From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:45:47 GMT


In article <Nov11.195024.69810@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.190409.11354@tc.cornell.edu>  writes:
>> In article <Nov06.204504.74727@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> writes:  
>> >Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law.  Or aren't ordinary  
>> >laws good enough for them?
>> 
>> Apparently not, since we can be fired from our jobs for no
>> reason other than sexual orientation.
>
>On the other hand, with protected status, it would be next to impossible  
>to fire an incomptetent homosexual.  Yelling "discrimination" would  
>silence anything the employer had to say.

This is true. However, the rest of this guys comments brings on the flames.

>  Moreover, an employer should  
>have control over whom he or she hires.  If homosexuality runs contrary to  
>an employers philosophy of life and beliefs, the employer should not be  
>constrained to have to hire a person of that persuasion.
>  Unlike race,  
>sex, or physical limitations, which have nothing to do with a person's  
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beliefs or philosophy, homosexuality represents something that the  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>majority of Americans disagree with.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I find the underscored comments not merely homophobic, but also dangerously
fascist. With these words, you have aligned youself with those who would
discriminate in hiring practises on the basis of political views, religion,
culture or creed. Very simply, it is illegal and unconstitutional to
discriminate on the basis of belief or opinion. The only adequate basis for
hiring or firing an induvidual is competence, which is based on experience,
judgement, and education. Wheither one is Jewish or Catholic or even Wiccan
has no bearing on competence. It is the same for sexual orientation.

>I for one would not want an avowed,   
>practicing homosexual teaching my children in elementary school, and I  
>know I'm by far not the only one to feel this way.

1) Please explain why. The only reason I can see so far is simple homophobia,
which belongs on the political junkheap along with racism and antiCatholicism.
2) A Newsweek poll taken August 27, 1992 shows that 51% of Americans think
that Gays should be allowed to teach elementary school. Only a slight
majority, but a majority. NB- I am counting the margin of error against
the poll here. The number published is 54% with a 3% margin.

>
>>We can't serve in the military.  
>
>General Collin Powell said in a recent interview with Barbara Walters that  
>he is opposed to allowing gays to serve in the military because when a  
>soldier is on the battlefield, he is not willing to lay down his life for  
>country, God, or apple pie, but for the other guys in his platoon.   
>Homosexuality destroys that cohesiveness, and instead causes divisiveness  
>and suspicion.  Moreover gays have served their country well in the  
>military and have done so without making an issue of their orientation.   
>The problem is you want government sanction of your lifestyle, and the  
>majority of Americans won't stand for that.

1) Gays are not asking for a government sanction of their lifestyle. They
are asking for a reversal of antigay military policy. This issue has
been discussed over and over and I would like for you to please refer to
the thread on Gays in the Millitary for details.
2) A Newsweek poll taken  August 27 1992 shows that 59% of Americans think
that Gays should be allowed to serve in the millitary. I guess that  the
majority of Americans *will* stand for it after all.

>
>>We can't marry our partners. 
>
>Do you think it is sheer coincidence that no civilized nation on this  
>planet includes homosexuality in the definition of marriage?  Marriage,  
>from time immemorial, has always been defined as the joining of a man and  
>a woman, forming the basic family unit.  Perhaps some other, legally  
>recognized union could be established for homosexual "couples", but that  
>should never supplant, or be on the same level as, marriage.  

	Such a union, though legally recognized, would lead to 
discrimination. Although induvidual religions do not have to recognize
homosexual marrage, the government should.

>Besides,  
>what do we do with the man who wants to "marry" his sheep?  Or the mormon  
>who wants 7 wives?  Or the man who wants to "marry" a nine year-old boy?   
>After all, these are merely sexual orientations...

Irrelevant. Beastiality is not polygamy is not pedoplilia. And none of
them have a thing to do with homosexuality. Such connections come
from homophobia and other similar irrationalities; logically, they are
not the same.

Reasons:
	Beastiality is sex outside the species. Homosexuality is most
definitely not.
	Polygamy is marrage to multiple people. I have yet to meet a 
homosexual couple that wishes to get married which was less than a
celabate relationship.
	Pedophilia is sex with children. This is illegal and immoral.
Of course, there is this alleged "conspiracy" which the religious right
loves to talk about, in which the Gay community is trying to recruit
children. This conspiracy allegation is a) laughable, b) not supported
by any of the psycological evidence available, c) a result of homophobia
and in this way similar to racist conspiracies which the KKK likes to 
talk about, d) only belived by a very small minority of Americans (Newsweek
says 5%) believe this conspiracy exists at all.

>
>>We aren't covered by inheritance laws.  
>
>Of course not.  Inheritance again is defined in terms of family bloodlines  
>the world over.  I can just imagine the chaos that would ensue when Bill,  
>who was Bob's lover for 3 months, not to mention Bob's 100 other lovers,  
>starts trying to make inheritance claims after Bob passes on. 

But let's take the example of Laura's lesbian lover Jan. Laura and Jan live
together for 15 years (there are an awful lot of couples like this so I don't
want to hear any bullshit about promiscuity in the Gay community). Laura
dies and leaves things to Jan. Laura and Jan are not considered married under
state laws, so the family sues Laura's estate and cleans up, despite the fact
that  Laura EXPRESSLY STATED IN HER WILL THAT JAN WAS TO GET A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THE ESTATE. There are many cases where this happens. 
	Now, under normal circumstances I can see why Laura's family would
jump on the estate if Laura left everything to Jan. But Laura and Jan had
been living together as lovers for fifteen years. There is a  very clear 
indication that if they could get married, they would. They can't, so they
don't. Therefore, by law, Jan is not part of the bloodline and the estate
goes to the family. The only way to correct this is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE.

>
>>We don't get visitation rights when our partners are hospitalized.
>
>Here, I'll agree with you that this isn't right, although I can't imagine  
>under what circumstances this would happen.

See above, asshole.

>
>>We can't adopt children.  
>
>Nor should this ever come about, in light of the fact that study after  
>study after study has shown that children need parents of BOTH genders to  
>grow up well-adjusted.  Besides, since when is adopting children a "civil  
>right?"  Many heterosexual couples are unable to exercise this "right."
>
>>We can be thrown out of our housing. 
>
>Well, so can I!  The landlord owns the house and, just as with an  
>employer, we have to play by the rules of the game as they define it, or  
>look elsewhere if we don't like it.  Besides, there are laws against  
>breaking housing contracts if it's drawn up legally.

I think  that what  the previous poster meant was that he could get
kicked out of the house for being homosexual. Do you see the problem 
here?

>
>>We can be denied security clearances.
>
>So can I.  See above about the rules of the game.

See above about what you don't see about the rules of the game.

>
>>It appears, in fact, that ordinary laws are not enough to protect our  
>>civil rights.
>
>The problem is you want to redifine those laws, impose your lifestyle on  
>everyone else and ask for the government's benediction.

Give me a break. The Gay community is not asking for special sanction.
They are asking for protection from discrimination.

>
>> 
>> >A right to do what?  The Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is NOT a  
>> >"right" somehow protected by the constitution.  
>> 
>> See above.  We aren't talking about sodomy.  We're not even
>> talking about sexual practices.  Celibate and virginal gay
>> and lesbian people are subject to the same persecution as
>> sexually active ones.  The question is one of identity.
>> Colorado has just distinguished itself by passing a law
>> saying that it's okay to discriminate against people
>> based on *who they are*, without regard for what they've
>> actually done.
>
>Colorado has distinguished itself by just saying no to giving homosexuals  
>protected status. Again, what goes on in your bedroom is none of my  
>business.  And I would never know if you didn't make an issue of it.  It  
>becomes my business, however, when as an employer I see you presenting  
>yourself or behaving in a way that is not consistent with the values of my  
>establishment.

See antifascist argument presented above.

>  It becomes my business when I see the militant gay  
>political agenda and their push for quotas, "marriage" recognition, trying  
>to change adoption policies, etc. 

See all other arguments above.

> It becomes my business when I see  
>"gay-pride" parades and all lewd simultated sexual acts that go along with  
>it in public or on TV. 

I'll agree with you there. Heteros can't do it in public and neither should
gays or lesbians, for God's sake.

> It becomes my business when, because of homosexual  
>practices, the nation's blood supply becomes contaminated with the HIV  
>virus, etc., etc.

This is gay-bashing, pure and simple. It wasnt homosexuality that gave
Magic Johnson the HIV virus. It was infidelity. Eat  on that one for
a while.

>> 
>> And what is it with straight boys and sodomy, anyway?  Why
>> do they obsess about it so?  And why do they consider it
>> a "homosexual" practice, when straight couples do it all the
>> time? 
>
>What is it??? If you don't find inserting your penis where excrement comes  
>from disgusting, then I doubt you are capable of finding anything  
>repulsive. 

I find it rather gross to insert one's penis into a hole that smells and
drips mucous, especially a hole one pisses out of. Yet I was born this
way. Sound familiar?

> Moral  questions and health aside, even a cursory exam of  
>human anatomy shows the "plumbing" is such that a man was meant for a  
>woman. The anus, if you hadn't noticed, has a specific function and when  
>it is abused you see the result of how quickly diseases are spread.  And  
>how would you know what straight couples do?  I doubt they "do it all the  
>time."  I even doubt the majority of them do it some of the time.  None of  
>my married friends (at least the ones who are frank enough to talk about  
>their sexual practices) admit to doing it. 

Then they haven't told you much about it. I know that my best friend and
her fiancee do this all the time.
>
>> 
>> >The homosexual community claims (rightly so) that what goes on in their  
>> >bedrooms is nobody's business.  Then why can't they shut up about it?   
>> 
>> Because we're being persecuted for it.  If people like you
>> would let us simply live our lives, believe me, we would.
>
>Well everyone's persecuted to a certain extent and I'm sorry for the  
>persecution you feel.  There are existing laws that guarantee your rights  
>to live a free citizens of the U.S., and punishment for those who would  
>deny you those rights.  Those rights are the same ones I live under.  And  
>I doubt that I am responsibile for your unhappiness, or that I'm really  
>even capable of keeping you from living the life you choose.  I have no  
>problem working with homosexuals as long as they keep their affairs to  
>themselves (as I will mine).  But do not expect me to just roll over and  
>accept the homosexual community's attempt to redefine laws or seek  
>protected status.

US Laws were not enough to protect African Americans from discrimination,
and they still don't protect the black community that well. It's worse
for gays, because there are still major parties which encourage discrimination
on the  basis of sexuality.

>> --
>>            Hate is not a family value.
>
>Who said it was?  Honesty sure is not an EPOC value.

And thinking isn't a conservative value.

>
>>Boycott Colorado
>
>If you feel that will threaten us, think again.  Our morals and values are  
>not up for sale.

The fact that you had to respond to that makes me think that you feel 
threatened. Good.
>> 
>>        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>
>Douglas Cripe - Atmospheric Science - Colorado State University

Lost Boy - Physics Department - Purdue University.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general