Protesting discrimination based on religion is a "tirade against religion"? Obviously my name has pressed one of the "pre-programmed buttons" in Steve's tiny little mind. My advice, Steve: First pull your head out of your ass. Then (maybe) you'll be able to pull the beam out of your eye. > What *IS* true in the context of this discussion > is that a personal characteristic such as sexual orientation is as > legitimate a discriminant when making a housing choice as vegetarianism, > gender, smoking, keeping kosher, liking loud music, or even (gasp) religion, > if one cared enough about it. Since those are not equally legitimate, the sentence is meaningless. Let me spell it out for you: If someone said "White roomates only need apply", or "Bisexual roommates only need apply", or "Thelemite roommates only need apply", I would consider that person a fool and a bigot, despite the fact that I am a white bisexual Thelemite. Anyone who gets offended by a roommate's religion, color, or sexual preference is an asshole, and has no moral right to discriminate based on his bigotry. > There is nothing illegal about an individual making private decisions > about whom they wish to live with or associate with. Some of those > might be repugnant to some (discrimination based on race or religion), > others morally neutral. I am thankful, however, that we don't have > the government that Tim thinks we have, where individual "right > thinking" and "right behavior" are legislated. More meaningless yow-yow arguments. You are probably right concerning the legalities involved, unfortunately. But if asking the government to forbid prejudicial discrimination by individuals is 1984-style, then I suppose Paul loved homosexuals, the Russians haven't lost anyone in their space program, and little puppies have wombats for their mothers. Have you been talking with Frank Adrian lately, by any chance? > To belabor the > obvious, I am not addressing discrimination by public and private > *institutions*, nor the moral illegitimacy of such discrimination. Why do you feel that something which is morally wrong for an institution can be morally right for an individual? To me that is prima facie absurd. > More than anything else, I am appalled at the more general controversy > (raised entirely by straights here) who would claim that explicitly > seeking a gay roommate is not only a non-issue but actually morally > wrong! They of course would not think twice about using any of the > issues mentioned above as criteria in choosing friends, roommates > and lovers. I see. Now I'm straight. Thanks for reversing my sexuality as well as my religion, Steve. What IS your problem? As I have said, you are entirely wrong about my own willingness to make decisions on the basis of bigotry and prejudice. Not only am I unwilling to do so, I have no desire at all to do so. Nor do I write knee-jerk replies to messages based solely on my prejudices about the writer.... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"