From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech) 
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:11:45 GMT






In a previous article, wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter) says:

>In article <1992Aug23.034110.16240@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley
>Miller) addresses some remarks to me:
>
>>It was not your comment about having gay friends I was refering to, Mr.
>>Porter, it was what you went on to say after that about not feeling they
>>should be entitled to the same rights you as a heterosexual take for
>>granted.
>
>I did NOT say they were not entitled to the same rights I take for granted:
>that is a rather general point and I was being more specific. I said that my
>respect for my gay friends and acquaintances does not require me to support the
>idea of legal recognition of gay "marriages."

Marriage is a legal right that you are entitled to.  You do not support
that same right to your gay friends.  Ipso facto....

> Is this an idea you support?
>

Yes, Mr. Porter, this is an idea I support.  Other ideas I support:

-the rights of gay people to adopt children
-the rights of gay people to equal treatment under the law
-the right of equal access to housing, employment, and justice
-the right to walk down the street without being jeered, belittled,
spat upon, or beaten.



>>         I HAVE read the text of the speech, several times, and I stand
>>by my assessment that Mr. Buchanan is the worst type of hate-monger...he
>>hides behind his faith, and cites it to justify his hatred.
>
>I'm sorry, but you are simply dodging this issue here with a display of
>steadfastness, as a newspaper does when, in the absence of any proof that its
>remarks do not amount to slander, it nevertheless continues to "stand by its
>story." What I was hoping you would do--instead of simply expressing your
>incredulity with signs such as "!!!", and instead of simply labelling as a
>"hate-monger" Mr. Buchanan and anyone who is willing to think for a minute
>about what he says--what I was hoping you would do is actually quote or refer
>to some part of the speech in which you find him mongering hate, so to speak. I
>have yet to hear anyone quote a passage from Buchanan's speech and say "THERE!
>Look at that! Blatant racism."
>

Alright...I will post a disection of Mr. Buchanan's speech directly.
But I maintain that anyone who cannot see the express hatred within
that speech is blind.

>>What you expoused in your tretise on your gay friends was exactly that,
>>tolerance.  I don't know about you, Mr. Porter, but friendship is about 
>>support, not tolerance.
>>Tolerance is a term used to describe one's feelings toward something
>>one does not aprove of.  I, and people like me, do not desire tolerance,
>>we desire acceptance, complete and unconditional.  Ask your gay friends
>>if tolerance is acceptable to them.  I'll wager that they'll say they would
>>perfer equality.
>
>Well, here we have a slight semantic problem. I did not make the distinction
>between tolerance and support in the context of personal relationships such as
>friendship, but in the context of social relationships. (In the personal
>sphere, I think it was quite appropriate for V-P Quayle to speak of
>"supporting" his daughter, even if she had an abortion that he disapproved of
>You are confusing these two spheres, by asking me to extend my personal support
>for my friends to political support for gays as a group. 
>
>One other small point: friendship or even love does not have to mean
>"acceptance, complete and unconditional" unless you are completely incapable of
>making distinctions. My mother visited me last weekend. I love my mother and I
>was delighted that she could visit us. However, the most virtuous response I
>could muster to her constant cigarette smoking is tolerance.

Come now, this is apples and oranges.  Cigarette smoking is a confermed
health risk, both for the person doing it, and for those around it.  This
transends the right of the individual, and is displaced upon the rights
of society.  Besides which, it was an indication of your love for your 
mother NOT to condone your mother's smoking.

Would you suggest the same theory could apply to homosexuality, in general?

> The desire of
>some--not all--gays to present themselves as simple, unitary packages on a
>"take all of me or else" basis is bound to result in precisely the kind of
>stereotyping and discrimination that I and so many other people abhor.
>

Would this attitude have been acceptable during the civil rights movement 
of the 50's and 60's?  Gay persons take this route, as it has been
successful in the past, and has won other groups the acceptance they
are entitled to.  If it precipitates the attitudes you discribe, remember, 
is upon those holding the attitudes, not upon us....

>>No, you didn't suggest blacks and gays be prevented from voting, but
>>by your tone, that's where you would draw the line.
>
>Mr. Miller, most of us find it quite challenging enough to respond to one
>another's actual words--especially here on the nets, where there are no
>allocutionary cues such as facial expression. You are too ready to damn both me
>and Mr. Buchanan on the basis of what I think is a misreading of "tone." I do
>not or try not to condemn anybody on this basis. 
>

Come now.  You say you support your gay friends, then turn around and say you
do not support their rights.  Mr. Buchanan will not even say he has gay 
friends and aquaintences.  You wish them not to have the right to marry...
what other reason could there be except the fact that they are gay?  And 
if this is the reason, what does being gay have to do with the legal
protection and priveledge of marriage being withheld?


>>                                                  Add to that your
>>full acceptance of what Mr. Buchanan said in his speech, and it is 
>>obvious that you have would have no problem with denying any further
>>rights to gay people.
>
>First, I'm not sure where you found me expressing "full acceptance" of
>what Mr. Buchanan said. I did not vote for Buchanan and do NOT support
>everything he said. I entered this thread simply to ask a question that has yet
>to be answered: Where--in what words--does Buchanan express racism, sexism,
>homophobia or any of the other vices he has been charged with?

I'm sorry, Mr. Porter, you may be deluding yourself.  How anyone could
look at what Mr. Buchanan said and not see the implicit racism, sexism,
homophobia, and implication that those who do not accept that christianity
is the only trye path to morality, and then say they do not accept it, is
beyond credibility.

Again, I will post a disection of Mr. Buchanan's speech.


>
>Second, I am still uncertain what specific rights you think I do or would deny
>to gays. My original complaint with you, Mr. Miller, is that your remarks,
>while exhuding hostility and resentment, are very vague. Could we speak about
>specific rights, please? This is what I regard as absolutely necessary to
>rational discourse. We have got to get beyond hurling insults at one another.
>

I have spelled out those specific rights above.

>William Porter
>wmporter@jetson.uh.edu                      
>
-- 
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************