From: bernstei@caesar.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Bernstein)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:20:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.000347.21162@col.hp.com> vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) 
writes:

VM> Angela Dire's "Update" article on Marty Booker's suicide was indeed a
VM>difficult piece.  Mr.  Booker, dying from AIDS contracted through his
VM>homosexual lifestyle, was aware, per the article, of ways to prevent
VM>AIDS (his aunt helped him research a report on AIDS and preventing its
VM>spread).  Why then would he ignore his own counsel and contract AIDS
VM>by continuing his known-dangerous lifestyle?  I am not judging Mr.
VM>Booker, I just don't understand the mentality that would continue in a
VM>deadly course, particularly when knowledge of the danger is there.

"his known-dangerous lifestyle?"  I don't know Mr. Booker's personal
sexual habits.  But that's like saying that drinking wine is known to
cause death by cirrhosis of the liver.  Of course, if you drink enough
wine, you can give yourself cirrhosis -- but likewise if you drink enough
beer or hard liquor.  Sex between two men can be as safe or as dangerous
as sex between two women, or a man and a woman.

VM> Homosexuality is a physically destructive behavior.  Ms.  Dire's
VM>sensationalizing of a tortured man's suicide note, making CFV the
VM>"trigger man" was a clear attempt to further the homosexual ideal -
VM>vilify anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda (see "The
VM>Overhauling of Straight America Waging Peace Part Two" by Kirk and
VM>Pill, Guide Magazine, Nov.  1987 page 10 first paragraph - actually
VM>read the whole thing, it is enlightening to see what the homosexual
VM>agenda looks like from the homosexual viewpoint).

"Homosexuality is a physically destructive behavior"?  Perhaps you
mean, "anal sex is a physically destructive behavior."  But then,
lots of heterosexual couples have anal sex, so that's not a defining
behavior.  Perhaps you mean "exchanging bodily fluids - especially
semen - is a physically destructive behavior."  But then, lots of
heterosexual couples have oral sex, too.  What *do* you mean?  Our
online webster defines:

ho.mo.sex.u.al \.ho--m*-'seksh-(*-)w*l, -'sek-sh*l\ \-.sek-sh*-'wal-*t-e-\ 
   aj : of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire toward a member of one's 
   own sex - homosexual n

Is this *inherently* physically destructive?  There is no physical thing that 
homosexuals do that heterosexuals can't (or don't); there is no thing that 
any subset does that is completely peculiar to it.

And what is a "homosexual viewpoint?"

VM> CFV has no "Auschwitz" in mind for the homosexual community as
VM>mis-guided Mr. Booker wanted to believe.  Since he lived in Colorado
VM>Springs, he never had special protection, nothing changed for him.
VM>Unfortunately, depression is not much for logic. 

Perhaps it doesn't.  What worries me is that a lot of people who voted
for Amendment 2 *do* have an Auschwitz in mind for "those #@*$( faggots."
And your posting, with what I see as rather nasty overtones, doesn't
really comfort me that much.

VM> What Amendment 2 states is that homosexual, bi-sexual or hetero-
VM>sexual behavior is not a valid reason to demand government dollars be
VM>allocated to pursue claims of discrimination.  The Supreme Court
VM>agreed that sodomy laws do not abridge "due process" (Hardwick v.
VM>Bowers, 1986), so behavior is not considered an "unalienable right".

Here we get to the nut of the argument.  CFV and their adherents argue
that "behavior" is not an inalienable right.  But no man gets fired for
having anal sex with his boyfriend, in the privacy of their home.  That
man gets fired for the *suspicion* that he has sex with a man at all--
for being limp-wristed, effeminate, prissy, or a "faggot"; for having
a close male friend; for never dating women.  And likewise for suspected
lesbians -- if a woman is too "butch", she's obviously a dyke.

VM> Homosexuals can still pursue wrongful-discharge suits, but their
VM>behavior is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the
VM>employer.  Amendment 2 keeps Coloradoans on equal footing in the Civil
VM>Rights arena.  No special rights or considerations are appropriate for
VM>a group whose BEHAVIOR sets them apart from the (vast) majority.

Like followers of Islam?  That's right!  And I guess that, since less than
10% of the population are Zoroastrians, they don't deserve equal protection
under the law!  (That's right, I said "equal protection," not "special rights
or priveleges.")

VM>All ideas expressed here are my own, 
VM>though you ought to consider that I am right

I do consider it. 

(Note that this is posted to everything *except* to the *.general groups.
I hope everyone who isn't doing so already will start editing their headers.)

Michael Bernstein

People that are really very wierd can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general