From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:30:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.014256.27630@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.204308.11118@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.015806.17561@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
[deleted stuff]
>
>Well ggeeee whiz whiz Brain.:) We agree---there are reasons that certain
>segments should be "discriminated against" when the health of the general
>public is at risk. But getting back to Evelyn's post we're still looking
>for *secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad---which was
>your argument in the 1st place---remember?
>
>>>Smokers are discriminated against due a demostratable reason. They could
>>>actually be harming someone else by smoking. 
>
>>BINGO!  Society, government, business can discriminate against a minority
>>for demonstratable reasons, ie. the potential harm to someone else.
>
>As I asked before---show us what potential harm to the general public a person
>being gay creates.

My point is NOT that gays ARE a harm to the general public, but legal
descrimination against the individual in certain cases is allowable.  To
often people here take an absolute stance that any discrimination against 
someone, gays in this instance, should not be allowed in any situation.  My
point is that when the general welfare is at risk by the individual, they
can be discriminated against.  Blood donation is a specific case where
people who have had sex with a member of the same sex, an action generally
to be called gay activity are forbidden from donation.  It is the activity
that justifies the disqualification, just as it does with someone who pays
for sex.  Same thing.  

So, while I've tried to answer the question by showing an instance where
homosexual activity has been deemed potential harmful to the general
welfare if allowed to donate blood, therefore disqualified, the example is
germaine only to question of blood donation.  It does not, should not apply
to other situations.  Each situation must be taken on a case by case basis.

[deleted stuff]
>>Now, so what?  Blood donation is a very specific case.  Can an employer ask
>>if you are gay and deny you employment because donate blood either?
>>Insurance risk to the company?  I don't think so, and should not be able
>>to.  Being gay or not has little to do most jobs, and federal law is already 
>>fairly specific about what employers can and can't ask.
>
>Careful here---you're starting to sound like someone who is FOR gay rights!
I am against any form of prejudiced descrimination, which I describe as
descrimination without adequate basis.  No matter who is subjected to it.
If it happens to be someone who is gay, then so be it.

>These type of things are just the things most refer too when they use the
>term "gay rights." I don't think that gays need or even want "special"
>treatment through laws----they just want to live their lives as 1st class
>citizens i.e. haveing the same rights as every other citizen of this country.

Well, I would refer to an earlier post by Howard Black who states he wants
the same legal protection and recourse that blacks have recieved, and
decide for yourself what he seeks.

>
>>However, in the
>>Health Care and specifically in positions where contact with bodily fluids
>>is probable, simply being gay is a strong likelyhood for discrimination.
>>The biggest reason being the latentcy between contraction and detection of
>>HIV.  During this latentcy (~6 months), transmittal to others is possible.
>
>Hey fine. If you(or anyone)can prove that gays prove a real risk(if a risk 
>does exist it can be proven)then banning gays from the Health Care industry
>would be something that I could support. Just like I support banning typhoid
>carries from the food service industry. 

Again, any descrimination must have an adequate basis to justify it.  In
the case of blood donation, sufficient cause has been shown.  

>However the current stats show that
>it's not the patient that is at risk of contracting AIDs but the doctor/health
>care worker. The only known example of the other way around was the woman who 
>contracted AIDs from her dentist. But if you go banning people based on 
>unsubstantiated fears, that is something that I would openly fight against. 

The problem the CDC has found in trying to gather any number in regards to
health care worker to patient transmittal, is the frequency and variety of
contact.  People see Dentists so regularly, and there are other more
recognized means of HIV transmittal, the CDC just can't subscribe a number
to this.  Because no number can be determined, doesn't mean it has or
hasn't occurred.  In the specific case of Kimberly Bergalis, the CDC's
final report declares the means of transmission as unknown.

And as far health care and those whose behaviour puts them in a high risk
group, I can only see the surgerical theater, either emergency or scheduled
as a risk prone area.  
>
>>>Stan Knight
>>>|Still waiting for that secular reason|
>
>>Ahhh, now is that better?
>
>Ahhhh no it isn't. You have made a good case for why, under certain 
>circumstances, that the rights of the few can be denied when those rights
>prove to be a danger to the many. What you completely failed to address was
>the subject at hand. That being can you give a secular reason for the
>statements you have made in the past ---'Gay lifestyle is bad, Gays shouldn't
>have eqaul rights'[paraphased]

No, Stan, you're paraphrase is entirely incorrect.  You have read more into
my statements than I put.  I addressed, as you state above a specific case
where the rights of the few are subordinate to the rights of the many.  To
take the isolated example I presented, which did fulfill Evelyn Leeper's
challenge, and apply it as a statement of my universal position to gays is
unfounded.  I never made such a claim as "this proves gays are a danger",
because it does not.  Therefore I admonish you for claiming I believe it does.

In fact, my consistent line has been unfounded discrimination is
anti-American; And we do not need peicemeal laws to combat such
discrimination, rather universally embracing legislation that views all
Americans in an unbiased light, and protects them equally so.  Do not
mistake my opposition to minority classification legislation for apathy
towards societal injustice.

To paraphrase a favorite old saying:
First they came for the homosexuals, 
	and no one stood up for them.
Then they came for the jews
	and no one stood up for them.
Then they came for the gypsys
	and no one stood up for them.
Then they came for the catholics
	and no one stood up for them.
Then they came for me
	and there was no one left to stand up for me.

A German Priest in WWII.

>Stan Knight
>|Still waiting for that secular reason| 
-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion