From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:39:34 GMT

rm> Randy Murrish
gs> Gary Strand

rm> I'm sorry that everyone does not fit your mold of a model human being, but
    there are individuals in our society that need others for their own
    self-validation.

gs> As Richard Feynmann said, "What do you care what other people think?" There
    can be times when we are our only friends. I happen to believe that those
    times are the ones in which we learn the most about ourselves.

rm> Why do you continue to question the way OTHER people interact with society?

  When society is blamed for a person's *choice*. In this case, Marty's choice
  to commit suicide.

rm> Marty delt with the passage of CO-2 in his own way, you obviously don't
    agree with with way he dealt with it and so you belittle him by saying
    that he obviously was incorrect because he cared about what others thought
    of him.  (rambling I know)

  I'm not "belittling" him, rather, I'm pointing out that too much dependence
  on other's opinions of oneself shouldn't be used as an excuse for one's
  chosen actions.

rm> The simple fact remains that one of the reasons Marty committed suicide 
    was because of the passage of CO-2.  period.

gs> And what does that have to do with #2? Nothing.

rm> What does Martys death have to do with CO-2?  His life.  I firmly believe
    that Marty would still be with us today if CO-2 had not passed. I obviously
    cannot prove that statement, but I firmly believe it. 

  It's probably true, since Marty put so much weight on hope of its failure
  that its passing "forced" him, using his beliefs, to kill himself. That's
  what can happen when we depend on others to define our own worth. When oth-
  ers deem us worthless, (or we believe that they do) the belief becomes
  self-destructive.

rm> [T]he public needs to realize that passing an amendment to the constitu-
    tion that denies certain rights to homosexuals will have profound impacts 
    in certain peoples lives.

gs> Just like letting 16 year-olds drive. That doesn't mean it's a bad law.

rm> What?

  Letting 16-year-olds drive certainly has a profound impact on the lives of
  others, namely, those who are killed or injured by 16-year-old drivers.
  Does that mean letting them drive is a bad idea? Not necessarily. Or, for
  another example, allowing the sale of alcohol. Some people become alcohol-
  ics, making life hell for others, strangers even, but I wouldn't advocate
  banning the sale of alcohol. That's my point.

rm> Society is made up of a variety of individuals, we haven't a person to
    waste.

gs> Oh, I don't know about that. If Jerry Falwell disappeared tomorrow, I'd 
    shed no tears. Same with Phyllis Schafly, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Helms,
    Howard Metzenbaum, and a bunch of others.

rm> You know, I kinda guessed this kind of flatulance would come out of Gary's
    mouth sometime.

  I named some favorite liberal and conservative targets, why the anger? 

rm> Get rid of anyone with a controversial stance and the world would be a
    better place, right Gary?  Oppress anyone that thinks differently than 
    you, right Gary?

  No, oppress the oppressors. I don't happen to believe that a person has
  intrinsic value sufficient to outweigh the disvalue they force on others
  by their actions. Jerry Falwell, for example. Being controversial has 
  nothing to do with it, nor does a person's opinions if they're different
  from mine (which they almost always are.) I have a nasty habit of judging
  people by their actions, see, and I feel I have the right to do so. I'm
  not of the "all views are equally respectable" or "no person is a waste"
  school of thought. There are people who we'd be better off without.

rm> Read into his death what you want, the forces at work to overturn CO-2 
    have not used his death to further their political struggle. It was simply
    a story in the local paper that reported the facts in the case.  

  That's naive.

rm> If Martys picture were plastered on billboards with the slogan "Amendment 2
    killed Marty Booker" then you would have a legitimate case of exploitation.

  And anything less than that isn't? Too many people cycnically use the person-
  al tragedies of others for their own ends. This is another instance.

rm> Thanks Gary, for the enlightening discussion.

  Thanks for being open-minded.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: soc.motss