From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 19 Dec 1992 18:28:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> In article <1gttqnINNfo@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> > Cynicism is stylish, but you'll never know till you try, right? 
> > What do you lose by trying?   (side note, not all the people 
> > who are unsure of the quota things are neccesarily "religious") 
> > I can tell you one thing; had there been a clearly known position 
> > that the gay-rights movement had no desire for that, either 
> > Col#2 would have had to have been worded very differently, or 
> > else it would not have had a prayer of passing.  
> 
> This is the same Walter Smith who gets so offended when he is accused of
> having a secret agenda?

Yup.  What's "secret" about what I'm saying there?  I'm really suprised at 
the level of hostility I've gotten about this part of the thread.  What 
exactly is the problem? And what 'agenda' does that show?  That I'd like 
to see any ambiguity cleared up, so that the religious right can't 
capitalize on it in other states, like they did in Colorado? My gawd,
what an awful, evil secret agenda.  ppfftt... 

> Clearly, Mr. Smith, you have been paying no attention, since there have
> been more statements in the news media saying that the gay-rights
> movement did not want quotas than people fed with the fishes and
> loaves.  If you heard none of them, it must be because no one
> personally walked up top your door, ran, your bell, and said, "Excuse
> me, Mr. Smith, but I represent the Gay Rights Movement, and I want to
> make sure you know we don't want quotas."

Well, then I guess I have a lot of company on that one.  *No one* I've 
talked to about it knew that minority status/quotas (as opposed to 
"equal rights", which *everyone* should have) was *not* something the 
gay-rights movement wants.  I've been following the articles in the 
paper about Col#2 and the NYC schoolboard, and I usually watch the
nightly news and CNN.   Now, I can sit here and tell you that of the 
people I know who voted *for* #2, the  minority status/quotas issue 
was the biggest factor.  If you don't want to believe me, and think 
instead I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes with some dark,
secret agenda, what can I say?  You can believe that I just plain
hate gays, and that trying to explain why people voted for #2, and 
how the gay-rights movement might be able to prevent it from happening 
in other states is just a clever disguise of my gay-hate agenda.  
You can believe that over 50% of the people in Colorado, and 2/3 of 
the people in ElPaso County just plain hate gays, and want to see 
them oppressed and discriminated against as much as possible; and 
that most of these people *knew* that the gay-rights movement doesn't
want quotas, and that I'm lying to you about what people have told me. 
Short of us all being a bunch of gay-bashing hate mongers, I can't 
imagine why you'd think any of that.  

*I* know now that it isn't a goal of the gay-rights movement to have
minority status/quotas; but that's only because I have access to USENET,
and asked the question, and because not everyone responded with 
unintelligent flames about it. But (if you want to believe me or not) 
a lot of people in the community do NOT know this, and if they had known 
it before Col#2 was voted on, they would have voted against it.   

> It is clear you are a hopeless case--it doesn't matter what anyone says,
> because we all have a secret agenda.  

Now hold on, Evelyn.  *I* have not accused *you* or anyone here of having 
a secret agenda.  But I've been accused of it, and now you accuse me of
accusing *you* of it.  It *is* beginning to make me wonder. 

> If you cared, you would find the
> books in question and read them.  Clearly even this basic research is
> beyond you.  

Are you talking about the COTR conversation?  I did ask if there was 
a place in Col Springs that would have it, but didn't get an answer 
about that.  I don't get to Denver.  

So this is my last word in this discussion.

Promises, promises...look Evelyn, I don't see why you need to be so 
hostile about this stuff.  But if you do have to be, then it's just 
as well that you've put in your last word.  I've had my fill of responses 
that are strictly rude flames.  Enough so that it's rubbing off...

Walter