From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
XXXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:38:01 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A785B7494D010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:38:21 GMT

In article <C181AK.LG1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> , vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>>In article <C0yJ81.630@news.cso.uiuc.edu> , vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
writes:
>>>I'm sorry, but the social barriers to being overweight are EXTREME.
>>>The Chicago Tribune did a huge story on this a few weeks ago.
>
>>So, if overweight people can demonstrate a pattern of unfair discrimination
>>against them, then there might be a justification for legislation to
protect
>>them.  However, there are a few things going against them.  For one, they
>>can cease to be overweight simply by changing their behavior (as opposed to
>>gays, who remain gay regardless of how the "behave").  For another, their
>>condition can, in some cases, be considered =justifiable= reasons for
>>descrimination (i.e. poor health risks).
>
>*** GASP ***  Did I just here you say what I thought you said?  Did you
>just bring "behavior" into this debate?  When people bring into question
>the BEHAVIOR (not sexual preference) of gays there is an uproar of screams
>about discrimination.

I mentioned it only because the premise is frequently put forth that
homosexuality is a "behavior" under the control of the individual, and that
this behavior is antisocial or unhealthy.  (Incidentally, I do not
personally agree with any of these assertions.)  If one were to accept these
premises, then is would be reasonable to argue that there is no ethical
reason to protect people who chose to endulge in antisocial or unhealthy
behaviors.

>Are you actually that ignorant that you believe that
>all overweight people are overweight because they are lazy?  Ever heard
>of metabolism?  There are NUMEROUS medical causes of obesity, all of
>which are NATURAL (natural... hmm.. isn't homosexuality natural?).  You
>are absolutely endorsing a double standard here.

I thought we were only referring to overweight people, those whose weight
exceeds their healthiest or optimum status.  Obesity is a different issue...
one that implies the absence of an ability to control.

Besides, but what I was saying was that overweight people =could= be
eligible for legal protection against descrimination as long as such things
as you mention (as well as a clear and widespread pattern of descrimination)
could be shown.  No double standard here!

>This is probably
>the most hypocritical statement I've ever read on this net.  Besides,
>who are you to tell people they have to CONFORM to your standard of
>behavior to be "thin and beautiful"?  Isn't this EXACTLY what we keep
>hearing gays complain about (with some validity I might say)?  This
>just STINKS of hypocrisy.  

I don't think you read the intent of my response correctly.  People are no
more obliged to conform to a "standard" of physical pulchritude than to a
"standard" of sexual preference.  In both cases, a case might be made (for
gays, it =has= been made) that a pattern of unjust discrimination exists. 
When that happens, legislative relief =might= be appropriate.

Your original comment was to the effect of "If gays can be protected from
discrimination, why can't overweight people?"  My response was, and is,
"They can, unless <repitition of conditions omitted>."

>Obesity can be "natural", homosexuality can be "natural".  Are we now
>going to establish job quotas on people's WEIGHTS???  

Just to be clear, although =any= form of unfair discrimination is bad, job
quotas are not a good way to to deal with it.  We've learned that lesson
already.  The only people who =ever= bring up the old "quota" bugaboo are
those who are trying to use it to scare people away from an
antidescrimination position.  I've =never= heard any gay rights advocate
even =hint= that job quotas were a worthwhile or necessary objective.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton