From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:19:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.005642.14893@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com 
>(Brian Douglass) writes:
>|>
>|>>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>|>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>|>>
>|>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>|>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>|>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>|>>>live their life without persecution.
>|>
>|>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>|>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>|>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>|>health.  But in this battle the rights of a clear minority, have had little
>|>weight in comparison to the greater good of the public.  That is the rights
>|>of the majority have been deemed more important than the rights of a
>|>minority.  
>|>
>
>Read the first part again !  "unless you can come up with some *secular*
>reasons".  

That was not the point I was addressing.  The point is that the public and
government CAN discriminate against a segment of the population based on
lifestyle choices.  Smoker's being an example.

>You have come up with some secular reasons why smokers are
>discriminated against.  And most people would support this.  The question
>for Mr Douglass was and still is "Can you come up with some secular 
>(non-religious) reasons to justify discrimination against homosexuals ?"

Homosexuals are currently discriminated from donating blood.  As are IV
drug users, people who pay for sex, have recently visited certain
countries, etc.  Because as a group these lifestyle choices present a public 
health danger if they were allowed to donate.  Therefore, blood banks are
required to screen and turn away these people, as well as laws now exist
in most states making it a criminal offense (I believe felony here in AZ) to 
lie about any of this conditions during screening and donate.

>How does granting equal protection to homosexuals impact the greater good
>of the public ?

Why is it necessary?  My employer has no idea nor needs to know my sexual
preferences, attitudes, choices.  Why must homosexuality have protection?
Must blonds next have protection because some hair-brained scientist shows
that on average they have lower IQs?  Where does it stop?

Discrimination in the work place based on anything other than job
qualifications, is discrimination.  Why must we pigeon hole everyone in
society into these little minorities?  That does nothing by fractionalize
society and encourage stereotyping, and the inherit prejudices that go
along with that.  We've all heard the stories "Oh, he's black, he must have
got here on Affirmative Action."  "Oh, look how sexy she dress, she must
have got there on her back."  "Oh, she's the bosses daughter, she got her
job from nepotism."  

Everytime we label another group of people under the law, we implicitly make
them seperate but equal, and that isn't equal.

>
>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh