From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:00:38 GMT


[Note: If this seems to be a repeat of a previous post by myself, please
excuse it...I messed up the first one, and I'm trying again.(klm)]


In a previous article, doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) says:

>In article <1992Nov7.190409.11354@tc.cornell.edu>  writes:
>> In article <Nov06.204504.74727@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> writes:  
>> >Homosexuals DO have equal rights under the law.  Or aren't ordinary  
>> >laws good enough for them?
>> 
>> Apparently not, since we can be fired from our jobs for no
>> reason other than sexual orientation.
>
>On the other hand, with protected status, it would be next to impossible  
>to fire an incomptetent homosexual.  Yelling "discrimination" would  
>silence anything the employer had to say.  

Oh bullshit.  These are the same arguements used by racists about
afirmative action (a theory, BTW, which gay people have no intrest in).
The fact is that in a discrimination suit, the ACCUSER must prove
that discrimination did, in fact, occur.  Simply stated, if there is no
discrimination, none can be proven, PERIOD.


>Moreover, an employer should  
>have control over whom he or she hires.  If homosexuality runs contrary to  
>an employers philosophy of life and beliefs, the employer should not be  
>constrained to have to hire a person of that persuasion.  

Again, bullshit.  When a person becomes an employer, he surrenders certain
FOA rights in exchange for gaining the use of other citizens as employees.


>Unlike race,  
>sex, or physical limitations, which have nothing to do with a person's  
>beliefs or philosophy, homosexuality represents something that the  
>majority of Americans disagree with.  

Bullshit a third time.  A recent poll (in Time, I believe), said that
nearly 70% of the respondants had no problems with homosexuality.


>I for one would not want an avowed,   
>practicing homosexual teaching my children in elementary school, and I  
>know I'm by far not the only one to feel this way.

No, you're not the only one, but that number is shrinking, and you are
quickly becoming a minority.

>
>>We can't serve in the military.  
>
>General Collin Powell said in a recent interview with Barbara Walters that  
>he is opposed to allowing gays to serve in the military because when a  
>soldier is on the battlefield, he is not willing to lay down his life for  
>country, God, or apple pie, but for the other guys in his platoon.   
>Homosexuality destroys that cohesiveness, and instead causes divisiveness  
>and suspicion.  

These are the same arguements used in the late 40's when Harry Truman signed
an executive order ending racial segregation in the armed forces.  The 
Joint Chiefs complained then that forcing whites to accept blacks would cause
a breakdown of discipline, a breach of cohesiveness, a breakdown of espree
d'corps.  Guess what?  It never happened.  In fact, the idea worked so well
that it (not discounting his ability) allowed Colin Powell to rise to the
position he now holds.  Somehow, though, he has forgotten that.


>Moreover gays have served their country well in the  
>military and have done so without making an issue of their orientation.   

But the military HAS mad an issue of it, to the tune of exclusion without
exception, and the discharge of 1500 gay and lesbian GI's a year.  Further,
that discharge requires no misbehavior.  It applies to celebate gays as well.


>The problem is you want government sanction of your lifestyle, and the  
>majority of Americans won't stand for that.

Care to make a wager?

>
>>We can't marry our partners. 
>
>Do you think it is sheer coincidence that no civilized nation on this  
>planet includes homosexuality in the definition of marriage?  Marriage,  
>from time immemorial, has always been defined as the joining of a man and  
>a woman, forming the basic family unit.  Perhaps some other, legally  
>recognized union could be established for homosexual "couples", but that  
>should never supplant, or be on the same level as, marriage.  

Why not?  If I love my partner, why should I not be permitted the legal and
civil right of matromony?

>Besides,  
>what do we do with the man who wants to "marry" his sheep?  Or the mormon  
>who wants 7 wives?  Or the man who wants to "marry" a nine year-old boy?   
>After all, these are merely sexual orientations...

And of course, the obligitory allusion to homosexuality = beastiality, 
pologamy, and pedophilia.

>
>>We aren't covered by inheritance laws.  
>
>Of course not.  Inheritance again is defined in terms of family bloodlines  
>the world over.  I can just imagine the chaos that would ensue when Bill,  
>who was Bob's lover for 3 months, not to mention Bob's 100 other lovers,  
>starts trying to make inheritance claims after Bob passes on. 
>
>>We don't get visitation rights when our partners are hospitalized.
>
>Here, I'll agree with you that this isn't right, although I can't imagine  
>under what circumstances this would happen.

I'll answer these two together.

4 years ago I went through the agony of losing a partner.  We had been 
together for nearly 10 years, when he was in a terrible accident.
He lingered in the hospital for a few days, then  died.  I was not permitted
in his room, I could only look through a window.  

Upon returning home, his parents showed up at my house and began a systematic
removal of everything that belonged to him, reguardless of the fact that
he had told them many times that he left me everything.  Going to court, I 
discovered that, as our relationship was not sanctioned by law, his words
were unenforsable.

After a 9 year monogamous loving relationship, all I was left with to remind
me of him was the picture in my wallet.


>
>>We can't adopt children.  
>
>Nor should this ever come about, in light of the fact that study after  
>study after study has shown that children need parents of BOTH genders to  
>grow up well-adjusted.  Besides, since when is adopting children a "civil  
>right?"  Many heterosexual couples are unable to exercise this "right."
>

Single people are permitted to adopt, so that kinda blows your "both gender"
arguement into the water.  Further, while I will agree that adopting children
is not a "civil right" per se, Homosexuals are unilaterally barred from 
adopting, even though there is NO study which states that having a household
headed by a homosexual couple is harmful to a child.


>>We can be thrown out of our housing. 
>
>Well, so can I!  The landlord owns the house and, just as with an  
>employer, we have to play by the rules of the game as they define it, or  
>look elsewhere if we don't like it.  Besides, there are laws against  
>breaking housing contracts if it's drawn up legally.

You can't be thrown out of housing because you are heterosexual, can you?
Landlords, like employers, are offering jobs and housing under the legal
theory of "public accomidation", and in doing so, waive FOA.  As long
as a person can afford the rent, and does not classify as a "Public
Nuiesence", a landlord cannot deny housing to anyone...

...except a homosexual...

>
>>We can be denied security clearances.
>
>So can I.  See above about the rules of the game.


You too...

>
>>It appears, in fact, that ordinary laws are not enough to protect our  
>>civil rights.
>
>The problem is you want to redifine those laws, impose your lifestyle on  
>everyone else and ask for the government's benediction.
>
More bullshit.  We ask for EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Nothing more,
nothing less.

>> 
>> >A right to do what?  The Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is NOT a  
>> >"right" somehow protected by the constitution.  
>> 
>> See above.  We aren't talking about sodomy.  We're not even
>> talking about sexual practices.  Celibate and virginal gay
>> and lesbian people are subject to the same persecution as
>> sexually active ones.  The question is one of identity.
>> Colorado has just distinguished itself by passing a law
>> saying that it's okay to discriminate against people
>> based on *who they are*, without regard for what they've
>> actually done.

Well said.

>
>Colorado has distinguished itself by just saying no to giving homosexuals  
>protected status. Again, what goes on in your bedroom is none of my  
>business.  And I would never know if you didn't make an issue of it.  

It would not be an issue if we were not systematically denied the rights
you take for granted.

>It  
>becomes my business, however, when as an employer I see you presenting  
>yourself or behaving in a way that is not consistent with the values of my  
>establishment.  

Absolutely.  If someone is behaving, at work, on your time, in an inapropriate
mannor, then yes, it is your business.  Otherwise, no.

>It becomes my business when I see the militant gay  
>political agenda and their push for quotas, 

Red herring.  Nobody is asking for quotas.

>"marriage" recognition, trying to change adoption policies, etc.  

How does this effect you?  I'd say it effects only those who marry or adopt.

>It becomes my business when I see  
>"gay-pride" parades and all lewd simultated sexual acts that go along with  
>it in public or on TV.  

Stop the discrimination and likely the parades will stop.

>It becomes my business when, because of homosexual  
>practices, the nation's blood supply becomes contaminated with the HIV  
>virus, etc., etc.

And, of course, the obligitory allusion that all gay persons have HIV and
ONLY gay persons can get or spread HIV.

>
>> 
>> And what is it with straight boys and sodomy, anyway?  Why
>> do they obsess about it so?  And why do they consider it
>> a "homosexual" practice, when straight couples do it all the
>> time? 
>
>What is it??? If you don't find inserting your penis where excrement comes  
>from disgusting, then I doubt you are capable of finding anything  
>repulsive.  

Funny.  You put your penis in an oriface frem which comes an excrement
(blood).  I don't find that repulsive.

>Moral  questions and health aside, even a cursory exam of  
>human anatomy shows the "plumbing" is such that a man was meant for a  
>woman. The anus, if you hadn't noticed, has a specific function and when  
>it is abused you see the result of how quickly diseases are spread.  And  
>how would you know what straight couples do?  I doubt they "do it all the  
>time."  I even doubt the majority of them do it some of the time.  None of  
>my married friends (at least the ones who are frank enough to talk about  
>their sexual practices) admit to doing it. 
>

They don't know the pleasure they're missing...
 
>> >The homosexual community claims (rightly so) that what goes on in their  
>> >bedrooms is nobody's business.  Then why can't they shut up about it?   
>> 
>> Because we're being persecuted for it.  If people like you
>> would let us simply live our lives, believe me, we would.
>
>Well everyone's persecuted to a certain extent and I'm sorry for the  
>persecution you feel.  

Wonderful.  End the discrimination and persicution.

>There are existing laws that guarantee your rights  
>to live a free citizens of the U.S., and punishment for those who would  
>deny you those rights.  Those rights are the same ones I live under.  And  
>I doubt that I am responsibile for your unhappiness, or that I'm really  
>even capable of keeping you from living the life you choose.  I have no  
>problem working with homosexuals as long as they keep their affairs to  
>themselves (as I will mine).  But do not expect me to just roll over and  
>accept the homosexual community's attempt to redefine laws or seek  
>protected status.

Live with it.  It's inevitable.  You can accept it, or you can fight it,
but you can not prevent it.

>> --
>>            Hate is not a family value.
>
>Who said it was?  Honesty sure is not an EPOC value.
>
>>Boycott Colorado
>
>If you feel that will threaten us, think again.  Our morals and values are  
>not up for sale.

I think you've already sold them.  Don't object if we pick up the tab...


>> 
>>        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>
>Douglas Cripe - Atmospheric Science - Colorado State University
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality