From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:49:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep25.191525.13997@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
> # /(cramer)
# # /Sodomy
# # /in private suddenly becomes a "public" matter because it affects
# # /the society as a whole (transmission of STDs).  
# # 
# (me)
# # There is no cause-and-effect relationship here; you have failed to
# # prove how an act between two people affects society as a whole.  It
# # does affect those two people, but there is no logical grounds for
# # then saying it affects society as a whole.  Therefore, there is no 
# # "threat to society".
# 
# (cramer)
# /You have failed to establish any direct causal relationship between
# /the actions of one employer and one potential employee, and the
# /society as a whole.  
# 
# Clayton, stay on the subject.  We are talking about AIDS & STDs here,
# and your claim that "sodomy in private becomes a public matter".
#   
# If you would like to admit that you have failed to make a logical argument,
# now is the time to do so.  Jumping to the subject of employment does
# not fool me; I am going to hold you down on the AIDS issue until you
# either admit the error or offer better arguments.

I haven't made an error.  The relationship between sodomy and AIDS
is purely statistical.  So is the relationship between freedom of
association and economic suffering.  You can find cases where it is
CLEARLY causal.  You can also find cases where it isn't.  You argue
for EEO laws on the same basis that fundamentalists argue for sodomy
laws.

# (cramer)
# /EVEN IF WE ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM that there is a
# /widespread conspiracy of all employers to refuse to hire homosexuals,
# /the connection between the two is very indirect and the SOCIETAL
# /effect can only be proved statistically.
# 
# Clayton, take your finger off the caps key.  I never made any such
# claim that there is  "widespread conspiracy".  Diabolical plots and
# dark conspiracies are more your style anyhow.

They are?

# RE: employment
# You are wrong, of course.  The refusal of one employer to hire based
# upon a non-employment criteria sets up a precedent which has ripples
# throughout society.  It opens the door for people to write their
# bigotry large upon society.

The refusal of homosexuals to restrain their sexual urges sets up
ripples throughout society, including AIDS.  Therefore, the society
has the right to tell you what to do in private.  Happy, yet?  You
can't keep arguing for fascism, without it coming back to bite you
in the ass.

# And, if you think that the effect is "indirect" and only "statistical", 
# then it is up to you to explain the history of black segregation and
# discrimination in housing and employment.  Was that only 
# "indirect" and "statistical" as well?

The history of black segregation is heavily tied to governmental
efforts to impose it.  If you wish to argue that the government
shouldn't be discriminating against homosexuals in employment,
housing, and laws, I would agree completely.  But that's not an
excuse to tell straight people that they have to hire homosexuals.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.sex