From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.001354.9471@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Yes the intent was to discriminate. Because of the push to have the
>gay lifestyle accepted as a normal alternative to a hetrosexual life
>the measure was put on the ballot. Another locally sucessful act is
>the Multnomah Co. order allowing homosexual couples to have spousal
>medical benifits. Also Portland has a nondiscrimination towards
>homosexuals regulation. The question for a lot of people was whether
>to allow the advancement of priveledges by doing nothing or try to
>stop the progression by taking a procative stance.

Privileges?  That's an interesting interpretation.

>You ask about granularity, why single out homosexuals for fair
>treatment? Why not demand job related considerations be the only
>criteria for hiring if you want to specify how to hire people?

Good idea.  Are you supporting such a measure?  If not, then perhaps
you are speaking with a forked tongue...

>Getting back to the discrimination matter, there are people that do
>not believe that homosexuality is a moral life style. When people
>look at a problem with different assumptions about the problem
>agreement on a solution is highly unlikely. I would suggest you try
>to educate people to your ("your" is used generically I do not know
>what your specific assumptions on this issue are) basic assumptions
>that homosexuality is ok and not an immoral lifestyle. Once the
>assumptions are the same, the solution should be the same.

Morality is a personal issue and has nothing to do with this.  Or do
you feel compelled to legislate those things that you *feel* are
moral or immoral?

Morality is not statistical.  It doesn't depend on how many people
"believe" something is moral or immoral.  Morality is statistical.

Let me ask you a serious question.  How do you decide whether something
is moral?  For example, I use the metric of whether it injures another
being.

You say that the question is whether homosexuality is ok and not
an immoral lifestyle.  I'll say again that this has nothing to
do with it.

What about those people who feel eating meat is immoral?  They
certainly have a bit of justification behind them.  Can they
pass laws saying that if your wife eats meat she is no longer
eligible for spousal medical benefits?  What about passing a
law that says eating meat is perverse, immoral, and no laws
will be passed protecting the rights of meat eaters?

Sound silly?  It is silly.  But that's exactly the point of all of
the "immoral" homosexuals.  Even if you feel justified in stating
categorically that homosexuality is "perverse and immoral" this is
a personal position, like the vegetarians against meat eaters.  It
is not the basic for legal policy.

Do your basic human rights change depending on who you sleep with?
That's was the basis of 9.  The answer was clearly "no."  Your
basic human rights have nothing to do with what you practice in
your bedroom.

>For the record, I will repeat that I am not into gay bashing. I do
>believe that gays, and anyone for that matter, should not bothered in
>their private lives.

Your previous words say the opposite.  And that's sad.  Try putting
yourself back 100 years and substituting "black" for "homosexual."
You wouldn't be far from the apologists of that day.

And that's sad.

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 747 NEWS
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb