From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:22:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
> 
> What I'm really trying to get at about the "I treat people the same
> even though I think they're wrong/unnormal/whatever" statement is that
> it's a little like "separate but equal": I just have a hard time
> buying it.  

I guess that's the kind of thing that would be meaningless in this 
sort of medium.  It would require personal interaction to have any 
*real* meaning. I can see where you'd have trouble buying it. Ever 
get to Colorado Springs?  

> Your relationship with someone is going to be different if
> you believe a basic, big part of their life is wrong or unnatural.
> You are not going to have the same conversations with them (presuming
> you are close) about their personal life.  

Yeah, I can see what you mean there.  But I think the differences would 
be somewhat like the difference in conversations I'd have with a friend 
who is a big hockey fan (like me) and one that doesn't like sports. 
If I had a gay family member, I'd find it natural to talk about their
SO (or whatever term) and them.  But like I said above, that probobly 
doesn't mean much in an impersonal medium like this. 

> (I certainly usually steer
> clear of religious conversations with most people whom I find to be
> "way out there" about religion...sort of like trying to talk sexuality
> with Clayton...)  

Maybe I'm just wierd, that's *exactly* what I'd do...does tend to 
irritate my Jehovah's Witness in-laws, though...;_)  

> You are not going to treat their
> boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse with the appropriate deference/respect you
> might to a heterosexual spouse.  How can you if you believe that the
> entire relationship is unnatural?

Now that just plain isn't true.  They are human beings just as much as 
me.  In my family, we haven't had any instances where this has happened, 
so this is all hypothetical again.  But we have had open, unmarried 
boyfriends and girlfriends, and even though certain aspects of the 
situation were viewed as wrong, the people were accepted and respected,
invited to Thanksgiving and Christmas, and made to feel welcome. And 
this is in a staunchly Catholic family.  There is no doubt in my 
mind that the same would be the case if the relationship were a 
homosexual one.  Acceptance of *people* does not have to depend on 
acceptance of actions; believe it or not, people *can* treat others
with respect and human dignity, even if they disagree with things.

> But for us to have a continuing
> relationship, I will need to feel that they are striving to accept us
> to the best of their abilities, and that it is possible for them to
> improve/change.  If that is the case, then I'll consider it a success.
> 
> If they want the relationship to be based on "we just won't talk about
> THOSE things", then it won't continue.  Fortunately, I feel optimistic
> about this.

What if they are willing to talk about them, even though they dont 
agree with it, and may never?  ie, the talking isn't meant to 
dissuade *either* side; but just to share in each other's lives? 

Walter

Newsgroups: soc.motss