From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:51:46 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78D5D32E8030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:51:41 GMT

In article <1k79i6INNn2a@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Dan Carpenter,
cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu writes:
>I'm Hetrosexual, but I don't think I am "Morally Superior", just
>"Morally Right".  

I don't see a useful distinction there.  Saying you are "morally right"
implies that gays are "morally wrong" and, therefore, you are "morally
superior."

>I couldn't care less what the "Queers" do, as long as
>they don't infringe on my right to feel and think the way I want, to
>restrict what I can or can not do separate from them.  

In almost all situations, you have the opportunity to do just that., with
regard to gays or anybody else you dislike.  The only exceptions are if you
are in a position to deny them some basic necessities, like a job or a home.

>Let's respect
>each other as  "Humans" and our funcional needs separate from Sexual
>choice, and you can go your direction and We can go ours.  Don't go
>throwing laws around if I or any other Hetro doesn't want to knowingly
>work next to you, rent to you, or serve in the military next to you.

Your initial premise here is perfectly valid, but you are applying it
inconsistently.  You have stated three radically different situations here.  

1) You have the right to avoid working next to anybody you dislike for
whatever reason.  You simply find another job.  

2) You can obviously rent from anyone you chose... I assume you mistyped
here and meant to say "rent to."  You will always be able to refuse to do
business with anyone you chose, as long as you do so for valid business
reasons.  When you choose to behave unethically in the marketplace, however,
you can expect the government to step in and encourage or require you to
behave in an ethical manner.  

And, finally, 3) the military is a special case.  The government has
decided, with questionable wisdom, that sometimes it must force people to
serve.  They have decided that people will not be excluded simply because
they are being forced to associate with people they don't like.  Forcing a
homophobe to serve with a gay is no more or less "ethical" than forcing a
racist to serve with a person of color (there are valid arguments on both
sides of that issue... it is a difficult one to resolve ethically).

>It is said that Homosexuality is an "Alternate Life Style"; Fine, let me
>be with my "Traditional Life Style".   I'm not trying to *force* my TLS
>on you, after all I didn't give a sh*t until you 'Alternates' start
>raising hell about rights.  Keep your distance, let me be, and don't
>step on MY rights, and you (gays) can plug each others butts for
>eternity, for all I care.

There is a basic flaw in the attitude of "I don't like you, so you keep your
distance from me."  If you don't like someone whose unacceptable qualities
don't have any direct impact on you, then it is incumbent on =you= to do the
distancing.  If that inconveniences you, then that is the price of your
prejudice.  

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14847 alt.politics.homosexuality:10045 talk.religion.misc:27264