From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: The Special Right of being "Normal" (Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 14:26 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <Bz4oLq.JI6@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...

From later in this text:
|The whole argument of gays in the military or minority rights is an attempt 
|to grant gays a special standing that says they are, in fact, "normal".

	To grant someone the status of being "normal" is to be 
granting them special rights?  Did I read you correctly?  Listen to what 
you're saying!  It's a special right to be normal?



|I think Jeff has made one of the most reasoned statements lately about the
|stand most "normal" people take.  We don't "fear" homosexuals, we don't
|"hate" homosexuals, we just feel homosexuality is wrong.  I, personally,
|believe it to be a disorder somewhere along the lines of other phobias or
|disorders.  The fact that homosexuality is not normal will cause my
|mailbox to overflow with people who try and argue otherwise, but the fact
|stands, it is not normal.

	You have now gone from stating your qualified opinions about 
homsexuality being /wrong/ to stating as a fact that it is not normal.

	I will grant you this.  Homosexuality is not as common as hetero-
sexuality, and so if "common"=="normal", then I'd agree it's not as normal
as heterosexuality.

	The term "homophobia" is indeed a terms that is often misplaced
and misused.  Simply subscribing to a philosophy that homosexuality isn't
to be fear, but is wrong as compared to heterosexuality, isn't homophobia.
It is something like  "h e t e r o s e x i s m".  (Likewise, a person who 
believes homosexuailty is somehow better than heterosexuality is homosexist.)



|  This doesn't mean they should be locked up,
|or made to wear a scarlet "H" or anything of the sort.  They should 
|receive the same rights and respect anyone else deserves.

	It's simply a matter of what priviledges everyone deserves.
Everyone is granted to privilege to have the opportunity marry a person
to whom their attracted, provided that that person is attracted to them and 
that that person is of the opposite gender.

	While this privilege is granted to even Homosexuals, it does them
no good since they cannot love members of the opposite gender in the 
capacity which a stable marrage requires.

	Thus, they ask that all people be allowed to marry anyone as
said above without the gender restriction.  

 	What are commonly called "gay" rights are by no means "special"
rights for homosexuals.  After all, making it legal for two men
to marry makes it legal for ANY two men to marry, regardless of
whether they're homosexual or heterosexual.  Nothing elitist.

	If anyone still thinks that such an arrangement is "special"
because it is more likely to /please/ homosexuals, then marraige
between men & women, which pleases heteros mostly, is a "special"
right.  Doesn't anyone decry special rights for heterosexuals?

	If Gays were going to ask for special rights, they'd 
think of something better than things like being allowed 
into the military or equity in the work force or marraige.

	As special rights, they'd ask for something like a 
more buff Supreme Court (dump those dowdy robes, guys & gals, 
they went out of fashion about 200 years ago!).  They'd
ask for federally-funded tea dances, though, in these 
troubled economic times, only the first two mixed drinks 
would be subsidized.  

	Oh yes -- their cats and their pickup trucks would count as 
dependents for tax purposes.  

	But there's really nothing special about gays asking
protection from prejudices so that they may lead their lives
otherwise as "normal" as possible.  



|On the other hand, they should not be afforded special rights because of
|their lifestyle.  This whole argument about blacks and Jews in the military
|leading to the argument that we should treat homosexuals in like manner is
|phoney, based on my belief that being gay is a disorder, be it learned or
|something you're born with.  Being black is normal to certain races or
|groups of people, and has nothing to do with a mental attitude.  The whole
|argument of gays in the military or minority rights is an attempt to
|grant gays a special standing that says they are, in fact, "normal".

	But, if you admit that being Gay is a disorder, acquired or inborn,
then it is not more changeable than being Black.

	If being Black is normal to a certain group of people, then how
do you say that being Gay /isn't/?  It's a part of people's mental faculties
about which they have no choice, right?

	I'm not talking about the "homosexual lifestyle," I'm talking
about sexual orientation... identity... mental makeup.

	You say that to grant someone the status of being "normal" is to be 
granting them special rights?  Did I read you correctly?  Listen to what 
you're saying!

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh