X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:15:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jay's post on homosexuality

Since Jay and I have argued most of the points he puts forth in this
post, I will only respond to a small portion of it.

Jay says:

>I believe that homosexuality is a sin.  This is a religous belief.
>These are my personal beliefs.  They are taken directly from
>the Bible.

Fine so far. (Not that I agree with his interpretation of the bible,
just that I support his right to believe whatever he wants to.)

>  The goal of the law, in my opinion, is to neither
>encourage nor prohibit homosexuality lifestyle.

This statement would work for me if one could easily substitute "hetero-
sexuality" for the word "homosexuality."

If the law is to have "goals", the encouragement or discouragement of
sexual preference is a stupid goal.

>The law should not prohibit homosexuality.

Boy, can't you hear the multitudes sighing with relief! B)

>At the same time, I think laws that "encourage" or "legitimize"
>homosexuality are wrong.

Then laws should not encourage or legitimize any other lifestyle preference.

As an aside, I would note that there was a time when the marriage of hetero-
sexuals was considered "wrong" by the church; since the coming of Christ
was considered imminent, it was man's duty to forsake mortal concerns and
follow Christ. After hundreds of years I guess they got the idea that they
and this Jesus guy were on different timetables and started legitimizing
marriages by performing them in front of the church door (for a fee), it
was considerably later that weddings occurred in churches.


> I think society should be tollerant of your
>actions, but not encourage them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your actions... B)

>There are three aspects to a marrage in society: religous, legal, and
>societal.

>There are some churches taht consider homosexual marrages to be OK.
>Since I believe in religous tollerance, I will not say anything
>about them, but I will tell you that I am trying to convince my
>(hetrosexual) friends who belong to such a church to leave.

How charitable of you, Jay!

>The second component of a marrage is the legal benefits.  These are
>purely a matter of planning.  If two people have enough forethouht
>and commitment to get married (and here I eschew the notion that
>homosexual "marrages" are transitory, flighty things) then it is wholly
>irresponsibile for them to not make the legal arrangements between each
>other.

There are legal benefits that are not conferrable by contract, ie., tax
status and insurance benefits, there are probably others as well. Beyond
that, are those contracts more open to challenge than marriage contracts?
Since you seem to know all about this, you tell me. B)


>The societal rights are where we disagree most.  I could build all kinds of
>complicated arguments, comparing married couples with single parents
>and the benefits given both, talking about poligamy, and lots of other
>tricks.  The simple fact is that I don't think that society should legitimise
>homosexuality and that these benefits would do so.

What it comes down to is that as individuals all members of society should
have equal footing, if homosexual individuals are not allowed legal and
social standing by engaging in a standard type of contract then heterosexual
individuals should not be given an advantage from the same contract.


>Our tax code is designed to elicit certain behavior.  A family unit is
>a good thing.  Tax code that encourages family units is good.

Tax codes are for the promotion of social good, not to impose one
group's morality upon another. (I'm not saying that they aren't used
that way, I'm saying that to do so is wrong and in violation of the
spirit of the Constitution.)


>You want me to accept you and your rights.  I do.  But, can't you accept
>me and my rights?   One of my rights is to not participate in a system
>that supports things I find religously objectionable.  If my tax dollars
>are used to encourage, or legitimise homosexuality, you tax me for a
>purpose I find objectionable.  If you make me hire homosexuals, you remove
>my right to association.

I find many of the things that my tax dollars support to be religiously
objectionable (like wars and the continuous preparations for the next one)
yet I am forced to pay for it. If you want to limit the uses of tax dollars
to things that are not religiously/morally/ethically objectionable to any
taxpayer or taxpayer group then, that would be an interesting debate.

>I know that these arguments have been used before, as a basis for
>continuing Seperate but Equal, for example.  The court and society
>rejected them.  I find their application here to be different.  Why?
>Substitute "adultry" for "homosexual" in your demands.  Should I be
>taxed to encourage or legitimse adulters?  Should I be forced
>to hire them?

Why don't you substitute "Christian" for homosexual? Try a little bit of
that old "golden rule." B)


>>        5) To not be persecuted by my church simply because I love a man

>A church is a body of people who share certain values.  The values of my
>church do not tollerate the homosexual lifestyle.  You might as well
>ask that we accept people who worship Ra.

Churches are not democratic bodies; nor are they public per se. If Jay's
church wants to exclude gays from worship services that are only open
to the membership of the church, that is ok.

OTOH, if Jay's church happens to be an employer, a landlord or some other
function regulated by the law, then they are obliged to follow the law
of the land.


>I believe that one central tennant of Christianity is tolleration.

And Jay is the tennant in the apartment way down the hall to the right. B)


>One last point?  Would you favor a law that required an employer to hire
>and provide insurance for someone who is more probable of having
>an expensive disease?  From a financial standpoint, the higher
>occurance of AIDS among the homosexual community than among the
>hertosexual community is an issue that cannot be wished away.

Geez Jay, what are you going to do when the statistics favor straight
people being more likely to get AIDS. Will you kowtow to pressure from
your insurer to hire gays?


On the movie issue:

>I do not se many movies, but my experience about hollywood is exactly
>opposite.  My wife watches several TV shows faithfully, and I
>wonder if there is a good guy who is NOT homosexual.  On shows like
>LA Law, Murphy Brown, Designing Women, Northern Exposure, Life Goes
>On, and just about every other drama and sitcom, society is force-fed a
>plethora of homosexuals who are the good guys.  I cannot think
>of a homosexual bad guy on TV.

>Further, I understand that the above are among TV's best shows.

Funny how Jay confuses movies and TV.

TV and movies are different, Jay; they are different in the topics that
they cover and the treatment that these topics receive. Furthermore, TV
uses public airwaves and is regulated, movies are virtually unregulated
by comparison.

> I do not claim that
>this is a representitive sample (it is not), but I cannot and
>do not believe that hollywood is hostile to anything except
>conservative and traditional values.

>I challange you to list the recent movies that portray christians
>as the good guys or that uphold the conservative view.  When
>I see a religous person in a movie, it is either a left-leaning
>pacifist priest (good guy) or a closed-minded, facist jerk who
>likes to make people miserable (bad guy).

Hollywood presents what Hollywood can make a buck off of, if Hollywood
made lots of money on movies about happy, god-fearing, bible-toting,
do-gooders who swooned in prayer at the drop of a hat, then we would
see little but that kind of movie. Hollywood is only hostile towards
anything that comes in between them and big profits; christians and
homosexuals both mean little to the people who run the movie industry.


>Further, given the list below, why was this one movie singled out?
>I have to think it is because, as I assert, homosexuals insist on
>preferentail treatment.

I would assert that christians insist on preferential treatment,
remember the flap over "The Last Temptation of Christ?"

In general, I think that the movie industry should continue to be
free (as is their right under the 1st Amendment) to produce pretty
much whatever crap they think that they can sell.

If christians or gays (or any other group) want to protest they
should within the limits of the law do so; they should boycott movies
and comment upon them in the media and apply whatever pressure they
can legitimately apply to induce Hollywood not to make bad movies.
They might even consider making and distributing their own movies.

If movies were publically subsidized, there would be an argument, but
movies should be treated (legally) the same way that newspapers are.
Broadcasts (TV, radio) are and should be subject to a different
standard as they use the public airwaves.

>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>University of Chicago

-other Andy