Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:51:30 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> From KAT...
> The point is that Christianity to some is as "immoral" as
> homosxuality to you.  However, it is against the law to
> discr inate against people just because they are christians.

> From Robert...
> Oh really!?!  What about prayer in school, or at graduation exercises and
> school sports events?  Will you acknowledge that the majority of Americans
> follow the Christian faith?  Will you also acknowledge that they are being
> discriminated against by banning these prayers, which happen to be a long
> standing tradition and are supported by the majority?  Should we stop
> without considering the frequent banning of manger scenes during the
> Christmas season?  Do the 10 commandments still hang in any public schools
> in this country?  Have they been removed because they were inherently evil
> or because they were Christian?

What about it?  Really!  It is (at least) argued that prayer
in school is against the Constitution and infringes on the
right of other citizens.  What about it?  Really!

> From KAT...
> My point is that homosexuality is more like Christianity
> than being a murderer.  Murder hurts other innocent third
> parties, homosexuality does not.  Granted that to you murder
> and homosexuality are both immoral, so given that are you
> saying that homosexuality should become illegal just as
> murder is?  And if not, then why not?  Is it because morality
> alone should not be basis for our laws?

> From Robert...
> Needless to say, I am at odds with your point.  All 3 activities are
> *chosen*.  I also disagree with the claim that no innocent third parties
> are injured.  What of the unfortunate housewife that is unknowingly
> married to a bisexual and is subsequently infected with AIDS?  What of the

Same thing could happen if the husband is HETEROSEXUAL and infected
with AIDS.

Anyway, why are we shifting blames.  (Some of you remember that
"shifting blames" was a popular subject with a certain legendary
POLITICS character.)  If a husband won't tell his wife he is
infected (or that he is bisexual), that husband should be sanctioned
against.  Why blame the homosexuality (or bisexuality), why not
blame being dishonest with your wife?

> children that will loose their parent(s) through this disease?  What of the
> heterosexual community at large, that now suffers the AIDS plague because of
> *cross-breading* by those bisexuals?  What about the drug user that happens
> to share a needle with someone and is unknowingly added to the lineage of

Same thing could happen if the person in question is HETEROSEXUAL.

> victims.  The fallout from the homosexual lifestyle is far from victimless.
> Should homosexuality become illegal?  Have you forgotten that in many
> locales it *IS* illegal, and has been for decades?  I don't know that it
> actually does any good, but the fact remains that homosexuality has been
> illegal for many years.  Personally, it wouldn't matter to me one way or the
> other if the legality didn't carry with it the ramifications of not being
> able to protect my children from exposure to openly gay individuals.

I can't understand the last sentence.  At any rate, it is interesting
that you equate homosexuality with murder and then say it does matter
to you whether it is illegal or not.

Not that it is strictly important, but can't you come up with a more
perfect analogy for homosexuality?  Homosexuality is between
consenting adult and the act ITSELF does not harm third parties.

> From KAT...
"...stuff deleted" deleted. :-)
> Don't squeeze in that "BTW" in there.  You deleted my quote.  The
> POINT was that you said the only "POSSIBLE" was reached by the
> state of Colorado.  What I wanted to know is whether the decisions
> reached by the people of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver were IMPOSSIBLE
> decisions?

> From Robert...
> Not impossible to obtain, just impossible to pass off as the will of the
> majority of the state's population.

Silly me.  When you said:

"The bottom line is that homosexuality does not deserve the legitimization of
minority status. Colorado has only arrived at the only possible conclusion."

I never thought that was what you meant by impossible.  Silly me.

So you are saying that if another state arrives at the same conclusion
as Denver, Boulder, and Aspen haev arrived, that that decision would be
"impossible?"

Or is it that the impossibility of that decision is unique to Colorado?

> From KAT...
> BTW: the only "character" missing from your posts is....

> From Robert...
>  ~!@#$%^&*()_+| and ....

Did you just say, "~!@#$%^&*()_+|" AND "...".  Now if I was a
"good" Christian, at this point I would have asked for your
Postmaster and make a federal case out of this.   :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU