608/610 fail
Jenner
dealng with the homosexual issue in seattle.general over the
last seven years. The intolerants, ignorants, and bigots
used to have the upper hand with only one or two voices
opposing their views. They would laugh with glee at the deaths
of people with AIDS. They would equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
They would harp on the choice thing, all while forgetting
that religion is a choice. They would rant on about promiscuity
while ignoring the activities of your stereotypical college
frat boy. There would be continued refrences to religious
teachings and it was so convenient to measure others by their
relifious metric. Then there was the ridicuous argument ath
our species would cease to exist if homosexuality were accepted.
It went on and on and there were only a few voices againts them.
The tide, in the current discussion, changed There
were a minority of the anti-homosexual and the supporters
of equal rights were many. Some sense seemed to have come
to seattle.general after so long.
When I stated that this was the case, that the bigots
were losing the battle, and the war, Janos said, "Prove it".
608 and 610 failed.
It is proved.
jenner
Janos Szamosfalvi
: When I stated that this was the case, that the bigots
: were losing the battle, and the war, Janos said, "Prove it".
:
: 608 and 610 failed.
:
: It is proved.
Not really. ;-)
The failure of 608/610 only proves a loss of a battle, but not the war.
I'm sure we'll see another initiative with a similar agenda anew
in a not very distant future.
Also, it shall be noted that OCA in Oregon did collect enough
signatures.
No question, you're the victor HERE and NOW. But this doesn't
necessarily mean that you'll be the victor TOMORROW.
Bob Hiltner
: They would laugh with glee at the deaths
: of people with AIDS.
This is truly sad, and I'm sure those who do not already sincerely regret
laughing at others misery, will come to when close friends die (or when
they, themselves are afflicted).
:
: When I stated that this was the case, that the bigots
: were losing the battle, and the war, Janos said, "Prove it".
:
: 608 and 610 failed.
:
: It is proved.
:
: jenner
Q.E.D.
May the issue be put to rest.
--
Bob Hiltner <bob...@eskimo.com>
"It is not enough to do well (and I hope you do), you must also do good"
^^^^
Rose Bud
: In an earlier article I spoke of the history of
: last seven years. The intolerants, ignorants, and bigots
: used to have the upper hand with only one or two voices
: opposing their views.
Jenner, you are living in the 60s or 70s. Vincent Carrol, the editorial
page editor of the Rocky Mountain News, classified letters the paper
received on Proposition 2 into 3 categories. He said that only about
one-third voted because of moral objection to homosexuality.
One-fourth cited idiosyncratic reasons, and the remainder cited
opposition to special rights for any category of Americans. The common
argument was, "not because I dislike homosexuals, but because I disagree
with special interests" and that "they already have equal rights. They
want preferential rights."
: They would laugh with glee at the deaths
: of people with AIDS. They would equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
I don't think there are many laughing about anyone dying from AIDS, and
certainly no one is laughing about the tax dollars spent on AIDS--more
than for all kinds of cancer combined.
As for the pedophilia perception, gay leaders could go a long way toward
clarifying this perception if they would simply refuse to align themselves
with organizations such as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love
Association). Your image to the public is your responsibility, not that
of the public.
: They would harp on the choice thing, all while forgetting
: that religion is a choice. They would rant on about promiscuity
: while ignoring the activities of your stereotypical college
: frat boy. There would be continued refrences to religious
: teachings and it was so convenient to measure others by their
: relifious metric. Then there was the ridicuous argument ath
: our species would cease to exist if homosexuality were accepted.
: It went on and on and there were only a few voices againts them.
This is a rather mixed bag of arguments, but I don't think the argument
that heterosexual promiscuity being ignored should justify homosexual
or any other kind of promiscuity. Two wrongs don't make a right, and
the wrongs of others do not make our wrongs right.
: The tide, in the current discussion, changed There
: were a minority of the anti-homosexual and the supporters
: of equal rights were many. Some sense seemed to have come
: to seattle.general after so long.
Many people are afraid to speak out against homosexuals because they are
afraid of being labeled a bigot or homophobe, or worse. I would not have
spoken out myself without an alias. Are you sure you have a majority
supporting you now, or do you wonder how many there are who are afraid of
the homosexual movement, and who are afraid to speak out for fear of being
attacked, as I was attacked?
: When I stated that this was the case, that the bigots
: were losing the battle, and the war, Janos said, "Prove it".
: 608 and 610 failed.
: It is proved.
Know thine enemy, Jenner.
Joseph M Reilly
[followups set to seattle.politics]
>Jenner, you are living in the 60s or 70s. Vincent Carrol, the editorial
>page editor of the Rocky Mountain News, classified letters the paper
>received on Proposition 2 into 3 categories. He said that only about
>one-third voted because of moral objection to homosexuality.
>
>One-fourth cited idiosyncratic reasons, and the remainder cited
>opposition to special rights for any category of Americans. The common
>argument was, "not because I dislike homosexuals, but because I disagree
>with special interests" and that "they already have equal rights. They
>want preferential rights."
First of all, just because the remainder believe "they already have equal
rights" doesn't make it so. If I can be fired because of my sexual
orientation, my right to be judged at work based on performance and work
characteristics is not there for me. Because people say "they want
preferential rights" doesn't make it so. Do you know what rights are
being asked for? I keep spelling them out for you.
Is it okay for me to not hire someone because she is of mexican
heritage? Is it okay for me to not hire someone because he is gay? Do
either of these characteristics have anything to do with work? Most
people in this country could legally be fired or otherwise be
discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
>As for the pedophilia perception, gay leaders could go a long way toward
>clarifying this perception if they would simply refuse to align themselves
>with organizations such as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love
>Association). Your image to the public is your responsibility, not that
>of the public.
Have I told you that I am an individual? Have I aligned myself with
pedophilia? I strongly disagree with adult/child sexual relations. Do I
have to announce this because of my sexual orientation. Is NAMBLA *my*
responsibility *because* of my sexual orientation. I, in no way, support
NAMBLA. Am I required to do more than announce that because of my sexual
orientation? Am I required to announe that because of my sexual
orientation? Have I explained before that I'm Joe Reilly, a real, live,
human person with my own mind? What are you doing to make sure that I
don't accuse you of pedophilia? Insulted? So am I!
>This is a rather mixed bag of arguments, but I don't think the argument
>that heterosexual promiscuity being ignored should justify homosexual
>or any other kind of promiscuity. Two wrongs don't make a right, and
>the wrongs of others do not make our wrongs right.
I think promiscuity is dangerous. I mean there are a wide variety of
diseases and undesirable people out there. I enjoy physical affection,
and encourage people to seek it out in a safe manner, by knowing the
person they are with and by using standard safer sex tools (latex,
water-based lubricants). I prefer monogomous relationships. Some people
don't. I worry for those who don't.
>Many people are afraid to speak out against homosexuals because they are
>afraid of being labeled a bigot or homophobe, or worse. I would not have
>spoken out myself without an alias. Are you sure you have a majority
>supporting you now, or do you wonder how many there are who are afraid of
>the homosexual movement, and who are afraid to speak out for fear of being
>attacked, as I was attacked?
Many people are afraid to speak out as homosexuals because they are
afraid of family rejection, physical harm, being fired from work, losing
their homes, losing friends, or worse. I would not have spoken out
myself except that some of us have to so that others can keep their jobs
and homes and so that families will be more understanding and so that my
friends' friends will not have never met a homosexual person. I am sure
that most people have a sense of fairness in their hearts. Are you
afraid of knowing me on a personal level without condemning me?
>Know thine enemy, Jenner.
Some people refer to these efforts as battles with foes and tactics. Set
yourself up as something other than my enemy. Try to meet me not as a
homosexual, but as a person.
I know I'm not actually reaching Rose Bud, but I'm hoping that someone is
reading these threads who can see past the raised emotions.
Again, I suggest that Rose Bud actually read former initiative 608 and do
a line by line translation for herself. Try to read it objectively.
Heck, you might even pretend that you are a lesbian (they do exist) and
see how it *could* affect you.
jre...@u.washington.edu phone: (206) 517-5468 Seattle, WA
________________________________________________________________________
"Prejudice, whether founded on -- U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly,
unsubstantiated fears, cultural ----ordering the reinstatement of
myths, stereotypes or erroneous ---former Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer
assumptions, cannot be the basis-----into the military, where she
for a discriminatory classification." -had served for 26 years
Mike Quigley
>in a not very distant future.
>
>Also, it shall be noted that OCA in Oregon did collect enough
>signatures.
>
cash keeps flowing. As Mabon said, the homosexual issue is the ``cash
cow of the `90s'' now that the abortion issue is no longer attracting
much attention (read ``dollars'').
Mike
Doug Andersen
>One-fourth cited idiosyncratic reasons, and the remainder cited
>opposition to special rights for any category of Americans. The common
>argument was, "not because I dislike homosexuals, but because I disagree
>with special interests" and that "they already have equal rights. They
>want preferential rights."
I'm curious Rosebud, do YOU think that homosexuals have equal rights
right now? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that
hetrosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't. Or the fact that in many
states homosexual activity is still a criminal offense?
--
Doug Andersen
do...@eskimo.com
"Rats live on no evil star" Anne Sexton's epitaph
Rose Bud
: I'm curious Rosebud, do YOU think that homosexuals have equal rights
: hetrosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't. Or the fact that in many
: states homosexual activity is still a criminal offense?
They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
citizens. Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone
homosexuality, whether they sincerely believe it should be condoned or not.
It would be a case of the minority imposing its will upon the majority.
Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
Most sodomy laws and other laws against homosexual activity are not
enforced. When was the last time a homosexual was arrested for sodomy?
To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
they do better economically than blacks or women. They have the benefit
of being in the white, male majority for all intents and purposes, other
than sexual purposes, and sexual purposes are not and should not be a
matter of public policy.
Would I discriminate? Yes, in some cases I would, and I would like to
retain the right to do so. For example, I would not allow a lesbian
to act as the girl scout leader in my daughter's troop. NOT because
she is a lesbian, per se, but for the same reasons I would not want
a MAN going on camping trips with my daughter.
The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
Ronald Schoenberg
[....deleted material....]
>
>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
And I would like the right to discriminate against all christians
and generally to be able to keep them entirely out of my life. Do you
think that would be ok as long as I got enough people to pass a law
to that effect? I also think we should pass a law taking their children
away from them to keep them from further poisoning their minds.
I'm not being entirely sarcastic. I think the world would be better
off without christians on it, but I also believe in live and let live
and so in fact I wouldn't vote for an anti-christian initiative. But it
does sicken me that so many christians (in particular the right wing
ones) don't have the same view.
--
Ronald Schoenberg University of Washington ro...@u.washington.edu
Scott Linn
:
: The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
: I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
: forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
They would?
Can you cite specific examples of this?
And what is this "forced imposition of their morals" business, anyway? A
number of people would consider not being allowed to have slaves a "forced
imposition" of someone elses morals, too.
--
Scott Linn
sc...@cv.hp.com
Jenner
e-mail. I gave her a chance ...
In article <2vqifg$d...@cyberspace.com>, Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
: Jenner (jen...@connected.com) wrote:
: : In an earlier article I spoke of the history of
: : dealng with the homosexual issue in seattle.general over the
: : last seven years. The intolerants, ignorants, and bigots
: : used to have the upper hand with only one or two voices
: : opposing their views.
:
: Jenner, you are living in the 60s or 70s.
No, Rose. I am living in the here and now and, unless you
were here *seven* years ago, you have no place to address this issue.
I was discussing the tenor of *this group* and not some
survey taken somewhere else. I was talking about this space, it's
history, and the changes we have seen here.
: : They would harp on the choice thing, all while forgetting
: : that religion is a choice. They would rant on about promiscuity
: : while ignoring the activities of your stereotypical college
: : frat boy. There would be continued refrences to religious
: : teachings and it was so convenient to measure others by their
: : relifious metric. Then there was the ridicuous argument ath
: : our species would cease to exist if homosexuality were accepted.
: : It went on and on and there were only a few voices againts them.
:
: This is a rather mixed bag of arguments, but I don't think the argument
: that heterosexual promiscuity being ignored should justify homosexual
: or any other kind of promiscuity. Two wrongs don't make a right, and
: the wrongs of others do not make our wrongs right.
It would serve you well to take remedial reading. Granted
that my own writing isn't that stellar, or even good, but it was
clear enough.
: : The tide, in the current discussion, changed There
: : were a minority of the anti-homosexual and the supporters
: : of equal rights were many. Some sense seemed to have come
: : to seattle.general after so long.
:
: Many people are afraid to speak out against homosexuals because they are
: afraid of being labeled a bigot or homophobe, or worse. I would not have
: spoken out myself without an alias. Are you sure you have a majority
: supporting you now, or do you wonder how many there are who are afraid of
: the homosexual movement, and who are afraid to speak out for fear of being
: attacked, as I was attacked?
In many ways, my little hysterical, newspaper quoting, phobic
little friend, you deserved the attacks you received. You didn't
deserve the level of vitrol you got from one person, but your demonstrated
ignorance of many issued, your reliance on the papers for your facts,
your obviously deliberate omission and bending of the 'facts' are all
testimant to yur fate. You got flamed and you deserved it. You acted
like a fool and got called on it.
I wonder, though, why you persist in this behavior. You must
really have some problems around this issue, because you aren't acting
rationally at all in dealing with it.
: : When I stated that this was the case, that the bigots
: : were losing the battle, and the war, Janos said, "Prove it".
: : 608 and 610 failed.
: : It is proved.
:
: Know thine enemy, Jenner.
I do, Rose, I do. It's people like you who can be swayed by
lies and prejudice. It's people like you who can't seperate their
own problems (you have demonstrated you do have one on this issue
with your hysterics) from the real issue; equal rights for all.
jenner
Robert Duniway
>
>They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
>citizens. Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone
>homosexuality, whether they sincerely believe it should be condoned or not.
>It would be a case of the minority imposing its will upon the majority.
>
saying that marriage must be between people of the same race would be
legitimate? Our legal system includes the concept of compelling interest.
There is no compelling interest in allowing same race marriages while
outlawing mixed race marriages. It is not the minority imposing its will
on the majority. It is tolerance. The majority probably don't approve of
2 Live Crew, but they are not imposing their will on the majority. They are
just making records, and there is no compelling reason why they should be
singled out and prohibited from engaging in an activity that others are free
to engage in. This argument is not sufficient. Can you give me a compelling
reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. If not, then their
rights are not the same as the rights of other citizens. They do not have
equal rights. Allowing them to marry would not constitute giving them
special rights. It would simply be preventing the majority from
inappropriately interfering with their lives.
Bob Duniway, University of Washington
Robert Duniway
>
>To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd.
Everyone on this list agrees with this point. It is only the assertion of
the anti-homosxuality folks that homosexuals are after special rights. You
have been invited, over and over, to demonstrate what special rights
homosexuals are after. All I have seen is complaints that they want the
right to do things that other people are free to do, like marry, acknowledge
their relationships publicly without being fired or evicted, not be the target
of hate crimes. No one has ever argued for quotas. Quotas would be impossible
since it is not always clear who is or is not homosexual. A few people may
be arguing for the same type of protection from a hostile workplace that
currently exist for different religious groups, sexes, and races. This appeal
for protection from sexual orientation harassment has the same pluses and
minuses as protection from sexual harassment, but even this cannot really be
considered a special right. If such a law is enacted, it protects people
of all sexual orientations. You have previously used the probability that
it would only be homosexuals who used the law as evidence that it would be a
special right. I take that to be evidence that we heterosexuals rarely get
harassed at work about our sexual orientation.
Think this over. I think that if you are honest and objective you will come
to the conclusion that the "special rights" gay agenda is a red herring, a
rhetorical device designed to try stirring up the general public so they will
unthinkingly support the anti gay political activity. If you think there is
a flaw in my analysis, state specifically what "special rights" the homosexual
political machine has been fighting to win. Just remember, special rights
mean rights that a person can have only invirtue of being homosexual. The
rights that you think homosexuals already have because they are citizens do
not count as special rights. If they already have them, giving them to them
explicitly doesn't give them any additional rights.
Nathan Frei
(stuff deleted)
>Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
>choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
Oh, this is good. Did you read what this said before you posted it? If
so, your comprehension of the discussions that have been going on for
weeks must be nil.
>Most sodomy laws and other laws against homosexual activity are not
>enforced. When was the last time a homosexual was arrested for sodomy?
Laws like this get enforced when it is convenient. Last year (from
memory-don't have the dates) a lesbian couple in VA lost custody of a
child because they engaged in oral sex, which is against the law in that
state. It's the same principle as sodomy laws--the ridiculous,
narrow-minded laws are on the books, so they can be used or ignored as
necessary, inflicting one group's morals on another.
>To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
>they do better economically than blacks or women. They have the benefit
>of being in the white, male majority for all intents and purposes, other
>than sexual purposes, and sexual purposes are not and should not be a
>matter of public policy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY. Beyond sex ed (and I already know what you think--if that word
can be used--about that) anything dealing with sexual preferences has no
place in the lawbooks.
(more stuff deleted)
>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
Spare me your continued paranoia.
Nathan Frei
Rose Bud
: Ya know, I've *tried* to be nice to this person. I even tried
: e-mail. I gave her a chance ...
Finally, a post so trivial and petty, I can actually ignore it!
: : Know thine enemy, Jenner.
:
: I do, Rose, I do. It's people like you who can be swayed by
: lies and prejudice. It's people like you who can't seperate their
: own problems (you have demonstrated you do have one on this issue
: with your hysterics) from the real issue; equal rights for all.
And know when thou hath been vanquished by the Greatest Ranter of Them All.
I'm thinking of changing my name to "Magna Ranta." Do you like it?
Rose Bud
: Laws like this get enforced when it is convenient. Last year (from
: memory-don't have the dates) a lesbian couple in VA lost custody of a
: child because they engaged in oral sex, which is against the law in that
: state. It's the same principle as sodomy laws--the ridiculous,
: narrow-minded laws are on the books, so they can be used or ignored as
: necessary, inflicting one group's morals on another.
This is just misinformation.
Sharon Bottoms was not arrested for having oral sex, and she won custody
of her son back regardless of a sodomy law still being on the books.
: >To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
: >they do better economically than blacks or women. They have the benefit
: >of being in the white, male majority for all intents and purposes, other
: >than sexual purposes, and sexual purposes are not and should not be a
: >matter of public policy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: EXACTLY. Beyond sex ed (and I already know what you think--if that word
: can be used--about that) anything dealing with sexual preferences has no
: place in the lawbooks.
Good, finally we agree. Let's get it out of our civil rights legislation,
where it's only going to create more abuses by another priviledged class.
Doug Andersen
>Doug Andersen (do...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: I'm curious Rosebud, do YOU think that homosexuals have equal rights
>: right now? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that
>: hetrosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't. Or the fact that in many
>: states homosexual activity is still a criminal offense?
>
>They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
>citizens. Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone
>homosexuality, whether they sincerely believe it should be condoned or not.
>It would be a case of the minority imposing its will upon the majority.
Let me ask you this then. 30 years ago interracial marriages were looked
down upon very strongly in the south, and were even illegal in many states.
Given that they were very much in the minority, would you also have
argued at the time that laws against interracial marriage were OK because
to do otherwise forces the majority to condone something they object to?
The fact is Rosebud, your argument just doesn't make it. There are lots
of things we may not approve of in this world, but that doesn't mean we
have to use the government to discriminate against them. Here you are
saying that you don't want to be forced to have your children exposed to
certain things in school, but you have no problem turning around and
using the power of the government to discriminate against gays when it
comes to marriages.
And yes, if one subgroup is singled out and not
allowed to take advantage of all of the many rights of marriage (and
there are many legal, tax, and other benefits of marriage) that is
discrimination.
>Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
>choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
Why should they have to? On one hand you argue that you have nothing
personally against homosexuals, you just don't want them to have special
rights. Now your argument is that they should have to hide their sexual
orientation?
Alan Batie
>Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone homosexuality
By what twisted form of logic do you come to this conclusion? There are
plenty of marriages that others don't condone --- it's still none of their
business. All that matters is whether or not the people involved love
each other and are willing to commit their lives to caring for one another.
Without the legal bond of marriage, there are all sorts of rules and
regulations that impede such a commitment.
>Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
>choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
I suggest *you* try it sometime and see what it's like.
>For example, I would not allow a lesbian
>to act as the girl scout leader in my daughter's troop. NOT because
>she is a lesbian, per se, but for the same reasons I would not want
>a MAN going on camping trips with my daughter.
I take it then that you have not and would not go on a camping trip with
your daughter (or son, if you're a woman)? You've never had any of your
children's friends stay overnight either, I hope.
On the other hand, it would obviously be OK for a gay man to be a girl
scout leader in your daughter's troop, by your criteria.
--
Alan Batie ______
ba...@agora.rdrop.com \ / A life lived in fear
+1 503 452-0960 \ / is a life half-lived.
45 28 59 N / 122 43 20 W / 440' MSL \/
Alan Batie
>Sharon Bottoms was not arrested for having oral sex, and she won custody
>of her son back regardless of a sodomy law still being on the books.
The point is she should never have had to fight the battle in the first
place. It sure can't have done her son any good to be in the middle of
such a hurtful mess. Whose family values are being served there?
Jenner
>They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
>citizens.
This is a lie.
>Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone
>homosexuality, whether they sincerely believe it should be condoned or not.
State sanctioned marrige is a special right of heterosexuals.
>It would be a case of the minority imposing its will upon the majority.
Read the constitution of the United States.
>Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
>choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
I find your displays of bigotry vulgar and disgusting. Please
hide your choice to be an intolerant idiot.
You know what, though, you don't *have* to shut up, Rose. You
know why? Because my discomfort with your idoicy is *my* problem.
You are invited to apply this concept to your obvious discomfort
with homosexuals.
>To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
>they do better economically than blacks or women.
There are black lesbians, you fool.
>They have the benefit
>of being in the white, male majority for all intents and purposes, other
>than sexual purposes, and sexual purposes are not and should not be a
>matter of public policy.
Here, Rose, demonstrates that she is truly blinded by
her hatred of white, homosexual, males. So much so that she is
beyond considering any other type of homosexual exists.
To Rose, homosexual equals white male.
>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
Don't worry, you have the right to be a fool all you want.
This is a free country.
jenner
Breier W. Scheetz
Batie) wrote:
> j...@cyberspace.com (Rose Bud) writes:
> >Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone homosexuality
>
> By what twisted form of logic do you come to this conclusion? There are
Logic that the leftist gay activists are sorely lacking. By allowing
homosexual marriages by law, we are saying that they are normal, and that
the government endorses them. The government is composed of the people,
and thus we would be forced to condone gay marriages.
> >For example, I would not allow a lesbian
> >to act as the girl scout leader in my daughter's troop. NOT because
> >she is a lesbian, per se, but for the same reasons I would not want
> >a MAN going on camping trips with my daughter.
>
> I take it then that you have not and would not go on a camping trip with
> your daughter (or son, if you're a woman)? You've never had any of your
Since children are formed by heterosexual action, the chance is slim that
Rose Bud is a homosexual pedophile. By your laughable remarks, I take it
that you're equating going on a trip with one's child the same as allowing
a child to go on a trip with a stranger. Care to explain that "twisted
form of logic"?
--
"Nothing except a battle lost is Breier Scheetz
half as melancholy as a battle won" bre...@halcyon.com
PGP Public Key: finger bre...@halcyon.com
Daniel Kelly
> j...@cyberspace.com (Rose Bud) writes:
> >Homosexual marriage would be forcing the majority to condone
homosexuality
>
> By what twisted form of logic do you come to this conclusion? There are
> plenty of marriages that others don't condone --- it's still none of
their
> business. All that matters is whether or not the people involved love
> each other and are willing to commit their lives to caring for one
another.
> Without the legal bond of marriage, there are all sorts of rules and
> regulations that impede such a commitment.
>
By your logic, the Mormon faith should be legally allowed multiple
marriages. They would, again by your logic, constitute a minority,
eligble for minority status, that could live as they see fit. However, it
was specifically legislated out of existance and was upheld as being
non-discriminatory. Hmmm!?!?
Both sides of this "debate" are vocal in their opposition to each other.
The real issue, that was incorrectly addressed by the initiatives, is
whether or not the government has any business in representing any
particular life, lifestyle, or orientation (take tour pick of terminology)
in the school system. While there should be no discrimination based upon
external (to the school or work) living conditions, there should also be
no support for any minority as part of the education process. How about
an initiative that restricts the schools to what they need to teach and
that's the fundamentals of learning, like reading, writing and math.
Let's leave the "politically correct" subject matter to the parents and
family where it belongs. This means no religion or values training.
Period. Our tax dollars might go farther, and the children would be more
prepared to succeed in life by having learned more of the bread and butter
material in school.
Breier W. Scheetz
(Ronald Schoenberg) wrote:
> >The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
> >I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
> >forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
>
> And I would like the right to discriminate against all christians
> and generally to be able to keep them entirely out of my life. Do you
> think that would be ok as long as I got enough people to pass a law
> to that effect? I also think we should pass a law taking their children
Of course that law wouldn't pass. You know why? Because the majority of
individuals in this country reject the silly notion that Christianity is
immoral. Homosexuality, however, is a deviant sexual action, and
considered immoral by many. Also, the Supreme Court has seperated
religion from classification as an action, such as sexual preference is
classified.
> I'm not being entirely sarcastic. I think the world would be better
> off without christians on it, but I also believe in live and let live
There you have it. Now why aren't groups like Act-Up saying this? We all
the deep grass-roots support for such a notion. Some people believe that
traditional morals should be erased, and that deviant activity, such as
homosexuality, should be heartily embraced. I, as do most Americans,
shudder at the thought.
Breier W. Scheetz
sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) wrote:
> number of people would consider not being allowed to have slaves a "forced
> imposition" of someone elses morals, too.
Perhaps, but I don't consider owning slaves the same as having the right
to know what your child is taught at school.
Breier W. Scheetz
> Let me ask you this then. 30 years ago interracial marriages were looked
> down upon very strongly in the south, and were even illegal in many states.
Interracial marriages have nothing to do with abhorrent sexual behavior,
and unnatural activity. You may consider homosexuality a perfectly normal
"healthy" lifestyle. The moral majority (and there is indeed one) does
not. I don't believe in sanctioning same-sex marriages, because I
consider them to be sick, twisted, and morally repugnant.
> The fact is Rosebud, your argument just doesn't make it. There are lots
> of things we may not approve of in this world, but that doesn't mean we
Mean what? Should we be forced to sanction acts we don't agree with? I
think not.
Christopher Davis
BWS> == Breier W Scheetz <bre...@halcyon.com>
BWS> Logic that the leftist gay activists are sorely lacking. By
BWS> allowing homosexual marriages by law, we are saying that they are
BWS> normal, and that the government endorses them. The government is
BWS> composed of the people, and thus we would be forced to condone gay
BWS> marriages.
By allowing smoking by law, we are saying that it is normal, and that the
government endorses it. (Yet many states have anti-smoking campaigns, not
normally considered "condoning" smoking.)
Single motherhood is legal. I guess it's normal. Or maybe it isn't.
Adultery isn't illegal, either, Breier. I suppose this means that it's
being condoned as well.
Celibacy certainly isn't illegal, though it's obviously just as
"unnatural" by your earlier definition ("if everyone did it the human race
would die out") as homosexuality (which isn't illegal, either, despite
some people's efforts to this effect).
Though going over 55mph on many sections of I-5 is illegal, it also seems
to be "normal".
I'm so confused! In BreierLand, does legal imply normal, does normal
imply legal, or what?
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * (was <c...@eff.org>) * MIME * PGP * [CKD1]
"It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of
hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it."
- Looking for: _The Big U_, by Neal Stephenson (out of print) -
SCARTON
bre...@halcyon.com (Breier W. Scheetz) writes:
In article <CsuHn...@eskimo.com>, do...@eskimo.com (Doug Andersen)
wrote:
> Let me ask you this then. 30 years ago interracial marriages were
looked
> down upon very strongly in the south, and were even illegal in many
states.
Breier W. Scheetz Replies:
>Interracial marriages have nothing to do with abhorrent sexual behavior,
>and unnatural activity. You may consider homosexuality a perfectly
normal
>"healthy" lifestyle. The moral majority (and there is indeed one) does
>not. I don't believe in sanctioning same-sex marriages, because I
>consider them to be sick, twisted, and morally repugnant.
In the minds of those who oppose them, interracial marriages have
EVERYTHING to do with abbhorent (abberant?) sexual behavior. Sex, romance
and reproduction are the only things that distinguish marriage from any
other contractural arrangement. The thought of a black man (woman) loving
a white man (woman) and actually engaging in sexual penetration is
repugnant to a lot of people. And, god save us if there are any zebra
children. People have been killed for such behavior. Forgive me if I am
naive, but I just don't think such a visceral act as murder is committed
because interracial couples have rights as dependants in insurance
coverage.
Breier W. Scheetz goes on to ask:
>Should we be forced to sanction acts we don't agree with? I
>think not.
Get used to it Breier. I have to sanction acts by government, churches,
and indivuals with which I disagree everyday. Get over your Victorian
obsession with other people's sexual practices, OK. You have sex your
way; they have sex their way. When THEY start compelling YOU to have sex
THEIR way, let me know, and I'll be the first in line to help you out.
Rose Bud
: Let me ask you this then. 30 years ago interracial marriages were looked
: down upon very strongly in the south, and were even illegal in many states.
: Given that they were very much in the minority, would you also have
: argued at the time that laws against interracial marriage were OK because
: to do otherwise forces the majority to condone something they object to?
You are very mixed up in that you are assuming that if cause "A" is
righteous, then cause "B" must also be righteous. That is not true.
Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
segregation. They have always been able to vote, and have never been
kept out of schools, restaurants, or other public facilities.
Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
excess of $50,000. That is twice the national average.
They are three times more likely to have college
degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in the
top 1% of political campaign funding.
Ed Mickens, the business columnist for *The Advocate* wrote, "Today, it's
rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."
Now, if you have evidence that homosexuals are an oppressed minority,
suffering from discrimination today, in 1994, I have not seen it.
: And yes, if one subgroup is singled out and not
: allowed to take advantage of all of the many rights of marriage (and
: there are many legal, tax, and other benefits of marriage) that is
: discrimination.
No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
allow such a thing, and women and children are weaker, poorer, and less
able to take care of themselves.
: >Homosexuals may not be able to choose their orientation, but they can
: >choose their actions. They also can choose to hide their sexual orientation.
: Why should they have to? On one hand you argue that you have nothing
: personally against homosexuals, you just don't want them to have special
: rights. Now your argument is that they should have to hide their sexual
: orientation?
I did not argue that they "should have to" hide their sexual orientation.
I only said they had this option, and in fact, many of them have chosen
this option. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Janos Szamosfalvi
: Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
: excess of $50,000. That is twice the national average.
: They are three times more likely to have college
: degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in the
: top 1% of political campaign funding.
Also, in average, they're more intelligent than heterosexual people.
(with one exception -- homosexuals in prison) This partially explains
why, despite their relatively low numbers and their deviant behavior,
they were able to "make" homosexuality an 'alternative lifestyle'.
And they were able to persuade the majority (?)of hterosexual people
to support them. (or at least, not support the opposition).
Just my $0.02.
Janos
Ronald Schoenberg
>Doug Andersen (do...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>
>
>Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
>excess of $50,000. That is twice the national average.
>They are three times more likely to have college
>degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in the
>top 1% of political campaign funding.
>
A recent survey described in the NY Times earlier this month reported
that gay and straight incomes were comparable (in fact gay incomes were
slightly less, but not statistically significantly less).
>Ed Mickens, the business columnist for *The Advocate* wrote, "Today, it's
>rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."
>
>Now, if you have evidence that homosexuals are an oppressed minority,
>suffering from discrimination today, in 1994, I have not seen it.
>
In my personal experience I know employers who have stated policies against
hiring gays or lesbians. They are fundamentalist christians. I also know
many nonreligious liberals who would be quite reluctant to hire a
fundamentalist christian. Rather than polarizing groups in society, the
fundamentalists should be working to guarantee everyone's rights because
otherwise they might be the next target.
>: And yes, if one subgroup is singled out and not
>: allowed to take advantage of all of the many rights of marriage (and
>: there are many legal, tax, and other benefits of marriage) that is
>: discrimination.
>
>No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
>By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
>and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
>allow such a thing, and women and children are weaker, poorer, and less
>able to take care of themselves.
>
The fundamentalist attitude about marriage being for heterosexuals only is
the cruelest act of them all. Marriage is about the long term committment
of two people who love each other. Are not gays and lesbians people?
Do they not love?
Patti Beadles
>To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
>they do better economically than blacks or women. They have the benefit
Tee hee! Perhaps you'd like to have this discussion with an
African-American lesbian friend of mine?
I'm not sure when being a woman and being homosexual became mutually
exclusive, but I'm sure it's going to come as a shock to the lesbian
community.
>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
Fine. Now would you kindly stop imposing your morals on myself and my
family?
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com | Most of my friends are
pat...@ichips.intel.com | aristophrenic lexiphanes.
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" |
Rose Bud
: The point is she should never have had to fight the battle in the first
: place. It sure can't have done her son any good to be in the middle of
: such a hurtful mess. Whose family values are being served there?
How do you know that she never should have had to fight for custody? Do
you know her mother's motives for seeking custody? Most grandparents I
know do *not* want to take on the responsibility of caring for a child
all over again.
How do you know that Sharon's mother wasn't sincerely concerned for the
boy and just used her sexual orientation as an excuse to take him away?
How do you know the mother didn't have a reason to be concerned?
Eli Creekmore's grandmother obviously had a reason. Or have you
forgotten about Eli, since he was not the child of a gay parent?
Nathan Frei
>Doug Andersen (do...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: And yes, if one subgroup is singled out and not
>: allowed to take advantage of all of the many rights of marriage (and
>: there are many legal, tax, and other benefits of marriage) that is
>: discrimination.
>
>No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
>By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
>and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
>allow such a thing, and women and children are weaker, poorer, and less
>able to take care of themselves.
This is quite the enlightened attitude, I must say. I was under the
impression that the purpose of marriage (ideally) was to give people who
care for each other and are willing to commit to each other the chance to
have those feelings publicly sanctioned. Alternatively, it's to let two
people move into a different tax bracket and get spousal insurance benefits.
On the next point, you'll have to help me out, beacause I'm having a little
trouble here--is a marriage without children to "protect" (there's quite
a few couples in this situation) allowed in your plane of existence? Your
idea of marriage only seems to fit with the Ward-and-June, "will you talk
with your son, dear?" dinosaur mentality. And "discrimination against
women and children"? That's rich! With those attitudes, I'm truly
surprised that your troglodytic mentality allows you to use the modern
technology to post your garbage.
I realize it's a given that you'll never agree with homosexual marriages,
but at least show a teeny tiny bit of enlightenment regarding heterosexual
marriage; it's a start.
Nathan Frei
Scott Linn
: > number of people would consider not being allowed to have slaves a "forced
: > imposition" of someone elses morals, too.
: Perhaps, but I don't consider owning slaves the same as having the right
: to know what your child is taught at school.
Nice dodge of the original point.
--
Scott Linn
sc...@cv.hp.com
Christopher Davis
RB> Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
RB> segregation.
Untrue in the global sense; do you know where the "pink triangle" symbol
came from? Hint: Anne Frank, yellow six-pointed stars...
RB> Now, if you have evidence that homosexuals are an oppressed minority,
RB> suffering from discrimination today, in 1994, I have not seen it.
I'm sure Col. Cammermeyer is glad to hear this.
RB> women and children are weaker, poorer, and less able to take care of
RB> themselves.
This sounds rather sexist to me. I've certainly known women who were
quite capable of taking care of themselves.
C. L. McLaurin
>
>No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
This may well be the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
Breier W. Scheetz
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This may well be the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
Then you need to read a lot more. Read a thesis on how the US is
"unfairly hoarding the world's resources."
Rose Bud
: In article <2vt2mr$q...@cyberspace.com>, Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
: >To say homosexuals need special protections is absurd. I am sure that
: >they do better economically than blacks or women. They have the benefit
: >of being in the white, male majority for all intents and purposes [...]
: Tee hee! Perhaps you'd like to have this discussion with an
: African-American lesbian friend of mine?
I'm sure you can wheel out as many individual cases as anyone has time for,
but that doesn't change the hard statistics that homosexuals' average
household income is $50,000, which is 2x the national average.
[stuff about shocked lesbians deleted--I don't think what I said would
shock anybody.]
: >The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
: >I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
: >forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
: Fine. Now would you kindly stop imposing your morals on myself and my
: family?
How am I imposing my "morals" on you and your family? I don't see that
not wanting homosexual propaganda in the schools is an imposition on you,
but the present situation in the schools has imposed on deeply held
beliefs of many people.
That is one reason for the movement toward home schooling, private
schooling, and exodus of families with children from urban areas.
Most homosexuals don't even have children, yet their morals (or lack
thereof) are being forced on children behind parents' backs.
You should align your standard for truth a little bit closer to reality.
Rose Bud
: >Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
: >They are three times more likely to have college
: >degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in the
: >top 1% of political campaign funding.
: A recent survey described in the NY Times earlier this month reported
: that gay and straight incomes were comparable (in fact gay incomes were
: slightly less, but not statistically significantly less).
Well, my data came from the Human Rights Campaign Fund, which is a homosexual
organization. You don't give any hard numbers here, or any source.
: In my personal experience I know employers who have stated policies against
: hiring gays or lesbians. They are fundamentalist christians. I also know
: many nonreligious liberals who would be quite reluctant to hire a
: fundamentalist christian. Rather than polarizing groups in society, the
: fundamentalists should be working to guarantee everyone's rights because
: otherwise they might be the next target.
You are too late. Another retrograde thinker. Look around you. They
already are the target.
: >No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
: >By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
: >and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
: >allow such a thing, and women and children are weaker, poorer, and less
: >able to take care of themselves.
: The fundamentalist attitude about marriage being for heterosexuals only is
: the cruelest act of them all. Marriage is about the long term committment
: of two people who love each other. Are not gays and lesbians people?
: Do they not love?
Two people do not need marriage to have a long-term commitment, and I have
already established that they don't need the tax incentive. If you can
show any real reason why homosexuals need to marry each other, let me know.
btw, it is not a "fundamentalist" attitude. The institution of marriage
is a social protection that has been developed and has existed for
thousands of years in many different cultures, including cultures
that have never been exposed to christianity, and for good reason.
Rose Bud
Rose Bud
: RB> == Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com>
: RB> Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
: RB> segregation.
: Untrue in the global sense; do you know where the "pink triangle" symbol
: came from? Hint: Anne Frank, yellow six-pointed stars...
Yes, I do know where it came from. In fact I'm sure I will see one
burning on my front lawn in the near future. But we were talking of the
present--Hint: the here and now...
: RB> Now, if you have evidence that homosexuals are an oppressed minority,
: RB> suffering from discrimination today, in 1994, I have not seen it.
: I'm sure Col. Cammermeyer is glad to hear this.
Col. Cammermeyer (sp?) lied to maintain her career after she left her husband
and children and declared herself gay. She knew the rules and she broke
them.
Furthermore, being in the military is not now, and never has been a civil
right. Admission to the military has always been defined by the needs of the
military. I'm a single mother, so I am not allowed a military career.
If I was a single male, I could still be excluded for being too short,
too fat, having poor eyesight, etc. etc.
: RB> women and children are weaker, poorer, and less able to take care of
: RB> themselves.
: This sounds rather sexist to me. I've certainly known women who were
: quite capable of taking care of themselves.
Are you aware of the phrase, "feminization of poverty"? It was coined over
10 years ago and is still in appropriate use today.
Are you aware that because women are now allowed into active combat
troops, that there is special training now required for all men in active
combat troops toward psychological resistance against protective feelings
they will naturally have when they see their female comrades taken prisoner,
and are forced to watch them be raped and tortured?
Yes, our government is now compelled to operate training programs
desensitizing men to be indifferent when they see the pain and
suffering of women. Isn't that wonderful?
SCARTON
bre...@halcyon.com (Breier W. Scheetz) writes:
In article <30275e$n...@search01.news.aol.com>, sca...@aol.com (SCARTON)
wrote:
:Should we be forced to sanction acts we don't agree with? I
:think not.
>> Get used to it Breier. I have to sanction acts by government,
churches,
>> and indivuals with which I disagree everyday. Get over your Victorian
>> obsession with other people's sexual practices, OK. You have sex your
>> way; they have sex their way. When THEY start compelling YOU to have
>>sex
> THEIR way, let me know, and I'll be the first in line to help you out.
>Homosexuals already have the complete freedom to choose their sexual
>form of expression. Perhaps some sodomy laws are still on the books, but
>they are not enforced.
Yes, I suppose homosexuals "already have the complete freedom to choose
their sexual form of expression", in the same sense that I have the
freedom to wear animal fur, as long as I don't mind having some one throw
paint on me. Or, I have the freedom to express myself on some university
campuses as long as I don't mind submitting to speech code sanctions. Or,
I have the freedom, to yell racist remarks at a MLK celebration, as long
as I don't mind getting the crap kicked out of me. The point is, that
society as a whole stigmatizes homosexuality (and, to a lesser degree some
of the more amusing forms of heterosexuality). Gay men still swish on
sitcoms and molest children; Lesibians are still biker dykes. People are
still refused employment because they are gay. People are still beaten
because they are gay. To the mainstream religous community, their lives
are an abomination. A "right" is not the same as "freedom".
African-Americans had the "right" to vote following passage of the 14th
amendant, but did not have the "freedom" to do so for another 80 years.
Jews, Mormons and Catholics had the right to practice their religion from
the inception of the Bill of Rights, but were prevented from doing so in
many communities. Homosexuals have the *right* to choose thier sexual
practices, but until society ceases to penalize them in employment,
housing, marriage and humane respect, I reject that they have the
*freedom* to choose those practices.
>I do not support our government sanctioning gay marriages.
I'm not comfortable with the government sactioning *any* marriage. But,
it does. Your dislike of gay marriage is trivial. The government does
not exist to serve only your desires. As you said, it is "our"
government, and we include every one. A number of the fundemental
structural provisions in the Constitution are designed to *prevent* the
majority from displacing the rights of holders of minority opinions and
practices. Government sactioning of marriage is only a mechanism to
define the legal rights and responsibilties of the indivuals involved and
to provide an administrative and legal framework to ensure those rights
and responsibilities. The government has no more business specifying who
can enter into a legal marriage than it does determining who can
participate in any contractural agreement. The government should not be
in the business of defining morality. Leave that up to the churches and
the individual.
>Victorian? Not in the least. The homosexual lifestyle is way to the
left of >the mainstream that was condemned by the "Victorian" viewpoint.
Victorian, in the sense of the seemingly endless interest that turn of the
century society showed in "forbidden" sexuality. As to the homosexual
lifestyle being "way to the left" of anything - Give me a break. It's
*sex*, not *politics*. I hope you don't confuse the two. Unfortunately,
too many people, both straight and gay, do.
JoeArmy Nurse
>> : Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes
in
>> : excess of $50,000. That is twice the national average.
>> : They are three times more likely to have college
>> : degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in
the
>> : top 1% of political campaign funding.
> Also, in average, they're more intelligent than heterosexual people.
> (with one exception -- homosexuals in prison) This partially explains
> why, despite their relatively low numbers and their deviant behavior,
> they were able to "make" homosexuality an 'alternative lifestyle'.
> And they were able to persuade the majority (?)of hterosexual people
> to support them. (or at least, not support the opposition).
Hmmm... sounds to me like somebody's jealous!!!
Janos Szamosfalvi
Jealous for what?? Money? Intelligence? Being rearended by another gay?
Because I'm a student, money could be a valid point, but that should
change very soon.
Christopher Davis
RB> == Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com>
RB> Two people do not need marriage to have a long-term commitment, and I
RB> have already established that they don't need the tax incentive. If
RB> you can show any real reason why homosexuals need to marry each
RB> other, let me know.
Show me any real reason *heterosexuals* need to marry each other first.
In RoseBudLand (next door to BreierLand, I presume) all homosexuals are
rich, and therefore don't need (or, I suppose, "deserve") any tax breaks
whatsoever. (I guess this is a new kind of "sin tax" or something.)
Marriage, as the legal recognition of a committed relationship, confers a
number of benefits such as visitation rights in hospitals, community
property (WA is a community property state), insurance coverage...
...but, hey, they don't *deserve* these benefits, right? Maybe you'd like
to declare them only 3/5 of a human for purposes of Congressional
representation, too...
Christopher Davis
RB> == Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com>
RB> But we were talking of the present--Hint: the here and now...
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
RB> Col. Cammermeyer (sp?) lied to maintain her career after she left her
RB> husband and children and declared herself gay. She knew the rules
RB> and she broke them.
Excuse me? She SPECIFICALLY STATED to the military investigators that she
was a lesbian (during the interviews for a higher security clearance).
RB> Furthermore, being in the military is not now, and never has been a
RB> civil right. Admission to the military has always been defined by
RB> the needs of the military. I'm a single mother, so I am not allowed
RB> a military career. If I was a single male, I could still be excluded
RB> for being too short, too fat, having poor eyesight, etc. etc.
And if you'd earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, were consistently given high
ratings on your officer evaluations, but happened to be attracted to
members of the same sex, how does that latter change the former?
RB> Are you aware of the phrase, "feminization of poverty"? It was
RB> coined over 10 years ago and is still in appropriate use today.
Yes, I am. I am also aware that, in my experience, blaming one's problems
on victimization does not solve them--only fighting them does.
RB> Are you aware that because women are now allowed into active combat
RB> troops, that there is special training now required for all men in
RB> active combat troops toward psychological resistance against
RB> protective feelings they will naturally have when they see their
RB> female comrades taken prisoner, and are forced to watch them be raped
RB> and tortured?
During the Gulf War, *before* allowing women into active combat units,
there were female POWs. During the *Civil* War, there were women
(disguised) in active combat units. (They shoulda been discharged--they
lied and broke the rules, right Rose?)
Perhaps if war is more obviously hellacious, politicians will be less
likely to start them when not necessary.
Breier W. Scheetz
> >Should we be forced to sanction acts we don't agree with? I
> >think not.
>
> Get used to it Breier. I have to sanction acts by government, churches,
> and indivuals with which I disagree everyday. Get over your Victorian
> obsession with other people's sexual practices, OK. You have sex your
> way; they have sex their way. When THEY start compelling YOU to have sex
> THEIR way, let me know, and I'll be the first in line to help you out.
Homosexuals already have the complete freedom to choose their sexual form
of expression. Perhaps some sodomy laws are still on the books, but they
are not enforced. I do not support our government sanctioning gay
marriages. Is that obsessive? Victorian? Not in the least. The
homosexual lifestyle is way to the left of the mainstream that was
condemned by the "Victorian" viewpoint.
--
Rose Bud
: In yet another article Rose Bud demonstrates her bigotry:
: >They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
: >citizens.
: This is a lie.
How does saying they have rights as citizens make me a bigot?
That is about the 20th time someone has said I've lied without bothering
to explain what I lied about.
Tom Mann
> Alan Batie (ba...@agora.rdrop.com) wrote:
>
> How do you know that Sharon's mother wasn't sincerely concerned for the
> boy and just used her sexual orientation as an excuse to take him away?
> How do you know the mother didn't have a reason to be concerned?
>
> Eli Creekmore's grandmother obviously had a reason. Or have you
> forgotten about Eli, since he was not the child of a gay parent?
>
Fine! Then abolish laws which allowed granny to use the subterfuge of
"She's lesbian" and let the court address the merits of the "real"
cause.
By your own admission, you have just acknowledged that there is, in fact,
discrimination against gays/lesbians.
--
PC/MS-DOS: A so called 'operating system' written by someone who had heard
of an operating system but never seen one.
Tom "Old" Mann KD9NL/7 Kirkland, Wash.
Wendy Thrash
>Two people do not need marriage to have a long-term commitment, and I have
>already established that they don't need the tax incentive. If you can
>show any real reason why homosexuals need to marry each other, let me know.
You're right, Bud-object. We just want to do it to piss you off.
We have no children to adopt, no spouses to visit in hospital, no needs
for insurance, no wish for inheritance rights. If we did, we'd be
better off concentrating on our leftist agenda, which would randomly
distribute children to randomly selected couples, redistribute wealth
randomly at random times, and take care of so many of our needs that
we wouldn't even have to work (thereby solving any employment
discrimination problems at the same time).
>btw, it is not a "fundamentalist" attitude. The institution of marriage
>is a social protection that has been developed and has existed for
>thousands of years in many different cultures, including cultures
>that have never been exposed to christianity, and for good reason.
I don't know whether the "good reason" there refers to the failure of
those cultures to be exposed to Christianity or to the development of
marriage as in institution in those cultures. If the latter, I'd suggest
that most of those reasons have to do with women (and children) as
property to be owned, not as precious pearls to be protected.
Recent evidence suggests that one of those cultures, the Roman Catholic
Church, may have routinely performed homosexual marriages in the past.
Read new book by Boswell if you're interested. I'm not.
If marriage really existed just to protect women and children, I wonder
exactly what incentive would entice single men to join in. Perhaps
it exists to protect women and children and to provide men with free
cooking, cleaning, and nookie?
Followups to seattle.politics, please.
---
-Wendy T., spinster speaking only for herself
Rose Bud
: By your own admission, you have just acknowledged that there is, in fact,
: discrimination against gays/lesbians.
Tom, I know this is going to come as a big shock to you,
but I *never said* that social discrimination against gays didn't exist.
What I said was that the state has never formally sanctioned
disrimination against gays, as they have done in the case of blacks, with
segregated schools and other public facilities, etc. etc.
Okay? You can go back to sleep now. Bye!
R'ykandar Korra'ti
>I'm sure you can wheel out as many individual cases as anyone has time for,
>but that doesn't change the hard statistics that homosexuals' average
>household income is $50,000, which is 2x the national average.
national income average is above $25,000 per household. (Several sources
will do for this information.) Secondly, the most recent and only truly
comprehensive survey on the subject, the 1993 Yankelovich Partners, Inc.
Yankelovich Monitor showed, gayfolk have slightly lower incomes than
straight people - not significantly higher. This was, interestingly enough,
supported by anti-gay activist Paul Cameron at a recent gathering of
radical-right organizations in Colorado: "Most people who engage in
homosexuality are of the lower strata. They are people who are waiters
and busboys and bums and hobos and so forth."
What's _particularly_ interesting about this is that Paul Cameron,
noted for making up information in the past, typically repeats the "gays
are all rich" theme when speaking out against gayfolk.
>How am I imposing my "morals" on you and your family?
Supporting Initiative 608 means a couple of interesting things:
1) You do not believe in equal application of the law (since I-608
did not prohibit straight people from receiving these so-called
"special" civil rights protections), this violating the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution, and,
2) You require that schools either not teach anything about gay
people, or that they explicitly condemn gay people. This is
actively antagonistic towards gayfolk.
>I don't see that not wanting homosexual propaganda in the
>schools is an imposition on you,
Wherein "homosexual proganda" is "anything which can be said to
condone or tolerate gayfolk," yes, that is an imposition upon anyone
who is gay, bisexual, or lesbian - or who values the free exchange of
ideas.
>Most homosexuals don't even have children, yet their morals (or lack
>thereof) are being forced on children behind parents' backs.
Please define these morals. If you are referring to sex eduction
classes (which spend a great deal more time on heterosexual activity),
please explain how this is being "forced" upon children when their parents
can have them kept out of these classes.
- R'ykandar.
--
R'ykandar Korra'ti | LOW ORBIT #48: 80% layout complete
da...@microsoft.com | REFRACTIONS #2: 85% layout complete - flyin' now!
| "STUPID, STUPID EDITOR CREATURES!"
R'ykandar Korra'ti
>Ronald Schoenberg (ro...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: A recent survey described in the NY Times earlier this month reported
>: that gay and straight incomes were comparable
issue of _The New York Times_, and many other newspapers.
>Well, my data came from the Human Rights Campaign Fund
The HRCF is using numbers which I consider to be baseless, and which
they should as well. These numbers were taken from a survey of the readership
of a set of very high-profile, upper-income-targeting magazines - hardly
representative. I know; I participated in the survey. To assert that these
are typical of gayfolk would be similar to asserting that the readership of
_Fortune_ is typical of straight people in America.
>You don't give any hard numbers here, or any source.
I have.
>: the fundamentalists should be working to guarantee everyone's rights because
>: otherwise they might be the next target.
>They already are the target.
How so?
>: Marriage is about the long term committment of two people who love each
>: other. Are not gays and lesbians people? Do they not love?
>Two people do not need marriage to have a long-term commitment
Do you propose that straight people should not receive the special
protections afforded by the institution of _civil_ marriage? I would disagree.
I would simply argue that this should be afforded equally to all citizenry.
(I do not make a similar assertion for _religious_ marriage, which is not
the same thing; I would not assume to tell another's church what to do.)
>and I have already established that they don't need the tax incentive.
Do you propose that fiscal need become a prerequsite for legal
marriage? I find this to be a most unusual assertion, and I would
certainly oppose it!
>If you can show any real reason why homosexuals need to marry
>each other, let me know.
Equal protection under the law is generally considered a good thing.
>The institution of marriage is a social protection that has been developed
>and has existed for thousands of years in many different cultures
And, in most cultures unexposed to post-14th-century European thought,
has included opportunities for same-gender couples to marry, or at least
receive some sort of similiar recognition of their bond. Plus, of course,
several European nations allow people of the same gender to receive said
legal recognition.
For pre-14th-century European thought on the matter, you may wish to
check the new book, _Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_. Dr. John Boswell.
>including cultures
>that have never been exposed to christianity, and for good reason.
I, for one, am not likely to be found arguing against marriage. I'm
all for it.
R'ykandar Korra'ti
>Christopher Davis (c...@loiosh.kei.com) wrote:
>: RB> == Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com>
>: RB> Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
>: RB> segregation.
laws on the books which de facto provide for the illegality of homosexuality?
This is beyond _segregation_, of course...
I presume you are also aware that gayfolk have been declared "an
unacceptable threat" by the Federal government? (This was part of the
bill containing the so-called "compromise" on the gays-in-the-military
issue. Not since Neville Chamberlan has there been so total a capitulation
in modern politics...)
Or were you unaware of the plethora of anti-gay laws which have,
over the last 30 years, been found unconstitutional? Did you know that,
before 1967, it was illegal in New York State for a bar to serve two
gay males who came in together? (I may have that date wrong; I don't
have the reference in front of me.)
>But we were talking of the present--Hint: the here and now...
That's not what you said. You said "have never been subjucted" - which
quite clearly implies a time span exceeding that of "the present."
>Col. Cammermeyer (sp?) lied to maintain her career after she left her
>husband and children and declared herself gay.
Quite the contrary; she was expelled from the military only after she
_refused_ to lie about her sexual orientation, when applying for a security
clearence. It was the truth which caused her explusion, not a lie.
>Furthermore, being in the military is not now, and never has been a
>civil right.
Equal application of the law, however, has. Performance matters, ne?
Tom Mann
When a court is involved, it is state sanctioned.
When state laws are invoked, it is state sanctioned.
If any group is denied rights, it is state sanctioned.
> Okay? You can go back to sleep now. Bye!
Perhaps you should spend your time doing something other than reading
romance novels filled with phrases like "unbridled male lust". Might I
make so bold as to suggest you take a course in Critical Thinking?
On second thought, don't take any courses; you would single-handedly
halve the combined intelligence of any small to medium class.
Okay? You can WAKE UP now.
Rose Bud
: >: RB> Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
: >: RB> segregation.
: Fascinating assertion. You are aware that six states currently have
: laws on the books which de facto provide for the illegality of
: homosexuality?
: This is beyond _segregation_, of course...
Right. And the jails in those 6 states are just overflowing with gays and
lesbians, aren't they?
: I presume you are also aware that gayfolk have been declared "an
: unacceptable threat" by the Federal government? (This was part of the
: bill containing the so-called "compromise" on the gays-in-the-military
: issue. Not since Neville Chamberlan has there been so total a capitulation
: in modern politics...)
Like I keep saying, service in the military is not a civil
right. We can't get in if we are too short, too fat, have bad eyesight.
The standard of selection has always been based on the US Army's needs.
Until now, that is.
: Or were you unaware of the plethora of anti-gay laws which have,
: over the last 30 years, been found unconstitutional? Did you know that,
: before 1967, it was illegal in New York State for a bar to serve two
: gay males who came in together? (I may have that date wrong; I don't
: have the reference in front of me.)
So...how did the bartender know if the two males were gay? How could he
prove something like that in court?
: >Col. Cammermeyer (sp?) lied to maintain her career after she left her
: >husband and children and declared herself gay.
: Quite the contrary; she was expelled from the military only after she
: _refused_ to lie about her sexual orientation, when applying for a security
: clearence. It was the truth which caused her explusion, not a lie.
I believe she had declared herself a lesbian and deserted her husand
and children before she applied for that security clearance. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but during that time, wasn't she lying to maintain her career?
After all, it was she, not the rules (don't ask/don't tell), that had
changed.
: >being in the military is not now, and never has been a civil right.
: Equal application of the law, however, has. Performance matters, ne?
I can't get in because I'm a single parent. That has nothing to do with
performance. Some are more equal than others, ne?
Jenner
I will explain. Hope this helps.
>: >They are citizens and as such have the same protections as all other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the lie. I suggest not offering it again. It cannot
be supported and there has been ample evidence to the contrary.
.
jenner
Jenner
: R'ykandar Korra'ti (ra...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : >: RB> Homosexuals have never been subjected to official, state-sanctioned
: : >: RB> segregation.
:
: : Fascinating assertion. You are aware that six states currently have
: : laws on the books which de facto provide for the illegality of
: : homosexuality?
: : This is beyond _segregation_, of course...
:
: Right. And the jails in those 6 states are just overflowing with gays and
: lesbians, aren't they?
If a law was placed on the books that allowed pagans to be
jailed, though none were currenly in jail, would you accept it. The
police are given powers by such laws. Would you accept such power
over you, even though they are not, at the time, *choosing* to
enforce it?
: : I presume you are also aware that gayfolk have been declared "an
: : unacceptable threat" by the Federal government? (This was part of the
: : bill containing the so-called "compromise" on the gays-in-the-military
: : issue. Not since Neville Chamberlan has there been so total a capitulation
: : in modern politics...)
:
: Like I keep saying, service in the military is not a civil
: right. We can't get in if we are too short, too fat, have bad eyesight.
All these have a direct bearing on the persons ability to
do the job. It has been proven, throughout our history, that
gays and lesbians have served with distinction and honor. For reference,
I suggest reading another work of Randy Shilts, _Conduct Unbecoming_.
It is quite enlightening.
: The standard of selection has always been based on the US Army's needs.
: Until now, that is.
The armed forces need capable soldiers willing to die for
their country. Gays and lesbians have been such people, are
such people and will continue to be such people for as long as this
country stands.
: : Or were you unaware of the plethora of anti-gay laws which have,
: : over the last 30 years, been found unconstitutional? Did you know that,
: : before 1967, it was illegal in New York State for a bar to serve two
: : gay males who came in together? (I may have that date wrong; I don't
: : have the reference in front of me.)
:
: So...how did the bartender know if the two males were gay? How could he
: prove something like that in court?
Whether or not he had to prove it, it is against the law to
be gay in a bar, in New York State as late as 1967.
: : >Col. Cammermeyer (sp?) lied to maintain her career after she left her
: : >husband and children and declared herself gay.
: : Quite the contrary; she was expelled from the military only after she
: : _refused_ to lie about her sexual orientation, when applying for a security
: : clearence. It was the truth which caused her explusion, not a lie.
:
: I believe she had declared herself a lesbian and deserted her husand
: and children before she applied for that security clearance. Correct me
: if I'm wrong, but during that time, wasn't she lying to maintain her career?
Your characterization of the Col. Cammermeyer is insulting
and undeserved. She served this country with distinction, was decorated
for her performance, almost died while in service to the United States,
and was personally responsible for lives saved during the Vietman War.
I'm sure she could speak eloquently on the subject of having to lie
to herself, her family and the government so she could risk her life
in service to her country.
: After all, it was she, not the rules (don't ask/don't tell), that had
: changed.
It's really sad that you must judge so quickly and show
so little understanding of the subject you belabor so much.
: : >being in the military is not now, and never has been a civil right.
: : Equal application of the law, however, has. Performance matters, ne?
:
: I can't get in because I'm a single parent. That has nothing to do with
: performance. Some are more equal than others, ne?
Your response, however, still does not support your assertion
that gays and lesbians have never been the subject of state sanction
discrimination or segregation.
jenner
Angi Long
>Doug Andersen (do...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
>excess of $50,000. That is twice the national average.
>They are three times more likely to have college
>degrees than other Americans, and contributions from gay PACs fall in the
Wrong. It has been shown that these statistics are NOT representative
of the entire homosexual population. What they are representative of,
I believe, is the portion of the readership of certain magazines that
has the luxury time to fill out and send in voluntary surveys (in addi-
tion to having the luxury income in the first place to subscribe to the
magazines). If a poll of heterosexuals was taken in the same way, it
would no doubt conclude the same things about straights that this one
concluded about gays.
>Ed Mickens, the business columnist for *The Advocate* wrote, "Today, it's
>rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."
Rare isn't rare enough. It should be a *nonexistent* problem, not
just a "rare" one. ONE case of discrimination is too many.
>: allowed to take advantage of all of the many rights of marriage (and
>: there are many legal, tax, and other benefits of marriage) that is
>: discrimination.
>No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
Where do you get THIS reasoning?? The purpose of marriage, from the
government's point of view, is to create family units for the purposes
of simplifying taxes, insurance benefits, property ownership, and so
on. From a church's or individual's point of view, the purpose may be
something different, but the *government* has no business with those
definitions (separation of church and state).
>By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
>and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
How would it "discriminate against women and children" if homosexuals
could marry?? The homosexual men who would marry would NOT reduce the
population of men eligible to marry women, since they would be men who
wouldn't have married women anyway. And it would greatly *benefit*
lesbians with children. (Or aren't lesbians "women" to you?)
>I did not argue that they "should have to" hide their sexual orientation.
>I only said they had this option, and in fact, many of them have chosen
The only reason anyone ever considers such an option is out of fear
of what they may lose if they do *not* hide. That fear should not
exist. Nobody should even have to *consider* hiding their loves,
and thereby sacrificing part of their happiness, out of fear.
Angi Long
>Two people do not need marriage to have a long-term commitment, and I have
>already established that they don't need the tax incentive. If you can
>show any real reason why homosexuals need to marry each other, let me know.
If you can show any real reason why *heterosexuals* need to marry
each other, let me know.
Even if your statistics were true (which they aren't), it would NOT
follow that homosexuals don't "need the tax incentive." NOBODY
"needs" the tax incentive that comes with marriage; it is an extra
benefit, and it is unfair and discriminatory to deny one segment of
the population access to a benefit that the rest of the population
is eligible for.
It is also a fallacy to assume that statistics about a group apply
to individuals within that group. Men earn, on average, much more
than women do, but that does NOT mean that unemployed men "don't
need" unemployment benefits or that men shouldn't be eligible for
such benefits.
Angi Long
>right. Admission to the military has always been defined by the needs of the
>military. I'm a single mother, so I am not allowed a military career.
>If I was a single male, I could still be excluded for being too short,
>too fat, having poor eyesight, etc. etc.
I used to babysit for a single mother with a military career. Was
she breaking some code I didn't know about?
Height, weight, and eyesight are all physical factors that may be
justifiable as criteria for a person's ability to perform military
duties. Sexuality is not.
>Yes, our government is now compelled to operate training programs
>desensitizing men to be indifferent when they see the pain and
>suffering of women. Isn't that wonderful?
It would be nice if it could work the other way around -- if they
could be *sensitizing* the men to the pain and suffering of other
men. There's no real reason they should be *more* sensitive to
the suffering of one gender than of the other.
Paul Johns
>
>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
Who is trying to enforce morals on who, Rose?
Get real.
Paul Johns
>
> Interracial marriages have nothing to do with abhorrent sexual behavior,
> and unnatural activity. You may consider homosexuality a perfectly normal
> "healthy" lifestyle. The moral majority (and there is indeed one) does
> not. I don't believe in sanctioning same-sex marriages, because I
> consider them to be sick, twisted, and morally repugnant.
May God forgive you for using such abusive language to describe
your brothers and sisters. (I'm not sure I can, but I'll try.)
May God further grant you ever other thing you need.
Paul
(my opinions, not my employer's)
Patti Beadles
discrimination.
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com | Most of my friends are
pat...@ichips.intel.com | aristophrenic lexiphanes.
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" |
Steven D. Chandler
: Rare isn't rare enough. It should be a *nonexistent* problem, not
: just a "rare" one. ONE case of discrimination is too many.
Especially if there is no recourse.
---Steve
Angi Long
>C. L. McLaurin (cl...@6sigma.com) wrote:
: In article <304p5a$k...@cyberspace.com> j...@cyberspace.com (Rose Bud) writes:
: >No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: This may well be the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
>Then by all means, enlighten me.
Suppose *you* enlighten *us*. In what way does marriage "protect
women and children?"
dkelly@roma
>>
>>The homosexual left would strip me of this right, and of any other right
>>I have to protect myself and my family from exploitation, litigation, and
>>forced imposition of their morals on myself and my family.
>Who is trying to enforce morals on who, Rose?
>Get real.
Whenever a minority group attempts to establish a legal "identity" through legislation, then litigation follows. After all, it's how lawyers make money. If what you want is equality, then it has already been addressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither document, and correctly so, addresses or requires that jobs or housing be treated as rights. Life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No guarantees!!!
A job is not property to which the employee has ownership rights, it is an oppurtunity created by an entrepreneur. The business owner has the right to determine the best fit for a job and much of that "fit" has to do with the image presented toa customer. It is the responsibility of the employee to adhere to those image rules in order to remain employed. If someone wishes to live in a manner at variance with an employers image rules, then a) keep it discrete, b) get another job where the rul
es don't conflict with personal style, or c) become a business owner and set the image rules. This is a land of free enterprise, even though it isn't taught in school!
It is not the place for schools to teach every diverse cultural variation. This does not create understanding, but rather creates contention in the home. The function of schools is to teach the basic fundamentals and building blocks of language, math, reading and other general subjects. If you spent any time interviewing, or reading resumes or reports by the output of our educational system, you would quickly realize that each additional specialized subject detracts from the mission of school
s. Let the homes do that. If a subject or topic is abhorent at the personal and moral ethical level to anyone, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
Of course, I'm certain that you'll find something flammable here, but that's your problem.
Jenner
Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Not allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is state-sanctioned
>discrimination.
I think an addendum may be required here. Some of the 608/610
apologists will argue that they are allowed to marry. It can be
argued that they can have any 'bonding' ceremony they want, so they
can marry.
The point is that the state currently does not *recognize*
such marriages.
And that, like Patti says, is discrimination. Period.
jenner
just another theatre geek
>It is not the place for schools to teach every diverse cultural variation.
>This does not create understanding, but rather creates contention in
>the home.
Only for narrow minded bozos.
But enough about you.....
>Of course, I'm certain that you'll find something flammable here,
You put so MUCH there to flame...
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Steven D. Chandler
: If a subject or topic is abhorent at the
: personal and moral ethical level to anyone, then it doesn't belong in the
: curriculum.
Evolution?
: Of course, I'm certain that you'll find something flammable here, but
: that's your problem.
Oh well... Look at the title of this thread. :)
---Steve
Frederick Sands
BTW -- could you please learn about line feeds?
>It is not the place for schools to teach every diverse cultural variation.
Au contraire, the schools are a great place to show students the myriad
variations of the human experience. Have you never heard of such subjects
as "social studies", "anthropology", "literature", and the like?
| This does not create understanding, but rather creates contention in
| the home.
Because the son or daughter might dispute daddy's claims that Jews are
grasping and blacks are lazy?
| The function of schools is to teach the basic fundamentals and
| building blocks of language, math, reading and other general subjects.
I suggest that learning about human diversity is as important as the
subjects you list.
| If you spent any time interviewing, or reading resumes or reports
| by the output of our educational system, you would quickly realize
| that each additional specialized subject detracts from the mission
| of schools.
Could you please demonstrate a correlation (or, even better, a causation)
from one to the other?
> If a subject or topic is abhorent at the personal and moral ethical
| level to anyone, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
Interesting assertion. What about biology? I know people who are
abhorred at the idea of evolution -- so, should it not be taught?
Fritz
SCARTON
> If a subject or topic is abhorent at the personal and moral ethical
level to >anyone, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
I guess that pretty much kills biology, geology and physics
Bob Beer
>previous article Rose Bud wrote: >>> >Whenever a minority group attempts
>to establish a legal "identity" through legislation, then litigation
>follows. After all, it's how lawyers make money. If what you want is
>equality, then it has already been addressed in the Constitution and Bill
>of Rights.
But nonwhite groups and women have their rights guaranteed because of
amendments to the constitution addressing those very issues. The
Constitution can be changed when it is perceived to be inadequate.
>Neither document, and correctly so, addresses or requires
>that jobs or housing be treated as rights. Life , liberty and the pursuit
>of happiness. No guarantees!!!
The equal rights amendment doesn't say that all persons, regardless of
race, have the "right to a job," or anything else. It states that race
cannot be used as a basis for unequal treatment.
>A job is not property to which the employee has ownership rights, it is
>an oppurtunity created by an entrepreneur. The business owner has the
>right to determine the best fit for a job and much of that "fit" has to do
>with the image presented to a customer.
Of course it is not "property," and nobody said it was. However, if an
employer decides that he will fire all the people who are not White
Anglo-Saxon Protestants because he wants a wasp image at his business, he
will run into trouble, and rightly so. The same goes for such
discrimination on the basis of religion. Note that it is not
specifically "blacks," or "latinos," or "Christians" or "Jews" that are
addressed in anti-discrimination laws. It is 'race' or 'religion.' In
the same way, gays and lesbians want 'sexual orientation' addressed, not
specifically homosexuality. We just want to be on an level playing field.
>It is the responsibility of the
>employee to adhere to those image rules in order to remain employed. If
>someone wishes to live in a manner at variance with an employers image
>rules, then a) keep it discrete, b) get another job where the rul >es
>don't conflict with personal style, or c) become a business owner and set
>the image rules.
It is the responsibility of the employee to adhere to legal rules. An
employer cannot dictate to a latino woman what language she speaks at
home, and cannot fire a Christian because he doesn't like the religion and
that "lifestyle." And he/she could not tell a latino woman to pretend to
be Anglo-saxon, by lightening her hair and wearing white makeup.
In the same fashion, gays and lesbians want to be treated equally. I
should not be fired from my job just because my boss finds out I am gay.
Incidentally, this is how most firings happen - not because an employee
is "blatant" but because somebody found out.
>This is a land of free enterprise, even though it isn't
>taught in school!
Free enterprise has nothing to do with the right to discriminate against
employee on the basis of personal prejudice.
>It is not the place for schools to teach every diverse cultural
variation.
In a country where there are people of many different cultures, races,
and religions, who all contribute to the public school systems, it
certainly *is* the job of the schools to teach enough about differing
cultures and the ideals of equality, to ensure that all
Americans are treated equally (or at least present the material to
encourage this).
>This does not create understanding, but rather creates
>contention in the home.
I don't follow you. You mean, for example, that teaching about the equal
rights struggle would cause contention in a home where Mom and Dad were
KKK supporters?
>Let the homes do that. If a subject or topic is abhorent
>at the personal and moral ethical level to anyone, then it doesn't belong
>in the curriculum. > > ^^^^^^
A subject or topic's being abhorent to "anyone" is no basis for removing
it. If we stuck to that criterion, we would have no public schools
left. Science would be out because some religions are against any world
view contrary to their own. No American History or government since many
people do not agree with the ideals or the version of the story presented
there. No health classes; that would be against the beliefs of Christian
Scientists. Maybe math would be safe. Interesting that while the
right-wing christians hold to this kind of rhetoric, they also want
prayer, (*their* version, of course) to be in the public schools. Hmmm.
Tom Mann
Hell, why eliminate just biology and evolution? By the standard of
"...abhorent at the personal and moral ethical level to anyone ..."
We could eliminate 99.9999% of the material presented to students!
Of course that would reduce the school budget and certainly simplify
the teachers jobs. It would also create a beatuiful opportunity for
some individuals to inflict their morals/ethics on the rest of us.
Got any candidates for the job? Ah, I thought so ... Jerry Fallwell et al.
Be careful what you ask for ... you just might get it.
Personal comment about 608/610 proponents:
I'm tired of you people pissing on my boots and telling me it's a
rain storm.
--
PC/MS-DOS: Never have so many paid so much for so little.
Donald Edwards
: Whenever a minority group attempts to establish a legal "identity"
: through legislation, then litigation follows. After all, it's how
: lawyers make money. If what you want is equality, then it has already
: been addressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither
: document, and correctly so, addresses or requires that jobs or
: housing be treated as rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of
: happiness. No guarantees!!!
While I agree with what you are saying, I want to point out that the
initiatives in question did not address at all the fundamental
validity, or lack thereof, of anti-discrimination legislation applied
to private parties.
Rather, they left the concept in place, divided the populace into two
groups, and left the anti-discrimination totally untouched in its
defense of the "rights" of *one* of the groups.
And went beyond that to *requiring* government discrimination against
the other group -- and by the principles you are apparently citing,
this is precisely as bogus as prohibiting discrimination.
Thus, the initiatives in question were no better than the most
egregious and unjust anti-discrimination legislation around -- and to the
violations inherent in such legislation they add the unfairness
of discrimination.
If an initiative came through to remove sexual orientation as a means
of defining legal classes of people, I would sign it. If it went on
to also remove race, religion, and all the others, I would be
overjoyed.
Neither of these initiative removed any means of defining legal classes
of people. They in fact mandated that certain definitions be used
and specified how people in different classes would be treated
unequally. The fundamental wrong of treating people as members of classes,
rather than as individuals, remains; the additional wrong of mandated
oppression is added.
--
-- "Self-interest has no place in society" -- Sandy Cuney, HCI, 5/6/94
JuliRMuzkl
>It is not the place for schools to teach every diverse cultural
variation.
Okay, then. Let's say we take the phrase "...under God..." (As in "one
nation, under God") out of the Pledge of Allegence (sp). It wasn't even
in there until the 50's, from what I understand, when it was added. So
much for separation of church and state.
Who knows... you might even agree on this one.
Rose Bud
: In <304p5a$k...@cyberspace.com>, Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
: >Furthermore, there are statistics that show 55% have household incomes in
: Wrong. It has been shown that these statistics are NOT representative
: of the entire homosexual population. What they are representative of,
Well, you saying "it has been shown" doesn't convince me--you don't give the
correct numbers or the source that disproved the data I gave.
: >Ed Mickens, the business columnist for *The Advocate* wrote, "Today, it's
: >rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."
: Rare isn't rare enough. It should be a *nonexistent* problem, not
: just a "rare" one. ONE case of discrimination is too many.
Yes, you're right. And fatal auto crashes should be nonexistent also,
and poverty, and war, and child abuse, etc. etc., but legislation hasn't
corrected *any* of those things. What makes you think this is different?
: >No, it is not. The purpose of marriage is to protect women and children.
: Where do you get THIS reasoning?? The purpose of marriage, from the
: government's point of view, is to create family units for the purposes
: of simplifying taxes, insurance benefits, property ownership, and so
: on. From a church's or individual's point of view, the purpose may be
: something different, but the *government* has no business with those
: definitions (separation of church and state).
Even ignoring the fact that societies which establish monogomous marriage
have historically done a better job of taking care of women and children,
I can't believe you don't see the obvious point that once a woman has
children, she is severely limited in her earning capability.
Even if her earning capability is high, day care and health care expenses,
and the expense of feeding, clothing, and educating the children will reduce
her personal wealth and free time to a point where she is no longer on
equal footing with workers who are childless.
Much statistical evidence shows that children from homes where a father
is present do better in school and are less likely to commit crimes.
If you haven't seen any such evidence, I'm sure it would not be hard to find.
(try today's PI, (7/24/94, pE2)
: >By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
: >and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
: How would it "discriminate against women and children" if homosexuals
: could marry?? The homosexual men who would marry would NOT reduce the
: population of men eligible to marry women, since they would be men who
: wouldn't have married women anyway. And it would greatly *benefit*
: lesbians with children. (Or aren't lesbians "women" to you?)
It would discriminate by making the institution of marriage meaningless
for many people for whom it now has meaning. This would serve to further
destroy motivation to marry and be monogomous. Much of this motivation
presently comes from religious and moral beliefs which would be legally
invalidated by state sanction of gay marriage.
Certainly there is no economic motivation to marry your girlfriend if she
becomes pregnant, and no sexual motivation in our promiscuous society, so
what motivation will replace the moral motivation once it is destroyed
completely by big brother?
