From: aap@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:12:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.054717.24719@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
> 
> Some days I don't know why I write.. but as I jump into this, I  sigh, 
> and  prepare for discussion..

I do not know either. However, it would help if you read before you post.

> 
> In <1992Nov1.181438.5506@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo  
Pinkas) writes:
> 

Karin: Read this:

> >>human!'  The origins of discrimination are unimportant.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
To this, I answered: 

> >If there is a diseas, you should know what causes it in order to find a 
> >cure.
> 
> 
> Uh.. let's step back a moment in your logic, if we may, so I can
> understand your point of view (although I think I do.. it's always safe  
> to ask some basic fundamental (pardon the pun) questions...)
> 
> (A) What exactly are we calling a disease here that needs to be cured?

If you read above, it is clear: The disease is "discrimination".

> 
> Could you be possibly so ignorant as to be referring to homosexuality as  
> a disease?  
> 

Could you be so ignorant that you are unable to follow and argument?

(Some stuff deleted)

> If I want to change it, I should know what causes it.. 
> 
> I think you're referring to discrimination here, not homosexuality,
> because frankly, I don't have any desire to change it.. so I guess a 
> part of me doesn't really care what caused it.. but back to your 
> original point.
>
Good, now you got it.
 
> What causes discrimination of any kind, whether it be in terms of race,  
> gender, size, religion, sexual orientation, green noses, etc., is real 
> basic: fear!

Beautiful reduction, but is quite wrong. Might sound nice, and might make  
you feel great, but is a quite ignorant conclusion. 

> So fear causes discrimination, and ignorance causes fear.  How do we 
> combat this.. 
> 
> Education..
> 

Well, I agree with the conclusion even if your argument is quite wrong.


> Which is really why I am responding to this message.. not because I
> don't understand what you've written.. I understand it all too clearly..
> 

I would say you did not understand it.


> 
> >Now, why people supports antidiscrimination laws for race, gender and 
> >religion and not for Gays?
> >well, I guess that for you this is just a mattter of choice. 
> 
> Well.. let's look at this for a moment.. 
> 
(Some stuff deleted)

> You are right.. though.. there is a choice.  It's a choice every human
> being, no matter what their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation,  
> or nose color, should make. 
> 
> I chose to accept myself for who I am.  I chose to love myself.  
> 

You seem to have a reading problem. I was saying that THE OTHER PERSON  
seemed to believe that supporting antidiscrimination laws was a matter of  
choice. I was not saying that being Gay was a matter of choice.

> 
> >However, if you look at the roots of each case, it would be more clear.
> >This country was founded by people that escaped religious persecution.  
> >And, still today, it is a highly religious country. So, religion is 
> > seen as
> 
> Is it so highly religious?  Yes, there are many vocal people out there 
> (such as Pat Robertson), but if you consider religious to be following 
> the doctrine of the church, how many people attend church on a regular 
> basis outside of Easter and Christmas who declare themselves Christians?   
> How many Jews attend temple every Friday, or observe the Sabbath? 
> 

Besides of how many people go to church, I still believe that religion  
plays an important role on most people's lifes in this country.


> >something that has to be protected. After all, have there been 
> 
> Religion should be protected.. hmm.. what happened to separation of 
> state and church?  Wasn't that because the Anglican church was so 
> protected?  And why did the protestant branches branch off?  Could it be  
> because the Catholic church was so protective?  
> 

I was not talking about protecting the church but about protecting  
religious people from discrimination.



> >antidiscrimination laws in England, there would not be USA.
> >Gender and race were discriminated against on an economical basis. That  
> >is,
> 
> Gender and race were not solely discriminated upon for economical 
> reasons.. have you ever taken a history class?  

It seems that a lot more classes than you have. What you said below is not  
history.

> Economy played in it.. but that wasn't all.. it was fear.. Fear of a 
> woman being as powerful or more powerful than a man, and it was fear of  
> people of color having as much power or more than whites.

Well, it might even sound good to you but is quite an stupid argument.
Look at your history books. Also, you might look at some other books such  
as some on psychology and sociology.
Why is the family compossed and organized like it is? 
Do you think that the kind of family organization that takes place in some  
rural areas of the third world are like that because men are afraid of  
women? That is ridiculous.
Do you think that the Spanish people that killed million of indians in  
america during the colonization, segregated indians, and exploited them  
because the Spainsh were affraid?
I am sorry, but you need to learn a lot more.

> Don't mean to blow your bubble.. but economy isn't everything.. if 
> it were, then blacks would have been immediately warmly accepted into 
> society when the emancipation proclamation freed them from being a 
> commodity!

I was talking about the relation between "Ideology" and "economy". Social  
perception of blacks has changed after they stopped being a commodity.  
However, segregation did not stop.

> 
> 
> >women have been exploited since ever, and blacks were brought here as 
> >slaves. Then, after a long fight, discrimination on an economical basis
> >of women and blacks (and other racial minorities), has been condemn.
> 
> It has not been condemned.  A woman working twice as long, who is twice
> as good as her male counterpart, still get's paid between 50 and 60 
> cents to his dollor!  It still goes on.. it's just not "politically 
> correct"..

We were talking in terms of "antidiscrimination laews". 
Last time I checked, women were one of the groups protected by such a law.


> >For a lot of people, homosexuality is just and abomination against 
> >their god. For others, it is nothing mora than a behavior. For others, 
> >it is
> 
> You know.. I don't know about your god, but mine came down and gave us 
> some basic tenements to live by.


Sorry to say but I do not give a shit about your god. If you learn how to  
read, you might guess that I was not talking about MY god, but about how  
some people perceives homosexuality as related to THEIR god.


> Being homosexual is not a "behavior."  Again, sorry to dispute you.

I never said it was.

> >just a psychological disorder. And there are even more views about it.
> 
> And gees, I thought the American Psychiatry Association said that 
> homosexuality wasn't a mental illness.


Listen, why don't you read before posting? I said that for some people it  
is a psychological disorder. They do not care about the APA. It is not my  
fault that they still believe it.

> 
> 
> 
> >So, it does not get into the idea of those who have to be protected for
> >a lot of people. 
> 
> 500,000,000 probably isn't a lot of people.. you're right.. how silly of 
> us.. (and that's a low estimation..for just the US)

I would have guess that there are less than 500,000,000 people in the USA.

(A lot of stuff that does not make much sense deleted)
> 
> So, personally, I don't really feel a need to waste my time with why
> the sky is blue.

I guess that this comment of yours makes quite clear why you are so  
ignorant. And, what is even worse, why you are so happy with it. What is  
even worse, you are writing from an edu place!

> The times are changing my friend. 

Please, do not call me friend. My name is Alberto.


> And maybe not in our generation, but some day, people will be beyond 
> this basic hatred and fear.  

Well, when I was young people talked in the same way about Socialism, and  
a society where all would be equal....

> In peace,
> -- 
> --Karin
> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

AAP

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc