From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:26:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.233124.11709@rock.concert.net> alight@rock.concert.net (Alan R Light -- Personal Account) writes:
>In article <C06IBs.9Br@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>>>My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
>>>problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
>>>to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>>>to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>>>outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  
>>
>>Oh, so you are the authority on what "God" [whose existence is in doubt] said?
>>Pardon me if I feel reluctant to base decisions on a school curriculum
>>on YOUR indefensible revelations from "God".  The US is not a theocracy,
>>the last time I checked, although there are many who would have it so.
>
>I generally try to stay out of arguments like this, but Mr Shallit has made
>25336-buoni's point so clear, I can't help but comment.  Mr. Shallit's
>comments make it very clear that he is looking for acceptance, not
>toleration.

On the contrary, *I* am not looking for acceptance at all, since
I am not gay.  Are you under the delusion that the only people who
advocate tolerance for homosexuals are gay?

I am simply pointing out that it is ill-advised to base public
policy on revelations from "god", since not everyone will agree on
what "god" has to say about the matter.  Indeed, many do not believe
in the existence of "god".

>And he shows himself to be quite intolerant himself.  He speaks
>of "indefensible revelations from God".  I've studied a little epistemology,
>and nothing, no statement at all, is entirely defensible.
>Still, revelation
>from God is more defensible that Mr. Shallit's intolerance of people who
>believe them [sic].

I am not intolerant of people who believe in revelations from God.
I think they are deluded, but they have a right to their opinions,
no matter how ludicrous, that I will happily defend without question.

But I would like *public policy* based on more tangible grounds.

>As for the homosexual lifestyle, I would have to agree that I
>find it morally wrong.

Why do you find it "morally wrong"?  Extra points if you can give
a reason that doesn't depend on the bible.

What is the "homosexual lifestyle"?

Who are you to make moral judgments based on what two people
do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

>Still, I will tolerate it.  I tolerate a lot of bad
>things -- can't help but do that in this world.  Since I and buoni (according
>to what I have seen written by buoni) both tolerate Mr. Shallit's views, even
>if we don't agree with them, why does Mr. Shallit, champion of tolerance in
>his own mind, not wish to tolerate those who think like us?  It seems pretty
>hypocritical to me.

On the contrary, why do you have the impression that I do not tolerate
your views?  Although I disagree with you, I certainly do.
But I do not feel that simply because
*you* find homosexuality "immoral", you should have the right to 
remove a curriculum that teaches nothing more than respect for others,
whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

You are more than welcome to teach your children that homosexuals
are "immoral" when they get home from school.  No doubt they will
turn out to be paragons of virtue.

>Alan Light | "Fearlessness is better than a faint heart for any man
>Waxhaw, NC | who puts his nose out of doors.  The length of my life
>           | and the day of my death were fated long ago."  Skirner
>alight@rock.concert.net -or- alight@wheaton.edu (not checked often)

Jeff Shallit

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh