Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:10:14 CDT
From:         Good but Harmful <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?

>It's nice to know that I can leave the list for three months and return
>to find the same topic. I thought Jay had some *interesting* arguments
>against gay rights, but Missy & Robert take the cake. I've been off
>gainfully employed by a university that generally doesn't hold my
>sexual orientation against me.

Well, y'see we went onto this drug legalization thread, which brought
us to the Civil War ... er, War between the States, and after States
Rights we went through Shoes to homosexuality. B) Nice to have you
back.

(STUFF DELETED)

>>From:        "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
>>If morality is a general qualification for a given privilege, then there is
>>nothing inherently wrong with denying homosexuals said privilege.  This is
>>not illegal or unconstitutional.  If we decide to remove moral qualifiers
>>from the adoption process, then of course homosexuals will not be the only
>>beneficiaries.  We can look forward to allowing adoptions into homes run by
>>known pimps, thieves, drug addicts and rapists.  Gosh, if we open it up just
>>a little more, even Democrats will be able to adopt!

>That's a huge if, Robert, that many people don't agree with.I don't believe
>in God, or at least your version of it.I don't abide by your morals. Those
>should be my basic choices without interference from you or the state.There
>is no legitimate,non-religious reasons for the gov't to discriminate against
>gays.The moral arguments are bogus unless you are going to apply them across
>the board.So who becomes the chief of the Office of Morality and Thought-
>policing?I won't bother with pointing out why equating sexual orientation
>with activities that harm others is erroneous.We've gone through that b4.

While I don't agree with Robert (understatement of the year), I think
you are missing the point here. There are some specifications required
before adopting. These specifics are based on providing the child with
a good home. Some of these rules fall under what Robert would call
morality, and I think most of society, not finding the distinction vital
enough to come up with a more precise word, generally agrees that moral
considerations are considered.

The considerations are more along the lines of "will the child be
battered, abused or neglected?" (I'm sure there are other questions
but I am not enough of an expert on the process to go farther out on
the limb than I am now)

While these are considered "moral" questions, I don't think homo-
sexuality should be on the list of "no-no" considerations because,
while it may not be included in Robert's narrow decision of "moral,"
but I think might be right and good "moral" (using a broader
definition of "moral") reasons for an "addict" or "rapist" to be
denied the privilege of adoption.

>--CAROLYN M. ROBINSON

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history.
              --Vice President Dan Quayle

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.