From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:35:55 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1993Jan22.011848.27154@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, max@lie.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
> 
> KB == Ken Barnes		(hope I got all the attrib's right)
> MB == Michael Bumbulis
> MW == me.
>
> [snip!]
> 
> MW:>2) The books are about tolerance for all races, as well as gays.
> MB:>Point #2 - race is not analogous to sexual preference.
> 
> The old canard: "They were never enslaved, so it's ok to bully them
> now".
> 
> A closer analogy is that of divorce. It is deprecated by no less than
> J.C. himself, which you can't say about homosexuality. I suppose the
> religious right would consider a divorced person to have diminished
> family values.

A good assumption. Rome and at least some Southern "Baddists" have
that much in common. And while J.C. may not have said anything about
homosexuality, Paul certainly did. But then,_he_said a lot of things...
 
> I believe there is a book in the curricula describing a single parent
> family. Where are the protests? It is widely illegal to discriminate
> against divorced people.  Here in Oregon, that is statute ORS 659.030.
> And yet, when confronted by this fact, Scott Lively of the OCA insisted
> that that did not constitute 'special rights' for divorced people - but
> he fell silent when asked why the same didn't hold for gays. [Lively,
> Hinkle debate].

Perhaps increased tolerance for the divorced has occurred without
a first-grade indoctrination, or any government "affirmation" program.
Perhaps the apparently rampant dysfunctionality of American society
can be attributed to a loss of our traditional cultural and moral
underpinnings, in no small part aided by the liberalism which claims
there is no such thing as right and wrong but thinking makes it so.

Perhaps the increased tolerance of the divorced has more to do with
their increasing prevalence in American society as a result of the
dysfunctionality which moral relativism has wrought. Perhaps if
homosexuals were more prevalent they wouldn't need to worry about
discrimination.

Perhaps that's never going to happen, and whatever first-grade
indoctrination or social engineering you choose won't make any
difference except to subtract from what the schools true purpose is
in preparing students to access the economic opportunities
available to them in later life, so as to allow them to become
independent of whatever passes for mommy and daddy these days. 

(Which is often Uncle Sugar's handout programs.)

> I suggest that you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that support
> the conclusions you wish to draw, and slam the parts of the population
> you wish to stigmatize. Perhaps it is because you know that someday
> you yourself might be divorced that you do not stigmatize that group.

Given the odds, you're probably right.

And about picking and choosing parts of the Bible, why not?
Everybody else does. (And you did, above.)

> MW:>3) The parents were consulted.
> MB:>Point #3 - if the parents were really consulted, why the parental 
>    >uproar?  
> 
> Well, it turns out that the size of your vote is not affected
> by the loudness of your voice, and the shrillness of your rhetoric.
> A minority of parents is making a majority of the racket. Nothing
> new there.

That's for sure. "We're here! We're QUEER! GET USED TO IT!"

> As to the protests of some of the school boards, you must
> know that the religious right is very good at advancing a candidate
> that keeps his agenda under wraps until after the election. In one
> case, a school board member down-played the role of his religion
> in campaign speaches, and after elected justified his policies in
> speeches sprinkled with scripture verses. Stealth-politics, don't
> you know.
> 
> I guess being on a mission from God let's you cut a few ethical
> corners, eh?

It works for William Jefferson "New Covenant" Blythe Clinton...
 
> MW: "Values" do not control which gender gets your juices flowing.
> MB: No, but sexual preference will probably influence your values.
> KB: And I said as much, but someone wasn't listening.
> 
> So your claim is that the _values_ of homosexuals will be inferior
> by virtue of the influence of their sexual orientation.

_I_, at least, said nothing of the kind. Merely that orientation
would influence values. Check the transcript.

> I have already in email twice this week been told that as an atheist,
> I can not possibly have "true" values.

You certainly can't have_religious_values. You might coincidentally
have "true" values, it depends on what your values are. But I'm not
one to write of the idea of right and wrong just yet. Are you?

> This makes it quite clear that the religious right's claim that
> "family values" is not exclusionary is deceptive. They want "family
> values" put back into our constitution and our laws, oh, and BTW,
> only they have true family values. As I suspected.

When were they_ever_in the Constitution? The laws, maybe.
Tax discrimination against married couples, welfare discrimination against
intact families... let's see.  Children divorcing their parents...
Have I forgotten any?
 
> MW: In Young V. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may
>>>educate children with curriculums it deems appropriate even when
>>>the parents find those curriculums contrary to their beliefs.
> MB: Statism at it's worst.  The state forces parents to have their
>> children learn a set of values which may be contrary to those
>> the parents want instilled.  Big Brother is alive and well.
> MW:
>>>the consensus-held version of civil rights history (for example,
>>>the case was about Amish)?
> MB: History is one thing, value indoctrination is another.  
> 
> It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that majority
> vote can not be used to undermine the democracy.  (For an example of
> this, see the republican guarantee clause of the constitution.)
> Returning to the example of the Aryan Nation, suppose they wanted
> to force their values to be taught to all of the kids in the
> district.

How? Unless the "Aryan Nation" infiltrated the school board, or comprised
a majority of the voters in a given district, this wouldn't happen,
as I so_incredulously_stated earlier.

> If successful, that would be a fundamental threat to the
> equal rights of black children in the district, and democracy is
> founded on equal rights. In short, that minimum set of values needed
> to support democracy should definitely be taught - and is, routinely,
> throughout the country in civics classes.

We are then in a general disagreement about what the "minimum set of
values needed to support democracy" is.  Is the COTR curriculum so
urgent, so essential to the preservation of civil order that children
need be taught about sexuality in the first grade? Whichever sexuality?

> MW:
>>Sorry for putting it so crudely, but could you choose to get an
>>erection by looking at a male-bikini poster? It is no more a
>>question of values for them, than for you.
> MB:
>>Come now, does Uncle Bob choose to get an erection when he see's
>>pictures of naked 15 year olds?  Throughout history, sexual
>>preferences have always been associated with values.
> 
> Are you intentionally linking pedophilia and homosexuality? This

No, but there is an organization in San Francisco called the
"NMBLA" or National Man-Boy Love Association. This has been referred to
in the broadcast media. I think "60 Minutes" tried to attend one
of their meetings, but everybody hid their faces and left the room
when the cameras (and I think it was Ed Bradley) came in. There are
certainly homosexual pedophiles, but the two "orientations" are not linked. 

> particular rhetorical ploy by the r.r. has been rebutted and denounced
> by dozens of mainstream professional psychiatric and clinical
> organizations.  Go ahead - bring up Judith Reisman or Paul Cameron
> - make my day!
> 
> For a counter-example, I refer you to T.H.White, author of "The
> once and future king". It is quite clear from that text, and
> his biographers agree, that he had a sexual dysfunction that
> involved a desire to hurt boys.  It is also quite clear that
> it horrified him, and that when in the grip of that desire, he
> felt himself a monster. I can detect nothing in the _values_
> expressed in that book that most people would argue with. I
> can only hope he successfully repressed that desire throughout
> his life. Poor bastard - he didn't choose what happened to him.

Isn't this the same argument that Rome uses?
 
> You see, I would defend the basic civil rights of anyone, including
> perverts. Even you two.  Without equal rights, there is no due
> process, and without due process, there is no freedom, for me or
> anyone else.

As would I. The discussion, however, is about what should be taught
to young children in the publicly funded schools.

> Someone:

Me.

KB:The existence of homosexuals is
>>>ultimately dependent on heterosexuals (or at least until recently).
>>>Were there a sexual orientation-linked genetic marker test
>>>available, no doubt some (perhaps most) heterosexual couples would
>>>use it as a basis for aborting potentially homosexual fetuses. 
> MW:>Surely the ultimate in discrimination.
> MB: Indeed.  So if such markers are found, will you become anti-choice
>     if such things occur?  Fess up.
> 
> Unlike you, I have a firm grip on the difference between disagreeing
> with something, and trying to legislate it out of existence. Abortion
> repels me, but I know that our society is not yet ready to leave that
> behind. cf. prohibition.

There is also a difference between advocating increased restrictions
on the practice and trying to "legislate it out of existence".
You sound like you'd support increasing legal protection for the
unborn. Correct?
 
> MW: Is the curriculum we teach to our children really only to be 
>>>the least common denominator of all beliefs held by all parents 
>>>in this country? Can the Aryan Nation block schools from teaching
>>          ^^^^^^^
> MB:>HIDDEN AGENDA ALERT: The speaker wants a national curriculum.
>    >Or am I reading too much into this? "Words mean things."--RHL III
> 
> You are reading too much into this.
> 
> I especially like watching Rush when someone manages to sneak a
> challenging question past his filter. As you know, his operators
> only let selected questions through. He fulminates, he blusters,
> he calls the caller a liar, and goes to commercial - without answering
> the question.
> 
> In less protected environments like CNN's Crossfire, he usually ends
> up looking pretty silly.
> 
> 	Max G. Webb 

Oh, I think "Bo Snerdley" does a_good_job. :)
But your opinions are noted.

-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality