From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:41:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.221040.26191@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.212006.6424@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
>(Yamanari) writes:
>> > 4. Please provide an argument based on xtian morals that homosexuality
>> >	is not wrong.
>> 		No.  That's _NOT_ what I'm asking.  I am asking for 
>> 		an argument that can be given to xtians, based on their
>> 		own philosophy, that would force them (if they are going to
>> 		be consistent about their beliefs) to cease anti-homosexual
>> 		discrimination.  
>> 
>> 		I will not accept arguments in the forms of:
>> 		1.  I do not need to do so.  
>> 		2.  It's not wrong/deviant/whatever.
>> 		3.  "The bible says not to judge others"
>
>Because the First Amendment says that government shall not enforce one
>religion over another, and hence will not enforce one religion's morals
>over another's.  


	Untrue.  If my religion requires child sacrifice, and I decide
	that my new born daughter will be the pick of the litter for 
	Fridays ceremony, the government will interfere with my religious
	freedom to sacrifice and her religious freedom to be sacrificed.

	The govenrment will make no laws with respect to a national 
	religion, but they will certainly make laws that respect the views
	of the people, and in this country most of the people happen to 
	hold christian values.  the first amendment is a good and rightful
	defense against prayer in schools, but it has nothing at all to do
	with homosexuality other than attempts (constitutionally invalid)
	to ban homosexual literature.


>And therefore discrimination on the basis of sexual
>orientation falls into the same category of discrimination on the basis
>of race or gender: it does not matter whether your religion dictates
>that one race is inferior to another--the government must grant equal
>rights to all citizens in those areas regulated by the government.  


	Not exactly.  The government must grant equal rights to the 
	people (which is why I am in favor of homosexual marriage, etc--
	because these are clearly advantages held by a select group--but
	to be precise, I am in favor of abolishing marriage benefits rather
	than giving them to yet another group).  But there are limits, aren't
	there.  Does the government have a legitimate right to say who I
	shall hire?  Who I shall have as a roommate?  Maybe yes to the 
	first, probably no to the latter, but most SIGs are trying to legislate
	both.


>If
>you grant the government the right to ban discrimination on the basis
>of race (or gender or religion, for that matter), then you must grant
>them the same right on the basis of sexual orientation.


	Why?  This does not follow any more than "granting the right
	to ban discrimination against ugly people" does.  banning
	one form of discrimination does not have any bearing on another.


>Please read what I said carefully.  What *I* am asking for is some
>justification from those who would claim the right to discriminate on
>the basis of sexual orientation as to why someone else couldn't claim
>the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender *because THEIR
>religion says so*.  If they cannot provide such justification for the
>latter, they cannot defend the former.


	That's all well and good, but like I said, it doesn't *accomplish*
	anything.  

	What you are hitting on is what I have been saying for the last
	two weeks:  Just because someone holds the opinion that X is
	right or wrong does not make it so.  The only way to resolve such
	a conflict is by majority consensus.



	
-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh