Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:17:00 CST
From:         "Stephen H. Karlson 753-6980 (815)"
 <TA0SHK1%NIU.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject:      Re: legislating behavior (was amendment 2 ...)

> Graham bravely puts his balls on the block, and gives <straight> answers,
> unlike some in this group:

> Analogies are never perfect, but I can't see the point of yours at all?

That's because you're trying too hard to see what isn't there, mate.
I think societies legislate behavior by formal and informal means
all the time, and I'm digging for the standards by which people
would prefer to make rules.  You've offered some standards in the
part of your post I didn't quote ... I think I have some further
questions to ask, but not tonight.  (I may use the "substitute"
gambit, but would prefer to consider some things first)

> Can we have some counter arguments that are closer to the real-life
> discrimination we're talking about, such as sacking teachers for
> explaining in sex education classes that 16-yr old children who wonder
> if they are gay are _not_ sick and evil, and if that's the choice they
>end up making, they'll be supported rather than ostracized.  Such as
> sacking ministers of the clergy because they admit to homosexual feelings
> even though they are celebate.

Indeed you are reading too much into my post ... I'm not prepared to
offer counter arguments based on incomplete information.  For
instance, is the church incident you describe the action of an
established church?  In the United States, churches are voluntary
associations of people.  Congregations can (and I think do) fire
ministers or split over questions of doctrine, and what you
describe as a discriminatory action I might view as exercise of
freedom of association.  OTOH, if it's an established church you're
talking about, I can understand how you'd view such an action as
some sort of official condemnation.

Similarly, the schools are supposed to serve the people who pay
for them.  As Jim noted earlier, somehow people with different
belief systems have to get along.  (That may be a paraphrase.)
If the people who pay for a school system want their schools to
favor monogamous heterosexual relationships as an approved model
(perhaps because they believe such a model works better according
to some standard,) don't they have that right?  Is that any different
from insisting that students learn to write and figure and use
the "standard" dialect (perhaps because they believe students who
have those skills do better according to some standard, maybe an
income standard.)

I don't know if the scenarios I've offered have any resemblance to
the facts of the incidents Graham describes.  If I'm way off the
mark, I apologise in advance.

As I perceive it, some of the "homophobia" in the U.S. is driven by
fear of AIDS; some of it is motivated by religious concerns, and
some of it is part of a general unease that perceives the greater
freedoms some people have won as something between a mixed blessing
and a disaster.  Sorry, I can't sort it all out; it's quite difficult
enough for me to figure out why the lines are longest at the
rollercoaster.  (research project I oughta get back to)

Steve Karlson

No snappy sig here.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l