From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.homosexual,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Homosexuality and politics
Date: 23 Nov 1992 06:32:04 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

The following is a tenant about homosexuality as posted by Phil Ronzone
in the past.   It came with the FOA, property and moral tenants, but it
definitely has another tone and flavor.  It becomes very personal and
this shows throught quite clearly to me.

-
-
-HOMOSEXUALITY
-
-A. It's moral.
-

Nice touch.  Your own moral solutions and defintions allow you to
make this statment and therefore you think that it appeases gay people,
but please read the rest of your statements carefully.

-B. I do not think that the homosexual lifestyle, as defined by American
-   modern day homosexuals, is a healthy life enhancing lifestyle. I also
-   do not this of Catholic priests and a few other groups.
-
-   Notwithstanding that, I'm sure there are a great many happy and moral
-   homosexuals.
-

Yes, in fact I would venture to say the majority. Now of course there is
no judgement call in the above statement you have made, is there?

-   If you STILL don't understand, consider the case of a man that derived
-   great enjoyment from pounding small finishing nails into his skull.
-   True story. That man was performing a moral act, and one that by all
-   accounts brought him great happiness. And I assume the man led a moral
-   life and didn't steal or molest small hammers.
-
-   Yet, while I may associate with the person, and even work quite
-   comfortably with him (I've worked happily with programmers that
-   were far weirder), I would not want that man nor his lifestyle
-   exposed to any children of mine, nor would I want him teaching
-   my children.
-

How is it that you constantly attempt to make associations between
fairly negative concepts and people who wish only to live and have
a life without many others telling them they are wrong.  The is a
great difference between someone who pounds nails in their head and
being gay.  

Do you conjecture that the person who does the nail pounding might
be heterosexual?  Therefore I would not wany of my childern exposed
to heterosexuals because in reality they do, by the sheer fact that
they are the majority, do all of these very strange things.

And as far as not exposing your childern goes-

they are your property- childern as you viem them within your subjective
realm of ideas, are your property.  To be manipulated as you see fit and
in the end coerced without their knowlegde.  Fortunately you will lose
more and more control, becuase the society in which you participate will
have more and more influence over them as they become older.

-C. As homosexuals have an utter and absolute right to do what they
-   want on a moral basis, I too have such a right.
-
-   Specifically, I do not my children exposed to homosexual lifestyles.
-

Why?  What is the basis of your phobia (fear) irrational at best. I 
think it is that you do not trust your childern's judgement.  That 
only you can make the right and correct choices for them.  You will
of course be surprised as they grow older.

And of course maintain the elusion that certain conditions in the world
do not exist.  Oh and please make sure that you tell your childern
that there really aren't any other childern straving in the world, 
laying in streets dying.

-   Bringing my daughter to work and having her meet a homosexual is
-   something I can control and elect to manage. Having no choice
-   in having my children exposed to homosexuals teachers is a violation
-   of my FOA.
-

What about your daughter FOA. Oh I remember, childern in your system
are property, to be manipulated as you see fit.  To coerce and fit
into your vision of what is correct. You must be very afraid that
your childern may do or know something that you forbid or worst , that
you fear terribly.

-D. Most of this is a problem because of coercive taxation. If there were
-   no coercive taxation for just the dollars needed for schools, then the
-   problem would go away.
-
Just like that- poof! Problems gone.

-   I'd choose my schools, you'd choose you schools, and so on.
-

Yes more and more divisiveness- a divide house can not stand.

-   And yes, that may mean I send my kid to the Ayn Rand elementary
-   school, and you send yours Faggot U, and they send theirs to
-   the If You Ain't A Baptist You Will Fry In Hell kindergarten,
-   but then, that is all of ours to decide.
-

Well I don't think it would be called Faggot U. or whatever...

No it is not all ours to decide- if you want to be part of the
social contract in the state or country you live, then you must
give and get- concessions is what they are called.

-E. In the same fashion, for YOU to have FOA in being a homosexual
-   (or not), I too must have FOA. And that includes association of
-   all types.
-

You are assuming that every gay persons wants FOA- or egocentric
discrimination.  I do not think that is true.  Besides you could be
associating with a gay person and not even know it- even though
your own personal FOA says that you won't.

-   Whether it is dating, marriage, buying/selling, renting, employment,
-   these are all agreements between individuals that the State has no
-   business interfering in.
-

Well if we look at the larger picture and take out the concept you
are implying via the use of 'State', we must and have to balance our
wants with everyone else in the world.  Because our existence and being
(educationally and emotionally) come from others.

-   If the State steps in, in say, an EEO for homosexuals hiring situation,
-   then somewhere, someone's right to Freedom Of Association is being violated.
-

But if a person is hired and homosexual, and know one knows it, then
your FOA has been violated anyway.  The only thing that people who
are gay want is not to be treated via archaic and irrelavant notions
as inferior or lesser persons, because they are not.

-   Your supposed "right" to a job can not be stronger to my "right" to hire
-   or not hire, or to serve food, or to rent an apartment, etc.
-

 This is nonsense in a society that depends on workers and consumers.  The
right to work must supersede your right hire to hire, rent, serve food etc.
becuase without a worker your supplied services mean nothing.

-   The fact that it make you feel bad, or make you feel part of an "oppressed
-   minority" is beside the point. Your need is no claim on anybody else.
-

No- feelings as to oppression and 'feeling bad' are important- why do
you think revolution happen?  Becuase people are oppressed and made
to feel inferior by a class that thinks it is morally better.

-   If it was, how would you balance the need of a black minority to feel
-   good by being hired by another minority, a Korean grocer, who has a
-   need to feel good by hiring a fellow Korean?
-

Through education and the concept of a functional and working society.