From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:27:36 GMT

In article <FXm2TB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>	>I follow your logic, but as a gay man I don't much cotton to
>	>the motley company in which you've chosen to lump me.  
>	
>Now, now...Gays, drug users, and gamblers are all people who would be        
>classified as "less than desirable" by the religious right.  You're being 
>judgmental by calling them "motley company".  It's just as bad as if they 
>call you "motley", no?

    Perhaps, but the "religious right" would be considered "less than
desirable" by everyone elese.  I believe the point was there is no
similarity in ideology between gays and the other populations.  One can be
VERY gay, and VERY anti-drug.  The only connection between the groups is
the way you choose to label them.



>	>For cryin' out loud, the only thing differnt about me, in compari-
>	>son to other people, is that I happen to fall in love with members 
>	of my own sex.  
>	
>The only thing different about a heroin user is that he takes heroin.  If        
>it doesn't affect his work, why should it be anyone else's business.  Ditto
>for marijuana, which lasts for 30 days in the blood stream.

    But of course it DOES affect his work, and his ability for rational
thought.  That is why they are called "mind-altering drugs".  Narcotics
alter the state of mind.  The true danger lies in the physical and mental
addicitions, which alter the DICKENS out of the human body.  Have you ever
seen DT's?  I'd say that affects your work JUST a little bit...

   The major problem with addictive mind-alterning drugs is that they
remove free will.  I find it interesting that a man who is such a
proponent of individual rights fails to realize when his are taken away by
drugs... 

    Such is the power of drugs...

>
>For cryin' out loud, we're not even allowing people the right to their OWN
>URINE anymore.  If drugs make someone screw up so bad at work, we shouldn't
>NEED to force people to give urine samples.  Let workers' work speak for
>itself.  I don't care what someone does on Friday night, as long as he is
>ready to work on Monday morning.
>

    Of coursem that stance IS taken by many employers, who only have their
own interests in mind.  However, if your job involves public saftey, it is
obvious that drug testing (and due to the addictive nature of drugs and
the resultant extreme denial associated with their use, RANDOM drug
testing) holds obvious benefit to the public.


>	>Doesn't make me the same as a person who takes heroin, gambles or 
>	>visits a hooker, 
>	
>Sure it does.  You all fall into the category of "unpopular" with the
>masses.  You all fall into the category of Non-Conformists (tm).
>

    The ultra right (or, as some would say, the ultra-wrong [just a pun,
don't get bent out of shape :) ] do NOT constitute the masses
statistically.  I don't think gays are any more "unpopular" than Jews, or
any other group.

>
>*All* sex, whether hetero, homo, or bestial, should be left in the bedroom
>(or barn).  :)
>								 

    ...which is why we should remove policies and practices which
discriminate based upon sexual preference. 

>
>But you'd be well-advised to turn straight, before it's too late.  Gay
>people tend to get AIDS.
>
>--Philip Stromer (peewee@infoserv.com)

    ....and you're well advised to be celibate, since sexually active
people tend to get AIDS.  :-)


Peace

Bill