From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:49:57 GMT

Phil Tripp (ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:

: I treat each person as an individual, not as a member of some
: group/tribe.  Whatever internal logic leads me to like or
: respect someone is never based on any categorization of the
: person into any group.  Although I'm not sure, it seems to be
: based on small human things, like how and when someone smiles or
: laughs or the tone of their voice or how they treat other
: people.  No matter in what "group" or "category" (such as gay)
: other people may place someone, it matters very, very little, if
: at all, to me.	Hopefully, I am not some freak, and I share this
: trait with many, if not all, other humans, including many people
: who call Colorado home.

I, too would like to think I don't discriminate based on such irrelevant
criteria, and would like to think others behave the same way, and that
government should not have to be our "mommy".  But reality being what it is,
sometimes mommy has to step in.  It is not clear to me if discrimination
against homosexuals is so bad that mommy has to make us stop.  But it does seem
unfortunate that mommy has apparently now said, "If things are bad for black
people, I'll step in.  If things are bad for women, I'll step in.  If things
are bad for married people, I'll step in.  If things are bad for Christians,
I'll step in.  If things get bad for left-handed people or Pepsi drinkers,
I'll allow them to try to talk me into stepping in.  But no way will I ever
step in for gay people".

The problem here is, you may not discriminate unfairly against homosexuals, but
I guarantee there are people in this state who will.  Anti-discrimination laws
aren't needed (if they are needed at all) to keep you or I from misbehaving,
they are to prevent those who have already shown they will misbehave at first
opportunity.
 
: My personal thoughts about homosexuality -- to me, the natural,
: biological sexual orientation is heterosexual.	I come to this
: conclusion on my own; it is not based on any religious belief. I
: also believe in wearing natural fiber clothes.	The wearing of
: fabric made from two different fibers is ok as long as it is
: natural (for example, not polyester), although I like the idea
: of something being pure, like 100% cotton.

Now see, I too like natural fibers for myself.  I also like women (a lot :-).
The thought of wearing polyester disgusts me almost as much as having sex with
a man, which in turn digusts me almost as much as asparagus.  But I still
respect the rights of others to wear polyester, be gay, or eat asparagus.
The problem is, many people don't seem to see things this way.  They have
internalized their own natural heterosexuality to the point of espousing
discrimination against homosexuals.  Not merely condoning it, CFV actually
encourages it.  Yes, I've heard Paul Cameron in person with my own ears say it
our duty as Christians to attempt to "reform" the homosexual.  Despite his
claims to the contrary, in every sense I know of the word, he "hates"
homosexuals.  He wishes bad things to happen to them.  He makes these bad
things happen.  He doesn't like being around them.  he doesn't want them around
his children, or anyone else's children.  I know, this fits his definition of
"love", but it also fits every definition I know of "hate".  Strange world,
isn't it?

: There is a difference between the gay "minority" and other
: minorities.  There are black children, there are Jewish, Muslim,
: Christian children, there are female children, etc.  There are
: no homosexual children.  (Did I just hear a few flame throwers
: light up?)  Sexual orientation happens later in life, my personal
: theory.  By children, I mean pre-adolescent.

There are also, one would hope, no married children, nor any Christian
children, at least not in the sense of having made a true conscious choice to
be Christian.  So homosexuals, as a minority, have something in common with the
latter groups, no?  So why should they not be afforded the same avenues of
protection?

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
 
: 
: Amendment 2 is a very flawed piece of legislation.  Its passage
: could mean many things.  It may mean we don't want the
: government to be our mommy, we want to deal with our problems on
: the playground of life in our own personal, human ways.  Even
: though I can legally buy a pint of Jack Daniels and get stupid,
: doesn't mean I will.  Just because I can legally buy a gun and
: kill a threatening burgular, doesn't mean I will.  Yet it is
: good to know I am making these decisions on my own without the
: government parent figure telling me how to think.  Just because
: I can discriminate against a homosexual, doesn't mean I or
: anyone else will.  In fact, knowing myself, I would not
: discriminate against someone based solely on their having a
: certain sexual orientation.
: 
: My personal thoughts about homosexuality -- to me, the natural,
: biological sexual orientation is heterosexual.	I come to this
: conclusion on my own; it is not based on any religious belief. I
: also believe in wearing natural fiber clothes.	The wearing of
: fabric made from two different fibers is ok as long as it is
: natural (for example, not polyester), although I like the idea
: of something being pure, like 100% cotton.
: 
: There is a difference between the gay "minority" and other
: minorities.  There are black children, there are Jewish, Muslim,
: Christian children, there are female children, etc.  There are
: no homosexual children.  (Did I just hear a few flame throwers
: light up?)  Sexual orientation happens later in life, my personal
: theory.  By children, I mean pre-adolescent.
: 
: My thoughts on the suicide being blamed on the passage of
: Amendment 2 -- this is a very sad tragedy.  I empathize with the
: family and friends and your need to blame something 
: to take your deeply felt frustration and anger.  Yet, even if
: this tradegy can be laid at the foot of Amendment 2, and it
: probably can in a certain sense, it has no bearing on the issue.
: Imagine a reverse scenario, one in which a young person took his
: life after the failure of Amendment 2, blaming its defeat for
: his suicide.
: 
: Do laws really change people?  Or do people change, then laws
: are passed to reflect the change?  Do Afro-americans now have
: more civil rights than before civil rights laws? If they do, is
: it due to the laws or to the change in people and our culture?
: Do the laws merely indicate the reality existing at any given
: time?
: 
: I still maintain this is a complex issue (Amendment 2) and
: cannot be sound bitten into yes/no junks.  And whatever happens,
: please, people, let's not start choosing up sides and begin a
: war. Let's not build a wall of hate.
: 
: 
: -- 
: Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.