From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:24:36 GMT
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

In article <1992Nov10.001354.9471@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
:
:Yes the intent was to discriminate. 

And you admit voting for a law that would do just that.  How could you
do that?

:Because of the push to have the
:gay lifestyle accepted as a normal alternative to a hetrosexual life
:the measure was put on the ballot. 

So?  Would that have harmed you?

:Another locally sucessful act is
:the Multnomah Co. order allowing homosexual couples to have spousal
:medical benifits. 

So?  Would that have harmed you?

: Also Portland has a nondiscrimination towards
:homosexuals regulation. 

Good for them.  It means they are *thinking* and not reacting.

:The question for a lot of people was whether
:to allow the advancement of priveledges by doing nothing or try to
:stop the progression by taking a procative stance.

Then those "lot of people" are insecure and afraid that the priveledges
they have may be given to others too.

We can't have that.  Can we?

:You ask about granularity, why single out homosexuals for fair
:treatment? 

The same damn reason people of color, Jews, women, physically 
challenged and others are singled out.  Because people discriminate 
against them on no other basis than who they are.

That's why.

:Getting back to the discrimination matter, there are people that do
:not believe that homosexuality is a moral life style. 

No kidding.  I was wondering when you would bring that out too.

:to educate people to your ("your" is used generically I do not know
:what your specific assumptions on this issue are) basic assumptions
:that homosexuality is ok and not an immoral lifestyle. 

It's not up for discussion at all.  Your judgement of moral does not 
apply to me, or anyone else.

It's not up for discussion at all.

Period!

:Once the
:assumptions are the same, the solution should be the same.

The morality of a people is not up for discussion.  Get it?

By sticking to that weak argument (the morality of a person -- something
that *cannot* be proven because it is so subjective and relative), 
you guarantee that you are always right.

Isn't that comforting.

Here dear, here is your blankie, your suckie, and your assumption.

There, that's better.

:For the record, I will repeat that I am not into gay bashing. 

Well, I'm not into the missionary position but I won't stop
others from doing it.

Get it?

:I do
:believe that gays, and anyone for that matter, should not bothered in
:their private lives.

Nice sentiment, but too bad many people's definition of private means
hiding in a closet and protecting the delicate sensabilities of
the homophobes.

I'm sorry (Kris), but I just cannot see how this is reasonable at all.
I commend you, respect you, and applaud you on your tolerance, your
willingness to educate, and your patience.

I don't have to be nice about this.  It strikes too close to home.

         Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
	
	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

		    There are no ordinary moments.