From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: 12 Nov 92 08:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu
Organization: Nihilists for a Better Tomorrow


 
[Attribution note:  ">>" text is from Melinda Shore.]

In article <Nov11.195024.69810@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> doug@crevasse.ATMOS.Colo
State.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:
>
>On the other hand, with protected status, it would be next to impossible
>to fire an incomptetent homosexual.
 
Excuse me, but which planet are you living on?  Given proof of incompetance,
*anybody* can be fired.  If your hypothetical homosexual were to claim
discrimination, s/he would have to prove it in a court of law.  If s/he
were in fact fired for incompetance, the reasons for that firing should
be truly easy to document.  (And only a massively ill-advised person would
bring a discrimination case where there was one.  Frivilous lawsuit fines
are not a laughing matter.)
 
>Moreover, an employer should
>have control over whom he or she hires.  If homosexuality runs contrary to
>an employers philosophy of life and beliefs, the employer should not be
>constrained to have to hire a person of that persuasion.  Unlike race,
>sex, or physical limitations, which have nothing to do with a person's
>beliefs or philosophy,
 
And what, pray tell, does homosexuality have to due with a person's
beliefs or philosophy?  In a word: nothing.  Nor does it has anything
to due with a person's competance.
 
The whole point of civil rights legislation from the dawn of time is
that the misinformed, the misguided and the just-plain-hateful should
not be able to run roughshod over whomever they please.  There were and
are people who truly believed that African Americans were lazy and more
inclined to steal than other employees.  Point of fact, there were and
are people who consider Blacks to be the children of Satan (they're called
Mormons).  The law does not allow these "beliefs" to disemploy blacks-
it can and should do the same for homosexuals.
 
>homosexuality represents something that the
>majority of Americans disagree with.  I for one would not want an avowed,
>practicing homosexual teaching my children in elementary school, and I
>know I'm by far not the only one to feel this way.
 
The majority of Americans (check your CNN polls) feel that what two
people do in their bedroom is nobody else's business.
 
You may not want an avowed, practicing homosexual to teach in an elementary
school, but before you make this into law, you're going to have to
provide some evidence of WHY this would be harmful.  (I'll make it
quick: there is none.  If you don't believe me, ask the AMA.)  Again,
the purpose of civil rights legislation is to make sure that the illogical,
counter-productive beliefs of one group do not make life unlivable for
another.
 
>General Collin Powell said in a recent interview with Barbara Walters that
>he is opposed to allowing gays to serve in the military because when a
>soldier is on the battlefield, he is not willing to lay down his life for
>country, God, or apple pie, but for the other guys in his platoon.
>Homosexuality destroys that cohesiveness, and instead causes divisiveness
>and suspicion.
 
It's very, very ironic that Colin Powell said this.  You see, this is
the EXACT same argument that white racists used to argue against
integrating the military.  (You can look it up, and I reccomend that
you do.)  It's also the same argument used against admitting women
into the armed forces.  Guess what?  Blacks did fine in WWII, and
women did just as well in Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm.
 
And frankly, it holds exactly as little water in this case.
The armed forces survived putting black men into its platoons.  They'll
survive gays just as well, and indeed have already been doing so,
knowingly or unknowingly (and more often the former than you might
think) for quite some time.
 
>  Moreover gays have served their country well in the
>military and have done so without making an issue of their orientation.
 
Quite true.  Only problem is, they get a less-than-honorable discharge
if anybody finds out.  Not exactly fair, that.
 
And this isn't a question of people "making an issue" of their
orientation.  Their orientation is ALREADY an issue: if it's found
out, they're dogmeat.  All that gays in the military are asking
is to not have to slink around and live in fear.  Beyond that, we
expect that same-sex relations in the military will be handled under
the same incredibly strict regulations that cover heterosexual
relations.
 
>The problem is you want government sanction of your lifestyle, and the
>majority of Americans won't stand for that.
 
To paraphrase some other net person, "It's not a lifestyle.  It's my
LIFE."  This isn't a question of someone liking or not liking us.  It's
a question of stopping people from taking active measures AGAINST us.
 
>Do you think it is sheer coincidence that no civilized nation on this
>planet includes homosexuality in the definition of marriage?
 
Ever heard of a place called Denmark?  Or does the land of Hamlet not
count as "civilized?"
 
>  Marriage,
>from time immemorial, has always been defined as the joining of a man and
>a woman, forming the basic family unit.
 
So what?  Marriage, from "time immemorial" was also defined as a union
in which a husband could do anything he wanted to his wife, including
rape and kill her.  We don't believe this today.  Blacks, from "time
immemorial" were defined as beings somewhere between apes and humans
fit only for slave labor.  We don't believe this today.  Jews, "from
time immemorial" were known as hook-nosed misers who ground up gentile
children to make their matzos.  We don't believe this today.
 
>Perhaps some other, legally
>recognized union could be established for homosexual "couples", but that
>should never supplant, or be on the same level as, marriage.
 
How generous of you.  In any case, how do you propose that it not be
"on the same level?"  No inheiritance rights?  No power of attorney?
No insurance benefits for the partner?
 
>Besides,
>what do we do with the man who wants to "marry" his sheep?
 
Call the SPCA.  Unlike an adule man, a sheep cannot give consent.
 
>Or the mormon
>who wants 7 wives?
 
Well, if he can find seven women stupid enough to marry a mormon,
more power to him.  (Although I'm in favor of radically reforming
divorce laws before we consider allowing multi-party marriages.)
 
>Or the man who wants to "marry" a nine year-old boy?
 
Call the cops.
 
A nine year-old boy, like the sheep, cannot legally give consent to
either sexual activity or marraige.
 
>Of course not.  Inheritance again is defined in terms of family bloodlines
>the world over.  I can just imagine the chaos that would ensue when Bill,
>who was Bob's lover for 3 months, not to mention Bob's 100 other lovers,
>starts trying to make inheritance claims after Bob passes on.
 
Here you slip from misinformedness to outright bigotry.  What on earth
makes you assume that all gays have hundreds of partners?
 
In any case, "Bob's" ex boyfriends get the same thing that the ex-girl-
friends of a heterosexual man get: squat, unless a lawyer can prove
that "Bob" was incompetant when he made his will.
 
And by the way, inheritance is not based on bloodlines.  Inheritance is
based on two things: the existance of a spouse (this is why we want gay
marraige), and the naming of heirs in a will.  No one, gay or straight,
is required to give his/her estate to blood relatives.
 
>>We don't get visitation rights when our partners are hospitalized.
>
>Here, I'll agree with you that this isn't right, although I can't imagine
>under what circumstances this would happen.
 
Uh, hello?  We live in a country with something like 100,000 automobile-
related injuries and fatalities a year, and you can't imagine under
what circumstances this would happen?  Never *mind* the number of
strokes, heart attacks and cancers that gays are every bit as prey to
as straights.
 
>>We can't adopt children.
>
>Nor should this ever come about, in light of the fact that study after
>study after study has shown that children need parents of BOTH genders to
>grow up well-adjusted.
 
I've got two words for you: bull shit.
 
I'm a student of psychology.  I specialize in the study of human sexuality.
There's hardly a study in this field that I haven't read, and what you're
talking about just doesn't exist.
 
Unless, of course, you could possibly NAME some of those studies?  Authors,
dates, and journals of publication, please.
 
>Besides, since when is adopting children a "civil
>right?"  Many heterosexual couples are unable to exercise this "right."
 
True.  All we are asking is the same chances for it as heterosexuals.

>>We can be thrown out of our housing. 
>
>Well, so can I!  The landlord owns the house and, just as with an  
>employer, we have to play by the rules of the game as they define it, or  
>look elsewhere if we don't like it.

In no lease that I have ever seen (and I've seen quite a few in my
lifetime) has the landlord every been able to evict an occupant
except in cases of non-payment of rent, unnecessary and disturbing 
noise, or physical damage to the apartment.  To throw someone out
for being a homosexual is therefore illegal.

>Besides, there are laws against  
>breaking housing contracts if it's drawn up legally.

And you wouldn't believe how many landlords are able to avoid those
laws by claiming the same "moral differences" crud that you are.

>>We can be denied security clearances.
>
>So can I.  See above about the rules of the game.

You, however, cannot be denied a security clearance SIMPLY because
you are a heterosexual.  As with adoption, we aren't asking for a
guarantee of success, just an equal chance to stand or fall on our
own talents and skills.

>The problem is you want to redifine those laws, impose your lifestyle on  
>everyone else and ask for the government's benediction.

Asking that other people treat our life and our loves with the same
respect with which we treat theirs (generally- there are impolite assholes
everywhere) is not the same thing as "imposing our lifestyle" on them.

Likewise, asking the the government use its strength to secure for us
the same rights and opportunities that it secures for everybody else is
a far cry from asking for its benediction.  

>Colorado has distinguished itself by just saying no to giving homosexuals  
>protected status. Again, what goes on in your bedroom is none of my  
>business.  And I would never know if you didn't make an issue of it.

Same bullpucky, different speaker.  We get this one every day.

On the day when YOU consent to never, ever, ever talk about your wife/
girlfriend in public, on the day when you never, ever, ever hold hands
with her except behind closed windowshades, on the day when you lie to
your parents when they ask you if you're involved, on the day that you
stop claiming insurance benefits for your wife, on the day when you
stop paying filing joint tax returns with your wife, on the day when
you take give up all hope of having a son, ON THAT DAY will we stop
"making an issue" of our orientation, because it won't be until that
day that it will stop being an issue.

>It  
>becomes my business, however, when as an employer I see you presenting  
>yourself or behaving in a way that is not consistent with the values of my  
>establishment.

Gays are every bit as capable of appearing in a presentable manner
as straights.  Gays are every bit as capable of interacting with 
customers and contacts in a businesslike manner as straights.  And gays
are every bit as capable of handling accounting as straights.

We're not asking to be able to scream "BY THE WAY: I'M QUEER!" to
customers.  We *do*, however, want to be able to bring our lovers
to company picnics without being fired for this.  Beyond the realm
of business relations, our "behavior" and "values" are none of your
damn business.

>It becomes my business when I see the militant gay  
>political agenda and their push for quotas,

Another lie.  Name one group that has (except perhaps as satire) proposed
adding homosexuals to Affirmative Action.  You can't because there are
none.

> "marriage" recognition, trying  
>to change adoption policies, etc.

See above.

>It becomes my business when I see  
>"gay-pride" parades and all lewd simultated sexual acts that go along with  
>it in public or on TV.

So don't watch.  Change the channel.  Go someplace else.  And remember
that you're allowed to do it too.

>It becomes my business when, because of homosexual  
>practices, the nation's blood supply becomes contaminated with the HIV  
>virus, etc., etc.

More nonsense.  Homosexuality did not creat the virus, evolution did.
And the nation's blood supply was contaminated because at the time
nobody knew there WAS a virus.  Read that again.  Nobody knew that the
damn thing existed.  It could have been carried by NUNS and it still
would have gotten into the blood supply.

Once the virus was discovered, gays were among the first groups to
propose steps to keep it out of the blood supply (not to mention out
of living people), and are among the few to do so effectively.

>What is it??? If you don't find inserting your penis where excrement comes  
>from disgusting, then I doubt you are capable of finding anything  
>repulsive.

Excuse me, but the orifice that you are so enamored of is the regular
exit of a veritable flood of dead tissue, blood and other infectious
material.  How gross...

Did it ever occur to you that gays do the same thing that you do
before sex: clean off?

>  Moral  questions and health aside, even a cursory exam of  
>human anatomy shows the "plumbing" is such that a man was meant for a  
>woman.

I take it then that Mother Nature has provided you with a specific list
of everything she ever intended the human male to do?  How nice of her.
Care to share it with the rest of us?

> The anus, if you hadn't noticed, has a specific function and when  
>it is abused you see the result of how quickly diseases are spread.

By this same argument, typing should be outlawed.  Our fingers weren't
designed for it, a fact which is proved by the existance of carpal
tunnel syndrome.  Given that, why are you on the net?  For that matter,
why are you eating cooked food?  Fire burns human flesh - it's obvious
that we were meant to keep away from it.  Why are you living outside
the tropics - humans weren't designed to withstand sub-zero temperatures.
Why do you cut your hair when nature intended to keep it a certain
length?  Why do you drive a car when nature obviously meant you to
use your legs to get around?

Sodomy, like just about every other aspect of modern society, is something
we do because we WANT TO and we CAN.

And why, by the way, if nature finds anal sex so repulsive, does it
feel good?  Why is that little prostate gland placed so close to the
wall of the rectum?

>And  
>how would you know what straight couples do?  I doubt they "do it all the  
>time."  I even doubt the majority of them do it some of the time.  None of  
>my married friends (at least the ones who are frank enough to talk about  
>their sexual practices) admit to doing it. 

We know because we base our knowledge on scientifically conducted research,
rather than just asking a few people on our block and assuming it to be
true of everybody.  The actual statistics are that 25% of people under
age 25 have done it, 25% of people aged 25-34, and 14% of people aged
35-44.  (Hunt, 1972)  

>Well everyone's persecuted to a certain extent and I'm sorry for the  
>persecution you feel.

But not sorry enough to let us do something about it.  Again, you're
so generous I could just spit.

>There are existing laws that guarantee your rights  
>to live a free citizens of the U.S., and punishment for those who would  
>deny you those rights.  Those rights are the same ones I live under. 

We can't marry, we can't adopt, we are safe in neither our homes
nor our jobs, we cannot serve in the military, we're more frequently
targets of violent crime than others, our lovers are not recognized
by insurance companies, and our sex lives are illegal in half the
states in this country.  And STILL you say this with a straight face.

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

>I have no  
>problem working with homosexuals as long as they keep their affairs to  
>themselves (as I will mine).

Fine.  Disinheirit your wife.  Take your insurance benefits away from
her.  Never mention her in public or to your parents.  Pay a higher
fee to open a joint checking account with her.  Don't bring her to
office parties, and don't you dare have a picture of her on your
desk.  Let your mother in law decide if you can see her in the 
hospital.  And whatever you do, don't let somebody else see you
touching her or even looking affectionately at her.  THEN you'll
be keeping your affairs to yourself in the same manner in which we
are forced to.

>>Boycott Colorado
>
>If you feel that will threaten us, think again.  Our morals and values are  
>not up for sale.

Your "morals" are based on fantasy.  Your "values" are hateful.  We would
not wish to buy them at any price.  We do, however, intend to make your
government live in the real world.  This is no threat - it's a promise.


------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
----[Hit Homophobia where it hurts - its wallet: Boycott Colorado!]-----