From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:38:36 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov6.202518.11515@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.160017.9536@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>>
>>>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>>>it that way at all.

Ok, I'll jump into the fray too... :-)

I don't see it as a "hate" issue, I see it as an "intolerance" issue.
People who feel they are the measure of what society should be like want
to legalize their definition.  (In case this doesn't make it clear, I
voted against #2.)

This is a thorny issue, however.  I personally believe everyone is
entitled to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't intrude into
someone else's matters.  Thus, killing is out, as that is (to say the
least) an intrusion into the matters of the one killed.  By this definition,
amd#2 is bad, since it says it's ok ("not ok not to") to intrude into
someone's affairs to deny housing, etc.  BUT, it also is an intrusion
into someone's matters to hire someone whose lifestyle runs contrary to
their religious beliefs.  So I have to say I can *see* both sides.  (I
don't *agree* with both sides, however.)

Really now, how does it intrude into my life for someone living next door
to be gay?

There are two main categories of people who are against gays (that come
to mind offhand):  Those who have religious reasons and those who just
"don't like 'em" (redneck macho types, etc.).  For those with religious
reasons, you can't argue with them, since they will always ground their
argument in "faith", which by definition can't be argued against.  For
the 2nd type, I have no sympathy, they're just plain ignorant and
intolerant.  Not that the religious types are intolerant (personally, I
think they are; all too many lives have been lost in the name of
religion).  However, I am willing to agree that anyone who truly
believes in something is entitled to that belief.

So how can a society that proclaims to give everyone their freedom serve
directly opposing definitions of what is acceptable?

I'd be in favor of some kind of compromise:  Those who want to claim
religious reasons for not hiring gays (into the companies they own), rent
to gays in residences they own, etc., should be allowed to do so.  However,
the government should not be allowed to, nor companies not owned by
individuals (e.g., public corporations).  Any such cases should be handled
as now -- in the courts.

I am thinking along the lines of how Christian Scientists are allowed
to refuse medical treatment for their children, and how various.
I'm trying to be fair minded about this (as much as I am upset by it).
Until we can convince the religious types that they are, well, "wrong"
about some of their beliefs... we need to accept them too ("Lord help 'em").

And let me clarify what I mean by "wrong" -- I have never seen any
reason for religions to be against homosexuality other than "the Bible
says so".  This exhibits a lack of critical thinking.  WHY does it say
this?  I'm sorry, but just saying "it's wrong and that's that" doesn't
cut it -- I won't argue with someone who says that, and I'll accept that
this is how they feel, but I have no respect for anyone who says that.
(Which is MY right.)  I pity anyone who just takes stuff like this without
having a reason.

(Ok, I guess that pins down my religious feelings pretty well, eh?  Well,
flame away, this Agnostic is pretty comfortable with his dislike of
organized religions.  Fortunately for society as a whole, I think they
have served their purpose in our history and are on the way out.  (I
admit they had a purpose, but that purpose is now gone.))  [Anyway,
if you want to start a flame war about religion, please start a new
subject header, ok?]

>>>It is really a matter of special rights and privileges.

No, it legalizes discrimination, quite clearly.  Anyone who can't
see that is blind.

Besides, why do we want to say this for gays, specifically?  Why hasn't
this come up before?  Why haven't we had laws saying "no special rights
for white people"?  Anti-discrimination does not equal special rights.

No, it was blatantly obvious that this was part of an anti-gay agenda.

Geez, even the literature was pretty blunt about it.  E.g., oooh, look,
gays make a lot of money on average.  So what?  This was so clearly
pushed by the being-gay-is-wrong crowd it made me want to puke.

I am against intolerance.  #2 legalized intolerance.

>>>It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  

Right, nobody would ever call it hate.  I don't listen to KKK propaganda,
but I doubt they ever say "hate".  It's a matter of **intolerance**

(And if there's one thing I won't tolerate, it's intolerance!)

>The logic escapes me.  It could mean the polls were wrong, or 
>it could mean people were confused by what a Yes vote meant or ...

No, people knew.  It's sad, purely sad.

I'm ashamed to say someone I know voted for it, his reason being
"Bah, I don't care".  I asked him "what if it was about some group
you were a part of?"  His answer:  "Then I'd vote against it."  Piss poor
attitude.  Damn intolerance.

C'mon folks, let's respect other people a little ok?

>Should non-smokers have rights smokers don't have?  Should
>dog lovers be able to take their dogs for a shit in the park?  What
>about people who want to be able to walk in the park without stepping
>in dog shit?  Finding the right balance of freedom and responsibility,
>rights and obligation is not always clear-cut.

Ah, but in these cases, it's clear by the "intrusion into other people's
matters" rule:  Public smoking bothers those who don't participate in
the smoking.  Public dog-shitting like wise.  Note, that the complement of
these actions are not:  not-smoking doesn't bother anyone, nor
does not-shitting in the park.  Thus these are easy cases.

>Morality, ethics, tolerance,
>consideration, and respect CANNOT be legislated.  Using force or the 
>threat of force (i.e. a law) will never work.

Yes, and this is what #2 just did!!!  Arrrgh!

>I respect your right to your opinion.  Can you tolerate my disagreement?

Yes, so long as the implementation of it doesn't affect "innocent
bystanders".  #2 does, while laws against murder do not.

Sorry to disagree, but this is a very simple issue when reduced to
these terms.  And #2 is wrong.

I'm all in favor of repealing it.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: co.general