From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:38:43 GMT


>>Ain't marriage defined as the joining of man and woman? Sure, there
>>ought to be some kind of bonding, but watever you want to call it it
>>ain't marriage!

response:(Melinda Shore) writes:
>The state and religious institutions sanction committed
>relationships between men and women, and grant special
>privileges based on those sanctions.  That is a special
>right that gay men and lesbians do not enjoy.

`Definitions' are subjective and change as society and prevelant usage
changes. 20 years ago, the entries for `gay' in the dictionary did not
include a reference to homosexual.. today it does. I suspect in 20 more
years that marriage will be defined to include homosexual partnerships
implicitly if not explicitly.. It's `getting there' that's going to be
tough. Right NOW..MY definition of marriage already includes
partnerships regardless of gender.


>>Hmm...seems to me that many gays have been fired merely for the fact
>>that they are homosexual. But they also receive large cash awards from
>>the courts when they do. I know of one case where the guy got $5
>>million...

Oh come on..you say that like gays should be happy to get fired so the
can reap the inherent benifits..

>You're thinking of the Xerox VP in San Francisco.  He is
>fortunate to live in a place where his employment rights
>are protected.  I know many, many gay men and lesbians
>who have lost jobs because of sexual orientation.  I'm
>one of them.  I don't personally know anyone who has
>received any kind of settlement.  I did eventually
>receive an apology, myself, but it was well after I lost
>the job, and, as you know, you can't eat an apology.

And MOST get nothing but the BOOT...


>>Finally I would just like to add one comment. One of my best friends
>>in High School turned out to be homosexual. We still do stuff together
>>and all that...to me it is no big deal.

Mighty white of you....:-(

>>He also agrees that those
>>'special' rights are not needed.

WHAT SPECIAL RIGHTS!?!?!?

>How very special.  I would agree that special rights aren't
>needed, too.  Then why do straight people have rights that
>gay people don't, and why haven't you been able to list any
>special rights that the gay lobby is asking for?

Man, when are people gonna wake up? It never ceases to astound me when
someone complains that gays/blacks/women/natives are lobbying for
`special' rights.. How does the word `equal' keep getting interpreted
as `special'...How does it keep getting turned around? I will tell you..
Those who DO have `special' rights want to keep it that way.


>>Furthermore, I would like to ask this question...If homosexuals are
>>being discriminated against then how come the median income for the
>>group is far ABOVE that for heterosexual males. 

Simple..IT ISN'T TRUE... this says it..  |
					 |
					\ /

>Because the survey identified people who were secure enough
>to be open about their orientation.  If you know anything
>at all about social science research, you know that you
>simply can't get a random sample of gay people.  And thanks
>to ill-informed bigots and the hostile social climate that
>allowed Amendment 2 to pass, it will continue to be
>impossible to get a random sample of gay people.

>Again, please list the special rights that gay people want.

Yup.. I would like to see this too..

al

-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.peeves