From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legal Issues Regarding Homosexuality
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:48:17 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

From:	IN%"hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu"  
  
 /> For one thing, I think it is interesting that you refer to a child
 /> as an 'it'.
 /    not really, it's a gender neutral pronoun, and that's
 /    all I mean, but it's interesting that you should 
 /    play on this as a vulnerability...
 
 I see now....OK, it's just I'm not accustomed to that pronoun for people.
 
 /    All I ask is that my child receive care and love and  be
 /    taught to be broadminded.  I would much rather have muy
 
 That's appropriate.  And I know what you're saying, also.  I, too, hope
 that children can learn to be open about individual differences.
 How do you teach that and yet teach a sense of morality as well?
 It doesn't have to be about homosexuality either.  It could be
 anything you feel is 'immoral' or not right.  I think it's a tough
 job to teach kids the difference between acceptance for others to
 do something, but drawing the line for themselves somewhere.  And
 your implication that children must learn to choose for themselves
 is true, and inevitable.  No parent can even expect to 'control' a
 kid completely, although they protect and love them to the best of
 their abilities.
 
 /    child brought up by a homosexual couple than, say, you.
 
 Now, wait a minute.  We're discussing an issue here, not me and not you.
 I would appreciate it if you would leave off personal attacks, because
 it just antagonizes what might be an interesting discussion, OK?
 
 /    It was clear from the outset that your mind was, as you
 /    admit below, already made up.  Your posts on this subject
 
 Well, actually, the truth of the matter is, I haven't been sure about
 this at all.  I have 10 pals from college (back in the late 70's).  We
 did everything together, and the 4 years were probably the best years
 of my life.  I love those people.  Well, several years after graduation,
 EACH ONE of them came 'out of the closet' (I don't like that phrase).
 Well, it was a shocker of a year, as you can imagine.  I cried with
 my best friend, Jimmy, over the phone and in person as well.  And each
 of them was amazed that none of them knew they were gay then.  It was
 strange, actually.  Well, since that time 3 of them (including Jimmy)
 have died of AIDS.  And you know, it just makes me wonder.  Is it worth
 it?  Is homosexuality really worth the suffering that it brings to them
 and to me?  I have been in anguish over their deaths, and it seems
 just so senseless.  Then there's the scripture staring at me.  I mean,
 it's very difficult NOT to be frustrated about it.
 (Two more have AIDS now, and are slowly dying.)
 
 /    are nothing more than an effort to muddy waters and create
 /    bad feelings.  
 
 I don't think that expressing one's opinions on a matter is really
 meant to create bad feelings.  You can disagree with me if you want.
 
 /A lovely representative from God, you are.
 
 A Cheap shot.  That's really below the belt.
 
 > You're right...it is my opinion that homosexuality is an
 > abnormality...or if not abnormal...immoral.
     
 /    And you're wrong.  Maybe you'll learn this someday
 /    if a child of yours confides in you that he or she
 /    is gay  (you'll probably then think of him or her
 /    as an 'it', is my guess).
 
 Your hostility in the letter makes me think that you won't tolerate any
 one's opinion but your own.  When I read this yesterday, I was pissed
 off, and I didn't want to write until I had cooled off some.  I think
 letters should be aimed at the discussion, not at the writer of the
 discussion.  The sarcasm is unnecessary and unwanted.
 
 > In a way I compare it to someone who has rationalized abnormal
 > behaviour as normal.  In law you can just about rationalize 
 
 /    Right, and in rhetoric, you can make a tautology sound
 /    like something significant.  But homosexuality is
 /    normal, and your ignorance of the subject isn't
 /    going to change that.
 
 I am thinking that homosexuality probably is normal for some people and
 not for others.   Normal is one of those words that is hard to define.
 Having one blue eye and one brown eye isn't normal, but then, who cares?
 My beef is mostly based on the morality of it.  Where do we draw the
 line, and if we, as Christians, are supposed to be compassionate and
 caring....OK, then we accept the people, but do we accept the act?
 Or if we don't, do we just keep quiet, and go about our business?
 Or is it ethical to stay quiet about something you feel is wrong?
 Especially when it means death for those people you love?
 
 /    I love thinking about all you people who are going to have
 
 'you people'...I'm not sure what that classification is, but it
 sounds like another put down.
 
 /    apoplectic fits as gays begin to win their rights.  Some
 
 I have no doubt whatsoever that gays will win their rights.  Legally,
 how can you argue against it?  The only legal dilemma I can think of
 is the spreading of AIDS...but then, is it illegal to spread a disease?
 So it's just a matter of time for the laws to change.   The reason I
 posted the question in the first place was from the idea that the
 laws WOULD pass, and I was trying to post an interesting question
 based on the reality of homosexual couples, and so on.  If homosexual
 couples are recognized as a 'legal or binding' contractual marriage, 
 then they should have the right to adopt.  No one had posted that thought
 before, so I gave it a shot.  Looking back, the question may have been
 inappropriate or offensive to some, but I still think it's interesting
 to ponder.
 
 /    of you will probably die of strokes, but the flip side of
 /    that is that the average intelligence of the species will
 /    go up a few points.
 
 There you go again.  You're big on the insults, it makes me want
 to hurl them back at you.  But that's stil not the issue, is it?
 Calling people names won't win anyone over to your side of the 
 issue, in fact, it probably would have the opposite effect for
 some people.  That's why I cooled off before writing you back.
 I won't allow your offensive statements that are personal attacks
 towards me to sway my opinion in EITHER direction.
 
 You have to seperate the issue from the person.
 
 /    Don't bother answering; it's clear that we have no
 /    common ground.
 /    Wayne
 
 You can write back if you like.  I don't think you give people a chance
 to express their views. Why don't you write back when you cool off and
 want to discuss the issue?  I know this is something you feel strongly 
 about, and I respect your opinion, as I expect you to respect mine as 
 well.  It sounds like when you wrote this letter, you were very angry.  
 That's OK, just aim the anger to the issue. 
 
 BTW, several other people have written me, many have disagreed with me,
 but it wasn't 'a brawl'...it was an interesting discussion.  Lighten
 up a little, OK?
 Regards,
 Pamela Cho
 
 

-- End of filtered message --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19654 alt.rush-limbaugh:13080