Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:08:35 EDT
From:         Sappho was an right-on woman!! <CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Homosexuality: Isn't this where I left?

It's nice to know that I can leave the list for three months and return
to find the same topic. I thought Jay had some *interesting* arguments
against gay rights, but Missy & Robert take the cake. I've been off
gainfully employed by a university that generally doesn't hold my
sexual orientation against me.

I must take exception to the disparagement of my morals and the morals of
my gay friends. What I and my friends and acquaintances feel is morally
right or just plan ol' right runs the gammit, whether they be hetero or homo-
sexual. My rules of life are basically live and let live. I do not impose
my beliefs on anyone else. Individuals should be allowed to decide what is
best for there life as long as what they choose to do does not interfere in
the life or liberty of anyone else.

Having said that:

>From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>In the case of gays, I don't think the "prejudice" qualification applies.
>First, I'm assuming that you don't consider a condemnation of homosexuality on
>religious grounds to be the same as "I don't like gays because they're
>different" or some other non-sensical argument.  Of course, even if you grant
>that piety does not equal bigotry, that doesn't inherently justify all the
>differences with which the law treats homosexuals, but it does justify some.

Well, if it walks like a duck....If the net effect is discrimination, then
I do consider them to be the same. Religion has been a tool for discrimination
for centuries. The same argument used to justify discrimination against gays
has been used against Blacks, women, & Jews.

>Take gays adopting children, for instance.  One could argue that since the
>state has an interest in keeping its wards emotionally and morally healthy,
>that the state therefore has the power to stop gays from adopting children,

One could argue that if there was a basis for the argument. There is none.

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.  There ARE such
> things as right and wrong.  Our *new* way of thinking has no bearing on
> things that are unchangeable.  We can all decide to believe the sky is pink,
> but it doesn't make it true.  Stealing, lying and greed are wrong, even if
> you employ all three to provide for your loving family.

You believe there are absolutes. I do not believe there are absolutes. Who is
right? Who knows? There is no absolute way of judging the truth of these
statements.

>        If homosexuality is fine, is incest, bestiality or pedophilia?  We

Can we cut this nonsense. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of
these things. The only relationship is the ones created by moralists.

> This is more nonsense.  Homosexuals are so promiscuous because they refuse to
> accept the existence of sexual morality.  If you insist that sex with light
> sockets is fine, what difference does it make how you screw (pun intended) ?

*Some* gays were/are "promiscuous" because they were rebelling against a
society that always condemned them. The new found freedom, including sexual,
was celebrated. *Some* gays were/are "promiscuous" because they enjoy sex,
a wonderful, fun activity. *Some* heterosexual are "promiscuous" because they
don't have anything better to do.

>From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>once again, we see an argument saying that gays shouldn't adopt.
>what about those homosexual persons who HAVE kids.  it's probably
>not as rare as you think, jason, especially since a lot of gays
>go a long while trying desperately to deny that they are gay.

Actually, I plan on having a kid soon. Well, my partner is the one who
will be carrying the load. I look forward to the blessed event knowing that
my sexual orientation will not have a negative impact on my parenting skills.

>a fair number of people i know are children of gays.  my last
>girl-friend was raised by her mother and her mother's lover.
>should she have been taken away from her mother because of her

The folks I know with gay parents have fared as well if not better in some
instances than those raised by heterosexual parents. Again, sexual orientation
does not impact on parenting skills.

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>Robert is right.

>The definitions of "morality" that have obtained on this list do not
>define morality, but only individual and corporate selfishness.

Whereas yours defines the imposition of your set of moral beliefs on a
pluralistic society.

 From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
>Are there not homosexual marriages already?  There are actual homosexual
>unions complete with wedding and reception activities that have been shown
>on videos.  It seemed that these homosexual marriages were performed by
>a minister.

Yup, I can vouch for this. It's been nearly 2.5 years since mine. I still
hear complements on how beautiful the ceremony was. It was performed at
the Unitarian church. It was the best day of my life, a high that will only
be matched by the birth of my child. In fact there was a general high after
the ceremony because everyone could feel how real and powerful our love is.
But I digress....

>While I also agree that a homosexual marriage is wrong morally and Biblically,
>they are performed, and are not restricted.  I have even heard the term
>'partnership' instead of the word 'marriage' applied to homosexual unions.
>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>are performing them anyway?

Well, I can't have Angela on my health insurance, even though opposite sex
couples can. I can't be certain that if she were injured that I would be
allowed to visit her. I can't legally adopt her child nor declare she or
the child on my taxes even though I will probably be the primary breadwinner.
Just those basic things heterosexual people take for granted. The fact that
these ceremonies exist without the legal benefits is a testament to the love
that these individuals share.

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> If morality is a general qualification for a given privilege, then there is
> nothing inherently wrong with denying homosexuals said privilege.  This is
> not illegal or unconstitutional.  If we decide to remove moral qualifiers
> from the adoption process, then of course homosexuals will not be the only
> beneficiaries.  We can look forward to allowing adoptions into homes run by
> known pimps, thieves, drug addicts and rapists.  Gosh, if we open it up just
> a little more, even Democrats will be able to adopt!

That's a huge if, Robert, that many people don't agree with. I don't believe
in God, or at least your version of it. I don't abide by your morals. Those
should be my basic choices without interference from you or the state. There
is no legitimate, non-religious reasons for the gov't to discriminate against
gays. The moral arguments are bogus unless you are going to apply them across
the board. So who becomes the chief of the Office of Morality and Thought-
policing? I won't bother with pointing out why equating sexual orientation
with activities that harm others is erroneous. We've gone through that b4.


--CAROLYN M. ROBINSON

        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM
        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU