From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: misc.test
Subject: Re: [banning] cannot tell whether to ban
Date: 9 Sep 1992 03:10:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep8.202806.3264@efi.com> root writes:
->     I cannot tell whether to ban homosexuals or not -- I just heard
->of Oregon.  However, homosexuality is counter-traditional, and

Hmm ... at the risk of pointing out the obvious, so what?

I mean, so what if it's counter-traditional? It's traditional for men to be
the supplier, the controller of a a household, the head of a household.
It's traditional (in some cultures) for the woman to be a second-class
citizen.  It's traditional, in some cultures (like in the US) for men to
objectify women.  It's traditional, in some cultures, for men to stifle all
signs of sensitivity, compassion, caring, and love for other men.

None of these is good.  Hell, these days, consider the traditions of this
society, I'd almost classify anything counter-traditional as almost
automatically good ... 

->*objectively* speaking, it cannot be treated the same way as the

Ooh ... you're speaking objectively.  Must be unbiased and fair.
NOT.

->boy/girl kind of love, leading to marriage.  Homosexual couples *cannot*

Why not? I mean, firstly, why can't it be treated as the boy/girl kind of
love (I'll get to the marriage part in a second)? Ignore for the moment the
aspect of sex ... how can you, a (I assume) heterosexual male, tell me that
what I feel for my partner isn't as valid as a boy/girl kind of love?

As for marriage, *shrug* What's so special about marriage, Zhong? 
And what stops two motss from getting married? Other than tradition?

->lead to marriage: they cannot bear children, which come from their proper
->genes.  

You're right at this point.  A homosexual couple cannot bear children that
are related genetically to both parents, to the best of my knowledge.

This seems to be the point around which your whole argument revolves ...
I'll concede this point and point out that if this is a reason to ban
homosexuals, then you better ban the thousands of couples out there who have
either one or two infertile partners.  There's no difference.

Homosexuals *can* have kids ... they may be related to only one parent, but
it's still quite possible.

Hell, if you're like me and believe that families can consist of more than
two adults, then it's quite possible for the child to have the genes of two
of hir parents ... 

->Homosexual people are *not* a minority: you don't have a
->homosexual man and a homosexual woman (of course) giving birth to
->homosexual children -- a direct consequence of the previous sentence.

Hmm ... firstly, I'm queer ... I'm not gay, because I'm bi, but I am queer,
and so under most Oregon rules, I'd be banned, I believe.

Now, I'm currently involved with a man, and in love with a woman.  She's bi
also.

What would stop me and her from having children?

They may not be queer ... but then again, according to what you're saying,
differently-abled people should be banned also ... as well as infertile
people ... as well as a lot of other people ... 

->     If everyone listen from their grandparents, then every boy should
->find a girlfriend and every girl should find a boyfriend, i.e. when they
->are old enough to look for one to be lifelong partner.  Good luck to these.

Ah ... ancestor-worship, zhong? Not into that, I'm afraid.

I think you meant "if everyone listen [sic] from [sic] *your* grandparents."

Of course, then we'd all be ignorant bigots ... 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport       rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      wi.5836@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
Disclaimer:  "It wasn't me!! Must have been a fake posting or something!! I
              would NEVER say something like that!!"