From: ckirby@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Charles Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:24:13 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

In article <1992Nov13.174728.18196@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  #2 doesn't say it's ok to bash gays. Besides, there are laws against assault
>  and murder, which I wholeheartedly support. Remember, I voted *against* #2.
>

We come full circle then don't we.  Some people will always be intolerant
of gay people (or any minority for that matter), and will find ways to
discriminate regardless of what laws are in place.  #2, however, by making
such discrimination basically free from legal recourse sends the message
that it is okay to discriminate at any level.  This is irresponsible and unjust 
legislation.

If your argument is against enacting legislation protecting gays from 
discrimination (which I still would disagree with you, I'm sure), that is 
entirely different than defending #2.
  

>  In any case, making *me* responsible for the actions of others is just as
>  stupid as making all gay males responsible for the actions of NAMBLA mem-
>  bers. But, heck, I'm one of the "dominant white het males", right, so I'm
>  OK to bash-n-trash. BTW, we're not in the majority.
>

Everybody is responsible for their own actions.  However, if you support
legislation (or a position) that is irresponsible and unjust, as I submit
that amendment 2 (and the reasoning behind it) is, then
you are responsible for the ramifcations of enacting that legislation.

I think responsibility comes in varying levels.  Were you directly the
cause of Marty's death? No.  
But are you responsible for allowing the hate spawned from fear and
ignorance to continue in this society, or for the despair that so
many gay people feel because of the oppression they feel?  If you support
legislation like Co2 then yes you are.  Just as I am responsible for Marty's
death for not doing enough to fight the amendment.

>
>  It seems such an accusation can just as easily be leveled against the anti-2
>  folks. They don't seem to realize that arbitrarily denying the right to dis-
>  criminate to bigots might come back to haunt them.

What is arbitrary about fighting an ammendment that singles out a group of 
people and makes them basically unequal under the law?  

> It's the same reasoning as what you probably apply to the right of free
> speech. It would be nice to
>  get crap like the kind spewed by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Don Wildmon,
>  et.al. banned, but we've decided that it's too risky to allow the government
>  to decide what's "acceptable" speech and what isn't. If we did, the next 
>  target might be *you*.

Do I believe these assholes should be censored? On television, yes; they 
should be censored just as much or as little as anything else that is
on TV is censored.  They constantly decry what they find offensive and
immoral on TV, and quite often get their way.  I find them offensive and
immoral, and yet I find them on TV 24 hours a day on a half-dozen channels.
Yet try and get one show on television that shows a non-stereotypical normal
gay character and you have to take on the world.  

Do I believe that they should have their free speech in general curtailed?
No.  Do I believe that they should be able to spew their crap tax-free
claiming to represent Christianity?  That is more debateable.

>
>  Well, you and Dick Dunn have seen fit to tarnish the discussion with personal
>  invective. And to think it lasted this long too. Pity.

Well, since I found your original posting to be "tarnished," insensitive,
and personally offensive in the first place, I just really don't have a 
problem with throwing in a little invective.  Of course, since I have
unfortunately had the effect of prolonging your presence here, I shall
desist from pure, unadulterated lambasting, and maybe you'll just 
disappear.  

>  What *do* I represent, Charles? A different view, perhaps? One that you ob-
>  viously have no patience or tolerance for. I find it odd that you demand
>  tolerance from others, but are absolutely unwilling to be tolerant yourself.
>  Seems you don't give a damn about others, just yourself.
>

I don't demand crap from others.  I demand equality and justice in the eyes
of the law for myself and others in my position as was intended in the spirit
of the Constitution.  If the Constitution is ignored, or not  enough to 
guarantee those rights, then I am all for enacting legislation, amending
the Constitution, or having a revolution; whatever it takes to  
specifically spell  out that those who believe that their "right" to
discriminate is above my right for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness" are wrong.  If some bigot doesn't want me to be on his personal
property then fine with me.  If some bigot in the personnel department doesn't
want to hire me, or apt. manager doesn't want to rent to me solely because I am
gay, then they are guilty of institutionalized prejudice and my rights have
been violated.

Do I give a damn about these bigots?  Personally, no; they can rot in hell.
On principle, if their rights were being violated, then certainly I would.
It's just a matter of proving to me that their rights indeed are being
violated.  I do not believe in their "right" to discriminate based on 
prejudice, nor their "right" not to associate to the exclusion of others. 

>
>ck> In the first place, who said anything about him being a saint?  
>
>  OK, a martyr then. Marty is well on his way to being elevated to that status.
>

Martyr:  One who sacrifices his life or something of great value for the
sake of principle.

When I first read of Marty's death, it made me furious that here was yet
another senseless death due directly to the prejudices rampant in this
country.  Using his death as another representation of what the hell is
wrong with society, in particular what is wrong with that 
amendment, makes it seem less futile, less painful.  To ignore his condemnation
of the amendment and its instigator is to devalue his life.  

>ck> He was a person who needed help, and all he found was that he was in a 
>    world surrounded by a lot of pricks like you who could give a damn about
>    his problems.  
>
>  Hey, we all got problems, and my life isn't centered around fixing everyone
>  else's problems

obviously

> especially those that I didn't have anything to do with.

See my previous comments regarding absolving yourself of any responsibility.

>  And you know what, you live your life the same way.

You are very presumtuous.   

> At least I'm willing to  "admit" that, and not try to make myself 
> feel better by sounding like I shoulder the burdens of the world. I don't,
> and I say so unhesitatingly.

Congratulations.

>ck> You just keep flapping that big mouth of yours, exhibiting your pin-sized 
>    brain, and in the mood I'm in I am grateful for the opportunity to flame.
>
>  Flaming isn't what you're doing. You're simply being rude.

I have found very little in your postings worth being civil towards.

> Calling me names
>  isn't going to help your argument. Just makes you sound desparate, or, that
>  your argument has run out and you've got nothing better to use.

Again, I am not so foolish as to believe anything I have to say would change
your feeble mind.  Therefore I settle on using your "insightful, 
reasonable" arguments as my whipping
post to vent my frustrations.  Immature?  Probably.  Waste of bandwidth?
Almost definitely.  Satisfying?  Oh, it feels so good.

You know what Gary?  I am sure that you are actually a pretty nice guy,
undeserving of the level of vitriol that I have been spewing.  But,
don't you see, you and I are just opposite sides of the same coin?  You
are trying to rationalize a completely untenable position to assuage your 
guilt and absolve yourself of any responsibility in Marty's death.  You
can't afford to believe you are wrong, because once you come to that
realization, you really are going to feel like shit, and that just doesn't
fit into your life plan.

I on the other hand am whipping out these responses with little attention
paid to rational discussion because I need to assuage my guilt at not
having taken on more responsibility in fighting that amendment.  A more
constructive use of my time is doing what I can now to repeal that 
legislation (as I have started to), even though it is too late to help
Marty.  In the meantime, however, you have 
conveniently been presenting an attitude that I find abhorent, so I level
my attacks at the current source of that attitude.  I do so at a personal
level because attitudes like yours lead to things that affect me 
directly, personally.  I too, cannot afford to believe that I am wrong,
because that would mean that it is true that the majority is right, and
I deserve to live the life of an oppressed, second-class citizen, and 
that just doesn't fit into my life plan either.  In the grand scheme of
the universe, I just don't think it matters much one way or another.  But
I know in my mind that what I am fighting for will make things better
for everybody in the long run, while what you are fighting for merely
keeps you and people like you from feeling uncomfortable by maintaining
the status quo.   

I do violate my own principles by not showing you any respect on the basis
of this one issue.  But I am not a big enough person at this time to have
any respect for you, or to really feel that bad about violating my
own principles.  I am too angry, and battleworn, and I haven't fought 
1/1000 as hard as many other people.

A bigger person would pity you for your ignorance.

Have a nice life.
Charles

>  Thanks so much. I'm glad we've kept the discussion at a mature, reasonable
>  level.
>
>  Bye-bye.
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: soc.motss