From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: pnw.motss,seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Response to Measure 9 (weak)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:43:07 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:

After munging the Newsgroups line in an attempt to squelch
any answer to his post.

:I am not a Christian fundamentalist. 

You don't have to be a fundie to be ignorant and insecure.

:But I voted for Measure 9.

Thank you for contributing to a atmosphere of hate and seperation
where many of my friends live.  Thank you for helping those driven by
irrational hate, in thier attempt to force thier own exclusionist
view of lifestyle on others.  Thank you for sending a message to 
thousands of hate filled little boys that says it is ok to kill
someone because they are a fag.  Go wash your hands -- Pilot.

:I had a lot of trouble with the third paragraph directing the state to
:set up a program discouraging homosexual behavior, but in the end, I
:voted for 9.

If you had a lot of trouble with it, as you say, you would not
have voted for it.

:My reasons for voting were:
:1. The activists of the gay/lesbain community have been exerting much
:pressure to have their lifestyle be considered as a normal alternative
:to a heterosexual one.  

And what is wrong with that?  I see no reason to vote on 9 because 
someone may be considered as good, as human as you.  

:Recently there have been a number of executive
:decisions made in government (state and local) mandating equality of
:treatment for homosexuals.  

What is wrong with that?  Nothing at all.  Recognizing the freedoms
of others does not diminish your own.  Guaranteeing the rights of
others does not diminish your own, only your power over them.

:These actions are precedent setting for
:acknowledging homosexuals as a class deserving of special treatment.

Equal rights are not special rights.  If you give protection to blacks
because fo thier color, woman because of thier sex, then you should provide 
the same protection against those discriminated against simply because
of who they sleep with.

Unless you do that the protections given to the other groups
are special.  Would you vote against "special rights" for anyone 
who is not white, straight,  and male?

:2.  I do not believe homosexuality is inherited, but is rather a
:choice in behavior made by the individual.  There may be a genetic
:predisposition to homosexual behavior, but the choice to be a
:homosexual is made by the individual not by nature.  Until evidence is
:presented proving otherwise this is my position.

And so what if they choose?  You may not be a Fundimentalist Christian,
but you know the songs well enough.

:3. I would much rather have the people that fought Measure 9
:expending their efforts on Measure 9, than working on ways to push
:the expansion of special rights (I know that special rights is a
:catch phrase of the proponents, but I could not come up with a better
:description).

Because there isn't any better description for the fear that someone
may, somehow,be granted as much power and protection in this society
that you currently enjoy.

:Am I a gay basher?  

No, you are worse.  You voted to have the government do that for 
you.

:Do we need special affirmative action laws to protect gays from
:being discriminated against? No. We do not need affirmative action
:laws for anyone.

There have been *no* cries for affirmative action on the part of any
group of human rights activists supporting the rights of lesbigay
people.  It is another manufactured scare tactic of the people 
backing the OCA.

:Should the gay lifestyle be treated as a person's own private matter
:with out interference from others, especially the government? Yes.

Then why in the hell did you vote for something that did the contrary?

:This last statement may look contradictory especially in light of 9's
:third paragraph, but the state and local governments are swinging
:toward a progay stance, in my view, now. 

They are swinging toward a pro-human rights stance, period.

:The more odious provisions
:calling for direct action would have probably been thrown out by the
:courts.

Odious?  The only odious thing I see is a very thin mask over something
that only works to destroy freedom for us all.

:Now, the No on 9 people deserve to be congratulated for their hard
:work and ultimately successful campaign. So how about working just
:as hard to put an initiative on the ballot that guarantees the
:rights/privileges you believe gays deserve?  Thus letting the voters
:decide the issue rather than going through the back door of
:administrative orders.

The whole OCA thing got started because , in many states, lesbigay
people have done just that.  Soon after, fundimentalist groups started
funneling money into states to defeat such measures.  As soon as there 
is a glimmer of hope of making the recognition of *all* people's 
rights equal, they come out of the woodwork, draft legislation and
get people like you to vote for it.

You, sir, are no better and no different than the OCA.  Your 
rationalizations are no better than the ones used by germany in the 
thirties.  After all *those* people decided who had which rights.  
They must have been right.  They had the voice of the people behind them.

I wonder if Sequent has a pluralism policy?


         Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
	
	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

		    There are no ordinary moments.

Newsgroups: pnw.motss,soc.motss