From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:18:17 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
> |your "religious" (sneer quotes) fascist position on family
> 
> sneer is in the eye of the beholder - if you don't like my
> comments, then you have made your choice.  

are you telling me that i *do* have a choice of my religion?  or,
are you *simply* telling me that i have a choice whether or not
to sneer at your comments?  [do i still have that religious choice?]

> |values.  tell us to what extent society should make us
> |conform, especially regarding the family.  don't forget,
> 
> I don't think homosexual relations should be given the same
> status as hetrosexual ones (i.e., marriage rights)

you still didn't tell me to what extent society should make
us conform.  what you think about homosexual relations is not
a clear statement of the extent to which you think society
should make homosexuals conform -- as an example, i think
your religion is utterly ridiculous, but i assert the notion
that society should support freedom of religion, which
includes your right to practice your religion [otherwise, it
wouldn't be freedom, now would it?].  do you think *society*,
being a blend of different people and their ideologies,
should not support freedom of affectional expression?

as to your thoughts about homosexual marriage, you use two
entirely different terminologies when you characterize
homosexual marriages.  first, you say, "homosexual relations
should [not] be given the same status as heterosexual
`ones'," -- i thought marriage and relations dealt with
`twos', `threes', and `fours,' but you've never been very
good with "you" and "we."  anyway, this has different arenas
for interpretation, mostly a social arena, in my mind, since
you say "status."  then you follow up with "marriage rights."
well, anytime you talk about "rights," you're talking
government, but while marriage seems like a fuzzy area
between church and state, it is the state marriage license
which grants your rights and benefits of marriage in society.

so, you can keep your bigotry in church for all i really care
about your religion, but when you decide that *the*state*,
operating independently of the church, can not marry gay
people, how do we rectify that i think the state *should*
marry gay people?  what, pray tell, would you do if i
legislated that your religious expression be outlawed?  [is
this ringing any bells from 7th grade history classes?]

it would appear that this is not a religious issue after
all...

> nor
> should there be laws to force the hiring of homosexuals as
> a minority (even though there is only 1-2% of people who are
> exclusively homosexual for a life time.)

which christian journal published those statistics?  and, am
i to conclude that 1-2% is not a minority?  oh, forget those
questions because, more importantly, is it the small quantity
of people that their right to employment should be denied?

as for your statement about "[forcing] the hiring of
homosexuals," don't you feel that whenever you're going to
infringe on the rights of others, you at least have the
responsibility of not being so blatently ignorant?  gay civil
rights would not "force" you to hire a gay person; there are
no provisions to "force" a business to hire a certain number
of gay people to fill a quota.  rather, a business would be
prohibited from discharging a qualified employee or barring a
qualified person from employment because that person is gay.
the key difference which does not allow you to twist the
meaning is that gay civil rights makes a person's sexual
orientation secondary to their qualifications to perform
their job; a person can be discharged or barred employment
only if they don't meet the criteria to perform their job
satisfactorily.

> |however, that there are more perspectives to society than
> |just your brand of "religion."
> 
> I am well aware of this.  But yet I still have the right
> to speak, don't I?  I can still influence OR are you intolerate
> of my brand's views and ability to influence?

i find it deeply ironic that a person who's advocating the
denial of fundamental rights would argue about his right to
influence and tolerance.  did God give you a brain, pitts?
or do you channel jesus like cable television?

> The only tyrannical people I've every met was the group 
> Queer Nation one Sunday at a Cracker Barrel.

tell me about the moral fortitude of a man who condemns an
entire class of people based on one faction of said people?
[don't forget that QN was fighting for the jobs of people who
had been forced out of employment with Cracker Barrell simply
because they were gay.]  i'm sure someone can help you find a
biblical quote.

> |Queer Without A Cause!
> |Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
> So it was a choice???

so what if it was?
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality