From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Homophobia: US vs. CUBA
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:25:59 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Maria Lasaga writes:

>No, Edelmiro, the problem here is your double-standard and hypocrisy.
>Your comments in spanish (to follow--translated) reveal a lot of ignorance
>on your part.  Being hispanic yourself, I would imagine that you have been
>subjected to discrimination at _some_ point in your life, as well as to the
>various stereotypes about hispanics:  that they are stupid, emotional,
>not as capable as their superior north-american neighbors, etc., etc., etc.

Well you're terribly mistaken. I have never been subjected to any of the 
above.  In fact, a recent University of Texas Austin study found out that only 
30% of hispanics believe the have been discriminated at some moment in their 
life.  Sor for the remaining 70% of us,  your claim does not hold.

>I certainly have.  I am Cuban-american.  

Well, I'm appaled you have.  Get an attorney or write a letter to Jorge Mas 
Canosa.

>And I find it very disturbing to
>see that any member of a minority that has been frequently subjected to
>discrimination can turn around and promote stereotypes and prejudice
>against any other minority. 

I am too, but this is not the case at hand.  I simply said gay couples 
shouldn't raise straight children 'cause white families can raise black 
children, and if we are to apply and equal standard to all, then gays shouldn't 
be privileged with raising children, since white folks can't teach kids "what 
is is to feel black", gays won't be able to teach their kids "what it is to 
feel gay".  As far as I'm concerned I have no problems with whites and gays 
adopting whatever kids they want, but since a standard or reverse 
discrimination is being applied against whites, I guess the same standard 
should be applied uniformly to all.

>In your case, Edelmiro, you are promoting
>very biased misunderstandings about Jews (in a prior posting) and about
>gays and lesbians (see below).  I suggest you become more familiar with
>both of these _other_ minorities, and their histories, before you express
>any more bigotted opinions about them.

I don't know what you're talking about.  Oh! Its this:

>> we should apply the same principle to all (you know, equal protection
>>under the law) and say that gays can't adopt an infant cause they won't be
>>able to teach them "what it is to be straight".

>Children born and/or raised by lesbian and gay parents grow up to be
>straight in the same percentage as children born and raised by straight
>parents.  Homosexuality is not something you can "catch," and it is not
>something that is learned by modelling.  Did the straight parents of
>homosexuals teach their children to be gay?  Please, Edelmiro, wake up
>to your bigotry.

Analogously, black kids raised by white folks will grow up to be black, yet 
they won't be "ideologically black" in the minds of afrocentrist 
anthropologists.  I've never have questioned that gays will be unable to rais 
kids into a heterosexual life, I question the hypocrisy and double standard 
towards white folks.  As far as I'm concerned, if you can't recognize there's a 
double standard the bigot seems to be yourself.


>TRANSLATION OF EDELMIRO'S COMMENTS (ABOVE) FOLLOWED BY A REPLY:
T>[Note to our latin american friends:  You can see how much freedom
T>homosexuals have in the United States when the topics on the agenda
T>that are debated openly are the approval of laws that guarantee rights
T>specifically to protect homosexuality.  Where has the same thing been
T>seen in latin america?

>Edelmiro, you seem to believe that people who disagree with you about
>a topic (e.g., homosexuality) or want to lead their lives in a way
>different from you (e.g., as homosexuals) should not be given the same
>freedoms _you_ have because you don't approve of them or their lifestyle.

Of course not, I don't believe this simply because you base your argument on a 
false assumption.  According to the Constitution, we are all given the same 
freedoms (remember: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW), so why to we need more 
specific things like, nazis will be given the same freedom as Puerto Ricans, 
David duke will be given the same freedom as a Puerto Rican.  Jesse Jackson 
will be given the same freedom as Jesse Helms.  We don't need these special 
distinctions which privilege certain groups over others.

>I guess that you have no idea how many laws are in place in this country
>that at least _try_ to guarantee your right to housing, education, work,
>etc., despite widespread prejudice against hispanics.

No, what guarantees these things is the Constitution of the United Stated, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court.  The law of Congress simply limit what the 
courts had already said.


>What if you were fired tomorrow from your job for being hispanic?  What
>would you do?  You might want to sue.  You can do so under the law.  

Of course I can, I can do it under as a violation of my CONSTITUTIONAL rights, 
not as a violation of USCA 1983 civil rights legislation.

>And
>much of the legal system would be sympathetic to your plight.  

If I prove such discrimination based on race (remember: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER 
THE LAW), yes.

>Well, if
>a gay person in this country dares to sue for similar reasons, they face
>a hostile legal system.  

Not so, it will find the same legal system in place and the same amendment as 
well.  As to our "hostility" I'll assure that the courts will always be 
hostile, its a place where you LITIGATE not where you get patted in the back. 
All litigations are hostile no matter what the case at hand may be.

