From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 20:09:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.153822.22954@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.075630.29930@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>...
>>many people voted for it, the religious right intends to keep
>>fighting, that anyone was actually evil enough to come up with Prop. 9
>>in the first place.

>>Yes.  But at least the Republicans with their "hate everyone except
>>white fundamentalist heterosexuals" platform didn't win.
>>
>Please, grouping people into the "religious right" is about as fair as
>grouping gays into the "gay community".  Sure there are gay activists
>who have an agenda, and sure there are a number of people who want
>to impose their ideas of morality on others.  But for the most part,
>religious people who view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural do 
>not seek to discriminate against them.  

I didn't say all religious people are like this.  I'm Christian, in
fact.  I personally know many Christians who are lesbigay or
lesbigay-positive.  Most of the Jews I know are lesbigay-positive,
too.

But from what I see, many Christians (the group I'm most familiar
with) who feel homosexuality is immoral, do indeed try to discriminate
against lesbigays.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example, issued a
letter to its bishops telling them to work against laws that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  (Although Oregon's
proposition 9 was sufficiently rabid to cause the bishops to say it's
wrong.)

Many fundamentalist Protestant churches are active in the campaigns
against lesbigay rights.  

There's a difference between teaching in church that homosexuality is
wrong (I'll admit I'm not overjoyed about that) and working to make it
legal (or insure that it remains legal) to fire people because they're
lesbigay, to not allow lesbigays to marry, to not allow lesbigays to
adopt or have custody of their children.

What the Baptist (for example) says in her/his church is one thing.
When the same Baptist enters the workplace and then discriminates
against lesbigay people because s/he thinks we're immoral and sinful,
that is wrong.

Since it is a moral issue
>with these people it makes them uncomfortable to know that someone
>working side-by-side with them is homosexual.

I grew up in the Bible Belt, where many conservative Protestants think
it's immoral to drink alcohol.  Does it make them equally
uncomfortable to work side-by-side with someone who drinks?  Not
usually.  So, it seems to be less a matter of considering something
sinful than what the "sin" is.

 But asking people
>to keep their homosexuality in the closet is apparently too much
>to ask.  But I think the opposite side is not taken seriously.  It
>is uncomfortable, it is scary, it is uncertain for many people.  It
>offends their sensibilities.  These concerns are real.  I realize
>that homosexual people are not evil, but I don't know for sure any
>homosexuals, fortunately, those I must have come in contact with
>sense my ill-ease.  I would change how I act toward someone, finding
>something like that out.  I wouldn't be violent, but I would change.

Why would you change?  What's so scarey?

>What really scares me is this reverse hate, no burning crosses on blacks
>or Jews lawns, but it's ok to tear pictures of the pope and desecrate
>Christian symbols.  

One person tore a photo of the pope and you see how vilified she was
(think of the people who showed up to honour once-rebel Dylan and yet
they booed rebel O'Connor).  It was her right to do that, it was their
right to boo her.

What do you mean by desecrating Christian symbols?  The men that dress
up as nuns (although when I've seen them lately, most of them have
been in lingerie)?

>I have a real disagreement with homosexuals.  I am not convinced that
>homosexuality is like being left-handed.  I am not convinced that social
>factors don't influence sexual preference.  I am not convinced that 
>there is absolutely no choice in sexual preference. 

Well, think of it this way, did you choose to be hetero?  Are you very
attracted to men, but force yourself into relationships with women?
If you're hetero, you most probably don't.

As far as I can see, the only choice is whether to act upon these
sexual attractions.

 And I admit, I 
>don't even understand what sexual preference really means, (attraction
>to same sex characteristics, same sex anatomy, particular sex acts,)
>and why opposite sex people can't simulate such an attraction. 

But can men cause sexual attraction in you?  I seriously doubt that
they can, for whatever reasons.

 So
>I guess I'm part of this religious right your talking about.  And I 
>guess people I know who side with you on every other issue but still
>think homosexuality is 'deviant' are also part of that religious right.

If you're talking about deviant in the sense that lesbigays are not
the majority, you're right.  

To me, the religious right is a group that tries to force its morality
on everyone, not just preach that people should be a certain way, but
to use laws to force morality.  If you don't do that, you're not part
of the religious right, imo.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men