From: eric@igs.com (Eric Janik)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report, etc., etc., etc.
Organization: IGS, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 01:02:42 GMT


Being white, male, straight, with no obvious physical deformities or un-
usual characteristics, I'm living a pretty effin' easy life.  I can rent
or buy any home I can afford, I can work at any job I can qualify for,
and I can walk anywhere I want as fearlessly as the next guy who isn't
carrying a gun.

Will somebody please tell me why I should feel threatened by homosexuals
or the possibility of laws helping them secure their civil rights?

I mean, all this stuff I can take for granted would get blown away if I
woke up tomorrow female, colored, queer or deformed.  Sure, there are nits
like affirmative action, if no means yes, or "freedom of choice".  So what?
I've got more choices than many people, and I suspect so do most of the
subscribers to this net.

So what are the objections?

Queers hit on you.  So what?  The propositions I've received from men
were a lot more polite and sincere than what women have to put up with.

They look at your parts in the bathroom.  So do a lot of straights.

They do disgusting things in their bedrooms.  So do a lot of straights.

They are bad influence on kids.  So are a lot of straights.  Nobody has
shown that kids can become "queered up" by association.  Nobody has
shown that homosexuals abuse kids more than heterosexuals do, and nobody
has shown that a kid needs to learn about homosexuality before learning
about sex in general.

The Bible tells us not to.  The Bible tells us not to do a lot of the
things we do anyway.  Old Testament stories that touch this are beside
the point.  Only St. Paul touches this in the New Testament, and he ticks
off just about everyone sometime but the most fundamentalist Christians.
Many of his points about morality are taken out of context anyway.

Groups shouldn't get "special rights".  Wake up and read the paper,
because governments have been in the business of granting "special rights"
since their inception.  Conservatives and liberals.  For more specious
motives than getting a decent shake in finding a job or a home, or just
walking around.

Thinking of "the little people".  The people who don't have this job
because "some rich queer's got it".  So what's really eating you?

The AIDS thing.  If you only think this is "God's punishment", then we
don't have much to say to each other.  We've got a public health problem
and arbitrarily making life difficult for homosexuals isn't going to
change that.

Loud-mouthed celebrities.  I'm not impressed either, but just because you
dislike them doesn't mean you have to disagree with them.

Lesbians don't need men.  Well, for THAT THING, sure.  If THAT THING is all
you can think of, we've got other problems.

I used to be pretty ambivalent about so-called gay-rights ordinances such
as Boulder's.  My feeling was, it's probably not necessary, but no harm
done.  Now I'm convinced that as long as there are cops, judges, and private
citizens who believe being queer is sufficient cause for losing a job, or
a home, or getting the crap beat out of you, we need these laws to protect
all of us.

My points are this:  first, Amendment 2 is not going to fix the trade de-
ficit, get kids to study harder and stop trying to shoot each other, get
teachers to teach better, get adults to take more responsibility for their
lives and communities, or get Madonna's "Sex" off the best-seller list;
second, there are privileged homophobic whiners out there who should please
pull themselves out of their stew and try to imagine life as somebody else.

Eric Janik
Lyons, Colorado
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l