: >I did not argue that they "should have to" hide their sexual orientation.
: >I only said they had this option, and in fact, many of them have chosen
: The only reason anyone ever considers such an option is out of fear
: of what they may lose if they do *not* hide. That fear should not
: exist. Nobody should even have to *consider* hiding their loves,
: and thereby sacrificing part of their happiness, out of fear.
That is not true, and furthermore, I don't see what gives you the
authority to speak for all people. I know a great many people who believe
that their sex lives are private and who are much happier keeping them
private.
Rose Bud
to marry, and many of them do/did marry and have/had children.
And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
Jenner (jen...@connected.com) wrote:
: In article <pattibCt...@netcom.com>,
Rose Bud
That is incredibly lame, especially if you're talking about christianity.
Many, if not most leading biologists, geologists, phsysicists, chemists,
etc. were and are christians.
Rose Bud
: : If a subject or topic is abhorent at the
: : personal and moral ethical level to anyone, then it doesn't belong in the
: : curriculum.
: Evolution?
Why not give kids the evidence and let them figure it out for themselves?
George V. Reilly
) I think another addendum may be required here. Homosexuals *are* allowed
) to marry, and many of them do/did marry and have/had children.
)
) And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
) sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
This is wilful stupidity. Yes, homosexuals can marry people of
the opposite sex. Big whoop. Homosexuals can't marry people of
the *appropriate* sex, the same sex, the sex to which
homosexuals, by definition, are attracted to. That's
discrimination in my book.
--
/George V. Reilly <g...@halcyon.com>
Christopher Davis
RB> == Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com>
RB> This would serve to further destroy motivation to marry and be
RB> monogomous.
If you really want to encourage marriages, fight the discriminatory
"marriage tax" that makes a couple where each person earns $35,000 pay far
more in taxes than a similar couple where one earns $70,000 and the other
earns nothing.
(Note that this is ON TOP of the regressive FICA taxation pyramid scheme.)
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * (was <c...@eff.org>) * MIME * PGP * [CKD1]
"It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of
hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it."
- Looking for: _The Big U_, by Neal Stephenson (out of print) -
Christopher Davis
RB> And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the
RB> same sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as
RB> discrimination.
"The law, in its magnificence, forbids the rich and the poor equally from
sleeping under bridges or stealing bread."
Nathan Frei
>Angi Long (angi...@bach.seattleu.edu) wrote:
>: In <304p5a$k...@cyberspace.com>, Rose Bud <j...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
>: >By allowing same-sex marriage, we will further degrade the institution
>: >and its protections. It is discrimination against women and children to
>
>: How would it "discriminate against women and children" if homosexuals
>: could marry?? The homosexual men who would marry would NOT reduce the
>: population of men eligible to marry women, since they would be men who
>: wouldn't have married women anyway. And it would greatly *benefit*
>: lesbians with children. (Or aren't lesbians "women" to you?)
>
>It would discriminate by making the institution of marriage meaningless
>for many people for whom it now has meaning. This would serve to further
>destroy motivation to marry and be monogomous. Much of this motivation
>presently comes from religious and moral beliefs which would be legally
>invalidated by state sanction of gay marriage.
>
>Certainly there is no economic motivation to marry your girlfriend if she
>becomes pregnant, and no sexual motivation in our promiscuous society, so
>what motivation will replace the moral motivation once it is destroyed
>completely by big brother?
You seem to be confused about what a word means, Rose, so here it is:
Discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other
than individual merit. (Webster's 7th Collegiate Dictionary--I know it's
old, but the definition is still correct)
Now, allowing same-sex marriages doesn't appear to discriminate against
women and children in any way that I can figure out from her
description. Besides, all the ills that you predict upon the
legalization of same-sex marriages seem to be occurring already, although
only hetersexual marriages are legal at this time in all states. I know,
you'll say it's because of some big moral downfall of America, of which
same-sex marriages are only the last straw. Thank you, (im)Moral
(non)Majority, for finding a convenient scapegoat that absolves yourself
of all blame.
>: >I did not argue that they "should have to" hide their sexual orientation.
>: >I only said they had this option, and in fact, many of them have chosen
>
>: The only reason anyone ever considers such an option is out of fear
>: of what they may lose if they do *not* hide. That fear should not
>: exist. Nobody should even have to *consider* hiding their loves,
>: and thereby sacrificing part of their happiness, out of fear.
>
>That is not true, and furthermore, I don't see what gives you the
>authority to speak for all people. I know a great many people who believe
>that their sex lives are private and who are much happier keeping them
>private.
Hold on a minute, Rose. You've been arguing that homosexuals should be
discriminated against (yes, you have), because you know they engage in
strange and scary sexual practices in their own homes, but you think all
heterosexuals are okay because their sex lives are somehow more private?
I've got news for you, Rose; heteros also have sex, in the same types of
locations that homosexuals have sex--in their homes, or their friends'
homes, or motels, etc. Because you find homosexuality frightening,
though, you refuse to acknowledge that heteros have sex? You really
worry me sometimes.
Nathan Frei
Angi Long
>And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
>sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
That's like saying that if both goats and humans are equally
allowed to eat grass and nothing else, neither is discriminated
against. So what if only the goats thrive while the humans
starve -- they both had equal access to the food, right?
Or saying that if urinals are provided in some facility, nobody
is discriminated against, since everybody has a sanitary place
to pee. Never mind that women's parallel need is NOT met by
urinals -- gee, if they really WANTED to keep clean while peeing,
they could manage it, right?
Wrong.
Only heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry the partners
that suit *their* needs for happiness. Homosexuals are not.
That is discrimination.
Steven D. Chandler
: I think another addendum may be required here. Homosexuals *are* allowed
: to marry, and many of them do/did marry and have/had children.
: And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
: sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
I must admit, I never looked at it quite that way before. :D
---Steve
Steven D. Chandler
Distribution: fj
Rose Bud (j...@cyberspace.com) wrote:
: Steven D. Chandler (stev...@connected.com) wrote:
: : : If a subject or topic is abhorent at the
: : : personal and moral ethical level to anyone, then it doesn't belong in the
: : : curriculum.
: : Evolution?
: Why not give kids the evidence and let them figure it out for themselves?
I know Cristians who think that evolution (and even dinosaurs by the way)
is a hoax by Satan to keep us from believing in God. Thus they find it
abhorent. Was it Janos who said that if a subject or topic is abhorent
etc. to ANYONE, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum?
Oh never mind.
---Steve
Jenner
>I think another addendum may be required here. Homosexuals *are* allowed
>to marry, and many of them do/did marry and have/had children.
Yes, but not to just anyone. It must be a person of
the opposite sex. Talk about playing fast and loose with the
facts/words. And this is the person who just referred to
another person as lame?
>And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
>sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
This is the most entertaing yet. Sometimes, this is
just too much.
jenner
SCARTON
writes:
Where do you *get* this stuff. Come on, you're just making it up, aren't
you.
It's OK, you can tell me.
While, I can't speak directly regarding geologists and physicists, I have
worked in biomedical research for the past twenty years, and of the couple
of hundred or so biologists I've known, very few were christians. This
could just be a statistical fluke, I suppose. Meet me at the next meeting
of the American Society for Cell Biology and we'll take a poll.
SCARTON
writes:
>"The law, in its magnificence, forbids the rich and the poor equally from
>sleeping under bridges or stealing bread."
Nice quote. May I ask the source?
Thanks
Janos Szamosfalvi
: I know Cristians who think that evolution (and even dinosaurs by the way)
: is a hoax by Satan to keep us from believing in God. Thus they find it
: abhorent. Was it Janos who said that if a subject or topic is abhorent
: etc. to ANYONE, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum?
No, that wasn't Janos.
Frederick Sands
>sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
Oh, how cute.
Let's see now, a law prohibiting religious rituals involving killing
animals would not be discrimination either, because it would be
religion-neutral, right? Orthodox Jews did not think so after they
figured out that it also covered Kosher butchery.
Fritz
Angi Long
>Rose Bud (j...@cyberspace.com) wrote:
>: And neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are allowed to marry to the same
>: sex, so the issue cannot rightly be classified as discrimination.
>I must admit, I never looked at it quite that way before. :D
If we're gonna look at it that way...
I'm a single woman. Any single man can legally marry me. But if
a woman wanted to marry me, she couldn't legally do so. A woman
would be prevented from doing what any man could legally do, for
no reason other than that she is female. That is discrimination.
Richard Finegold
:SCARTON (sca...@aol.com) wrote:
:: In article <dkelly.94Jul2181933@roma>, dkelly@roma writes:
:
:: > If a subject or topic is abhorent at the personal and moral ethical
:: level to >anyone, then it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
:
:: I guess that pretty much kills biology, geology and physics
:
:That is incredibly lame, especially if you're talking about christianity.
:Many, if not most leading biologists, geologists, phsysicists, chemists,
:etc. were and are christians.
What?!? Where do you see "christianity" in the quoted part? Why
did you just throw that in?
This was referring to "anyone", not "most" people. I know that I've
met at least one person opposed to frog dissections in Biology.
piranha
hard", i wholeheartedly concur. i'm still shaking my head.
it's amazing to what "use" some people put their brainpower.
that's some extraordinary logic at work.
-piranha (and those were some _fine_ teeth; they never dis-
criminated)
Janos Szamosfalvi
: I'm a single woman. Any single man can legally marry me. But if
: a woman wanted to marry me, she couldn't legally do so. A woman
: would be prevented from doing what any man could legally do, for
: no reason other than that she is female. That is discrimination.
Marriage, as far as I know, is a union between the husband and the wife.
Of course, one of you could get a sex change... ;-)
Christopher Davis
Here's the full quote and attribution according to Microsoft Bookshelf '94
(I normally despise M$ products, but Bookshelf's too useful to miss):
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep
under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.
Anatole France (1844-1924), French author. The Red Lily, ch. 7 (1894).
Nathan Frei
Well, duh. That's the problem, or did you miss the last zillion postings
about this?!
Nathan Frei
Janos Szamosfalvi
: >: I'm a single woman. Any single man can legally marry me. But if
: >: a woman wanted to marry me, she couldn't legally do so. A woman
: >: would be prevented from doing what any man could legally do, for
: >: no reason other than that she is female. That is discrimination.
: >
: >Marriage, as far as I know, is a union between the husband and the wife.
: >Of course, one of you could get a sex change... ;-)
: Well, duh. That's the problem, or did you miss the last zillion postings
: about this?!
Because of time constraints, I'm reading rather sparingly lately;
high priority given to followups of my posts.
Rose Bud
: This is wilful stupidity. Yes, homosexuals can marry people of
: the opposite sex. Big whoop. Homosexuals can't marry people of
: the *appropriate* sex, the same sex, the sex to which
: homosexuals, by definition, are attracted to. That's
: discrimination in my book.
It's willful, but not as stupid as it might seem.
Polygamists can't marry all of people that they are, by definition,
attracted to. Pedophiles can't marry the people that they are, by
definition, attracted to. People who have sex with animals can't marry the
animals that they are, by definition, attracted to.
Is that discrimination, in your book too, George?
And don't try to laugh this off, because they are all in line right behind
you, knocking on the door for "acceptance."