From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:52:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan5.014950.9637@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian
Douglass) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan1.142508.5901@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec31.201649.10590@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
> >>
> >>Please indicate items of legislated bigotry.  If you were to mean Prop 2 in
> >
> >    Marriage, along with the many benefits assoc. with it.  Adoption.
> 
> Interesting points.  While I don't disagree with you legislated
> prohibitions exist on both of these points, whether or not they are bigotry
> is subjective to viewpoint.  Rather, I submit both are very old
> institutions, and while open acceptance of gays cohabitating is very new,
> these institutions have been slow to change.  Doesn't necessarily make it
> right, neither does it make it bigotry.
> 
> >
> >>Colorado, my reading of the amendment is that it prohibits legislated
> >>protection for gays as an expressed minority.  It does not attack, merely
> >>prevents protection.  Sort of like forcing the settlers outside the fort.
> >
> >    Cute analogy.  However, gays need protection, just as african-americans
> >needed it awhile back.
> 
> Does it also mean affirmative action?  This was needed to right the centuries
> of discrimination against blacks and give them a jumpstart into society.
> Will you publically state that similiar action will not also be needed for
> gays?
> 
> >>Personally, I am as opposed to laws that single out groups to prevent
> >>protection as I am to laws that single out groups for protection.  In
> >
> >    Does this mean that you are against the civil rights laws that were
> >enacted for the protection of blacks, and the Americans with
> >Disabilities Act?  If so, please say so, since it will make understanding
> >your positions much easier.
> 
> Yawn.  If this was trap to someone portray me as a bigot, it was quite
> clumsy and bumbling.  However.
> 
> I am not adverse to laws that protect Americans from discrimination.  That
> is why we needed the Bill of Rights to protect us against the potential of 
> hostile government.  Such laws that protect us against hostile employers,
> landlords, etc, is a noble concept.
> 
> However, and this subtlety seems to be the failure of most people on either 
> side who paint with broad strokes, I am opposed to laws that enumerate those 
> under protection.  Such laws by their nature say these people are seperate, need
> special protection, and are incapable of achieving it if left to their own
> will.  I'm sorry, but I have more faith in the individual to be able to
> decide what is right or wrong for him, than I do in legislators,
> psychologists or other such experts in society in deciding that for
> society.
> 
> What I advocate is a level playing field for all members of society, not a
> disjointed one broken up into a myriad of levels according to the lobbying 
> power of its constituents.  At the heart of bigotry are prejudices, and the
> biggest one of all is perception of advantage by one group over another.
> And when the playing field is not level, it is no longer perception, but
> reality.  And it is just as wrong to put one class of people above the
> field as it is to hold another below it.
> 
> So, while I, as well as a number of "experts" have problems with many of
> the specifics of Civil Rights legislation, I stand firmly behind the tenet
> that "all people are created equal; and are endowed by their creator with
> certain inalienable rights."
> 
> 
> >>either case they have the same effect of labeling, stereotyping, and
> >>seperating a group of people into a separate but supposedly equal class.
> >>And any such seperation is the fertilizer of prejudice.
> >
> >    You have the cause and effect reversed.  It is the prejudice that
> >necessitates the protection.
> 
> All this does is perpepuate the circle.  Where do we get of the carousel
> and move forward in life without class distinctions?  Particularly those
> which an individual has no choice over?  I agree there have many aggreegess
> actions against minorities in the past, but why must I pay for the sins of
> my Father?  Ancestral debt was abolished a long time because it held the
> debtors posterity in perpetual servititude.  Have we replaced so much
> enlightment for dogma that we have forgotten this simple fact, and the
> abolishment of class distinction is what we founded this country for?
> 
> >-- 
> >   ******************************************************************
> >     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
> >     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
> 	Jefferson
> Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


I asked this question in an earlier post, and only one person offered me an
answer.  I'm asking it again, because I think it's relevant to the
discussion at hand.  

What is the difference between special rights and equal rights as regards
lesbigays? 

I know that affirmative action problems come up when we refer to gays
wanting protection under the law as a minority that is discriminated
against because everyone looks at minorities as they've been protected
before, but as a bi female I would want *eaual* rights rather than special
ones, not quotas (how are you going to identify homosexuals, anyway --
that's a question I haven't seen addressed yet), not affirmative action. 
The legal rights a heterosexual couple can take for granted in this country
-- joint bank accounts, joint insurance, marriage, adoption, etc.  And the
right to live a normal life as long as said life doesn't hurt anyone else.

Also, I would argue for protective legislation to enact the abovementioned
rights because, though I have a good deal of faith in individuals, too, the
*social system*  is set up to favor certain groups over others.  It's not a
level playing field, and probably never will be, but we can legislate the
system  to hopefully try and even it out.  And individuala are not what run
this society, but rather the structures built over time, which I would
argue needs individuals en masse to change.

Jody
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush