From: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:25:18 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov6.160017.9536@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>
>>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  
>
>I disagree.  Pre-Election polls showed Amendment 2 clearly failing and
>yet it passed by a comfortable margin.  This suggests to me that
>people knew that this amendment was bigoted.  I know how the 

The logic escapes me.  It could mean the polls were wrong, or 
it could mean people were confused by what a Yes vote meant or ...
One cannot draw conclusions from the passage of Amendment 2 such
as the conclusions people have been drawing, including me.  Actually
I didn't really draw any conclusions -- I just said my guess, my
theory is that Colorado voters felt special privileges and rights
should not be granted to homosexuals as they are to minorities such
as African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.  I could be totally wrong.  It
could be that every voter who voted Yes on 2 is a closet skinhead
bigot.  Could be, but I think that's a real stretch.  It could mean
Colorado is a state full of hatred and bigotry, but I don't think
so.

Maybe the majority of the voters of
Colorado are thoughtful people concerned about the rights of
everyone and realize that the instant special status and rights are
granted to a specific group, rights and freedom are taken away from
others.  And there is also the question of where do we stop?  Can
blonds claim special status?  What about left-handed people?  What
about nudists?  What about people who are smokers?  Should they be
able to claim special status?  They are certainly discriminated
against.  Should non-smokers have rights smokers don't have?  Should
dog lovers be able to take their dogs for a shit in the park?  What
about people who want to be able to walk in the park without stepping
in dog shit?  Finding the right balance of freedom and responsibility,
rights and obligation is not always clear-cut.

The point is, and I'm the first to admit I'm not making it clear, possibly
because it isn't totally clear to me, the point is this is not a simple
yes/no issue; freedom and rights as they pertain to people are complex
issues with no easy solutions.

The reason I mentioned tolerance and respect in my original post is 
because I believe those qualities give us the answers, as in "I respect
your right to be gay, and you respect my right not to be, and my right
to not want to hire you or live with you."  Morality, ethics, tolerance,
consideration, and respect CANNOT be legislated.  Using force or the 
threat of force (i.e. a law) will never work.

>this issue.  I certainly would not want to be an accomplice to their
>agenda.  If there was any political agenda attached to the defeat of
>Amendment 2, I find it much easier to embrace than the one attached
>to it by the people who would support it.
>
>Bigotry = Hate.

I respect your right to your opinion.  Can you tolerate my disagreement?

-- 
Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.general