From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.204308.11118@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.015806.17561@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) 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.  
>> ^^^^^^
>>Well ggeeeeee whiz Brian. Things that are possibly dangerous to the health of
>>the general public are banned all over the place. Amazingly enough a majority
>>think that this is a good thing! What the heck does that have to do with 
>>whether or not gays have the right not to be discriminated against?

>Well ggeeeeeee whiz, Stan.  Where do you see in my statement that I said it
>was a bad thing?  In fact, I don't say that it is is good or bad, only that
>it happens and why.

Well ggeeee whiz whiz Brain.:) We agree---there are reasons that certain
segments should be "discriminated against" when the health of the general
public is at risk. But getting back to Evelyn's post we're still looking
for *secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad---which was
your argument in the 1st place---remember?

>>Smokers are discriminated against due a demostratable reason. They could
>>actually be harming someone else by smoking. 

>BINGO!  Society, government, business can discriminate against a minority
>for demonstratable reasons, ie. the potential harm to someone else.

As I asked before---show us what potential harm to the general public a person
being gay creates.

>>Evelyn's post ask for a 
>>secular reason why we should allow gays to be discriminated against. Is this
>>the best answer you can come up with? BTW if you have some proof that gays
>>are dangerous to the public's health, simply by the fact that they are gay,
>>I'm sure we would all like to know what that proof is.
>
>Well, as you will read in another post, Gays are descriminated against from
>donating blood due because of they're lifestyle has made them potentially
>dangerous to the public's health.  And this is not restricted to gays,
>there is a long list of people that are forbidden from donating because
>their lifestyle has made them potentially dangerous.  (IV drug users,
>people who pay for sex, having visited certain countries in the last year,
>etc.)  But the questionairre is very blunt, "Have you had sex with a member
>of the same sex?"  At the bottom, it says, "If you have answered YES to any
>of these questions, you must NOT donate."

>So, while I was addressing the point that society does have the right to
>supercede the rights of a minority and discriminate against them (Smokers),
>here is an example where certain lifestyles (again, it's not just gays)
>have been proven to be dangerous to the public health and so may be
>discriminated against. 

As I asked before---show us what potential harm to the general public a person
being gay creates.
 
>Now, so what?  Blood donation is a very specific case.  Can an employer ask
>if you are gay and deny you employment because donate blood either?
>Insurance risk to the company?  I don't think so, and should not be able
>to.  Being gay or not has little to do most jobs, and federal law is already 
>fairly specific about what employers can and can't ask.

Careful here---you're starting to sound like someone who is FOR gay rights!
These type of things are just the things most refer too when they use the
term "gay rights." I don't think that gays need or even want "special"
treatment through laws----they just want to live their lives as 1st class
citizens i.e. haveing the same rights as every other citizen of this country.

>However, in the
>Health Care and specifically in positions where contact with bodily fluids
>is probable, simply being gay is a strong likelyhood for discrimination.
>The biggest reason being the latentcy between contraction and detection of
>HIV.  During this latentcy (~6 months), transmittal to others is possible.

Hey fine. If you(or anyone)can prove that gays prove a real risk(if a risk 
does exist it can be proven)then banning gays from the Health Care industry
would be something that I could support. Just like I support banning typhoid
carries from the food service industry. However the current stats show that
it's not the patient that is at risk of contracting AIDs but the doctor/health
care worker. The only known example of the other way around was the woman who 
contracted AIDs from her dentist. But if you go banning people based on 
unsubstantiated fears, that is something that I would openly fight against. 

>>Stan Knight
>>|Still waiting for that secular reason|

>Ahhh, now is that better?

Ahhhh no it isn't. You have made a good case for why, under certain 
circumstances, that the rights of the few can be denied when those rights
prove to be a danger to the many. What you completely failed to address was
the subject at hand. That being can you give a secular reason for the
statements you have made in the past ---'Gay lifestyle is bad, Gays shouldn't
have eqaul rights'[paraphased]


Stan Knight
|Still waiting for that secular reason|