From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:53:36 GMT

In <1992Aug17.125825@wsl.dec.com>, George Neville-Neil writes:

>In article <3z9mqsh.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>|> Now, how many, say, straight groups do you know that "need" to
>|> use a company's facilities to announce their sexual preference and
>|> (I assume) seek approval?
>|>
>Hey, captain clueless, when was the last time you saw a straight couple
>getting beaten with baseball bats for walking down the street holding
>hands?

George, do you really think that Phil *condones* or encourages beatings with
a baseball bat?  Of course, only Phil knows for sure, but my guess would be
that he does not.  There seems to be a basic inability of some people to
understand the difference between "approving" of a lifestyle and respecting a
person's right to live as they see fit.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as
you are not infringing on anyone else's rights, you can do whatever the hell
you want.  That should be your right (though our wonderful government doesn't
always agree).  However, just because I respect your right to live however you
please doesn't mean I have to "approve" or "like" your lifestyle.  It also
doesn't mean that you can force me to associate with you.  I don't think that
anyone has a "right" to associate with me.  If they did, then it would have to
infringe on my right *not* to associate with them.  Whether we like their ideas
or not, people have a *right* to be bigoted.  Only when the bigotry manifests
itself in the infringement upon another's civil rights is it criminal.  Of
course, we all have the right to expose the bigots for what they are!

I think the "baseball bat" analogy is inflammatory.  Certainly, if the advocacy
of violence was being discussed, the analogy would be a good one.  I don't
see it, though.  Phil's argument is essentially libertarian.  As a Libertarian
myself, I can draw a distinction between allowing something and approving of
something.  I personally dislike abortion, but as a Libertarian, I understand
the need to allow a woman to follow *her* conscience, not mine.  I understand
that NAMBLA has a right to exist.  There is no Constitutional ban against
having sex with little boys, though I find it repulsive.  They have a *right*
to discuss doing it, or advocating the legality of it, though *acting out*
those wishes is certainly criminal under current law.

Just because I recognize the right of NAMBLA to exist doesn't mean that I
support their goals, and it certainly doesn't mean I'd invite them over to
my home to hold a meeting.  I despise their goals, and I would despise the
goals just as much if they wanted little girls.  However, I fiercely defend
their right to assemble (in public or anywhere privately when the owner agrees
to allow it).  Some people can't see the distinction between tolerance and
approval.  It's really frustrating at times...

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.