From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:28:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <BxCyMo.BGu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>[parts deleted]
>
>>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.
>
>There is *some* evidence that homosexuality may be influenced by physiological
>factors.  However, whether they are "born that way" or become that way through
>"social factors" makes no difference.  It is a *part* of them and to attempt to
>"convert" them amounts to brainwashing. 

But I'm not proposing to brainwash anyone, quite the opposite.  In addition
to asking for tolerance, which I would abundantly give to anyone, they also
want favoritism in terms of AA status, and also want to teach in schools
that homosexuality is an equally acceptable life choice.  I think that
teaching kids that hatred and bigotry espoused by skinheads and KKK is wrong.
I also think teaching kids that homosexuality is something they have no control
over is wrong.  I think a landlord who morally opposes homosexuality has a
right to demand that such behavior not be conducted on his property, but has
no say on what you do elsewhere.  I think a business owner has a right to say
what you can do during business hours, but has no business in your private 
matters outside of work.

I think it's pretty widely accepted that KKK, NAZI, skinhead affiliation and
activities are deviant.  In and of itself, David Dukes association with the
KKK was enough to discredit him.  I don't think you'd want him or any other
KKK member teaching your kids.  Hatred, bigotry, superiority, are a part of
who they are.  I accept that.  They have a right to say, believe, what they 
like, they have a right to hate who they like.  They don't have the right to
tell me or my kids that their way of behaving and believing is normal or equal
to any other system of beliefs.  By the same token, I do not object to society
labeling other beliefs as normal or prefered, such as that of tolerance.  Many
disagree that we should tolerate what we disagree with, but yet promoting 
tolerance, is acceptable.

I had a professor who suggested that child sexuality should be stimulated and 
encouraged by adult partners who could gently guide the children (starting at
age 8 or 10) into knowledge of physiology and joy of sex.  He claimed that it
would remove sexual dysfunction as adults and teach kids that sex is enjoyable
and not dirty.  We should remove the stigma associated with sex and indoctrinate
kids early when they begin their curiosity.  He didn't mention it, but it would
also allow child "molestors" who are just people who happen to be attracted to
youthful sex partners, to experience fulfillment in life without the label of
deviant, molestors.

I am in no way associating homosexuals with child molestation, I only link the
two systems of belief regarding sexuality as both being deviant.  And as such,
certain professions may be sensitive to accepting people who promote such 
beliefs, such as teachers.  In this case, holding such beliefs has a direct 
bearing on the ability to perform the duties of the job.  And labeling such 
beliefs as deviant benefits society the same way labeling bigotry as deviant 
and tolerant as prefered.  The labeling of beliefs is not intended to incite 
hatred against any individuals in the group, rather it is intended to best 
reflect the values espoused by society.

Values such as personal responsibility for ones actions, tolerance of others,
patriotism, individual liberty, respect for privacy, service to country, pride
in heritage, appreciation of diversity, equality, among others are values that
should be set up as goals for all.  I think the trend in the society's view of 
'family values' is that individuals should be able to define 'family' for 
themselves.

Instead of homosexuals trying to dilineate themselves as special, deserving of
special attention in terms of AA and hate laws, etc.  Why not try to get a group
neutral benefit?  Why not try to get equal treatment for families as defined by
the individual members of the family?  By approaching the problems faced by
being homosexual, rather than trying to get society to accept homosexuality as
equal to heterosexuality and blaming any problems on the right wing, try to
establish a legal mode of establishing a family as individuals who share 
expenses and living quarters and who have mutually agreed to give rights 
granted to family members to each other.  A marriage of sorts, but not 
specifically a marriage.  This should help in revising insurance and other 
problems.  I'm not against your gaining equal treatment, and I'm not against 
your trying to pursue happiness in the way you choose, I just am not ready 
to label your choice as equal to all others.

Joe Moore
Xref: sparky soc.women:19313 soc.singles:30344 alt.sex:35670 alt.peeves:16928