>And in Colorado, there is now an amendment in
>the state constitution that disallows gay people from suing when they
>have been fired or evicted _simply_ for being gay (forget that otherwise
>they were ideal workers or tenants, etc.).  

No, no, no.  Of course they can sue, they just have to prove they have been 
subject to discrimination and retaliation and that they have been treated 
unequally before the law.  Perhaps they won't have the entire affirmative 
action divisions (i.e., special civil rights offices) of our federal government 
behind their case, but they have the right to sue and, if they get good 
attorney's and have a good case they'll probably win.

>Gay people can no longer
>sue in that state if they are fired, evicted, etc.,  simply for being gay.
>This would probably be fine with you because gays don't deserve the
>freedoms you have, apparently.

Again, you are mistaken.  Furthermore, gays have exactly the same freedoms I 
have.  Now please note that you have not commented on my posting which states 
that in LA gays have no freedom and are treated UNEQUALLY before the law.


TRANSLATION OF EDELMIRO'S COMMENTS (ABOVE) FOLLOWED BY A REPLY:
T>When I was a neighbor in Madison, Wisconsin, the homosexual
T>community donated a statue of two men embracing which was placed
T>in a public park.  One day, some people vandalized the statue with
T>graffiti and the homosexual community protested and managed to
T>work it out so there was a policeman guarding the statue 24 hours a day.
T>Where has this been seen in latin america??  Where have we seen
T>annual parades of homosexuals in latin america?? Where have we seen
T>departments of "Homosexual Study" in latin-american universities?
T>Where??...well, I am getting tired, but I could continue comparing
T>all night the tremendous liberty that homosexuals have in the
T>united states, a country that offers democracy to all groups of all
T>sexual preferences.

>Whew.  Edelmiro, do you read your own postings?  Let's see.  In many latin-
>american countries, you can be persecuted (i.e., killed) for simply
>disagreeing with the government.  

Yeah, but event in those countries in which you aren't (e.g., Costa Rica) gays 
will never enjoy the civil liberty they enjoy in "America, this land of 
liberty..."

>Are you of the opinion that
>homosexuals should be treated likewise in this country (or perhaps,
>simply incarcerated) because _you_ or even the majority don't agree
>with their lifestyle?  

Of course not, gays should never be incarcerated for being gay.  That's a 
violation of their constitutional rights.  The mere fact that they parade, 
speak freely on this net, have good lawyers, speak on TV, have good jobs, makes 
me feel very comfortable, for if they aren't persecuted, I won't be either.  
What would worry me is precisely that they are beaten up and dissappeared like 
in Cuba, 'cause who knows who'll be next.

>Should we model the United States
>government after the many bloody dictatorships of latin america?  What
>exactly are you implying here, Eldemiro, because you are assuming that
>you are speaking to many like-minded individuals, and I clearly am not one.

Sorry, but I don't know what your talking about.

>You say that homosexuals enjoy "tremendous liberty."  Which liberties
>do homosexuals enjoy that you don't?  Or do you enjoy tremendous
>liberties, too?  Hello?

Of course I do, here's a sampler of the ones I enjoy:


Freedom of expression
Freedom of association
Freedom of the press
Equal treatment before the law
Presumption of innocence
Right to counsel
Right to privacy
etc.

Homosexuals enjoy exactly the same rights, its that they have a strong lobby 
(and lawyers) just like Cuban-Americans, which help them to enforce them.

>You are right about the fact that the United States is a democracy
>(as imperfect as it is), and I am glad that in this country, we value
>basic civil rights for_all_ people, regardless of their prejudices
>regarding others.  Unfortunately, sometimes people are completely blind
>to their own prejudices, and they pass amendments or laws like the one
>in Colorado.  Fortunately, people can sometimes be enlightened about
>their own blind spots... only time will tell in Colorado.

No, in Colorado, they wanted to avoid having groups with SPECIAL rights that 
would recieve the aid of the legal machinery put in place for underrepresented 
minorities, and nobody wants to continue with the quota stuff anymore in this 
country, particularly all this stuff about having entire legal divisions set up 
to fight for the rights of SPECIFIC groups and not all as equal.

>I saw a cartoon recently that I thought was great.  It had a middle-aged
>woman swinging a large sign, and the sign read, "500,000 bigots can't
>be wrong".  Think about it, Edelmiro.  Anyway, the good thing is that
>even bigots can be educated, though some may be beyond hope of
>enlightenment.  I hope that Edelmiro can at least _listen_ to dissenting
>opinion (truly listen).

Well, I don't know if you have 500,000 gays advocating for special affirmative 
action reverse discrimination mechanisms throughout the country for gay rights, 
but I'm sure they won't be as bigoted as Castro's homophobes.  

Edelmiro