From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: stupid boycott mentality
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:16:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1hvrhsINNd5l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) wrote:
> 
> 
>  (Jody Norman) writes:
> > You know, I think it might be a good idea if we asked exactly what are
> > =special= rights vs =equal= ones.  Quotas are a frequent concern for those
> > who see gays as asking for minority status, not because gays have
> > specifically asked for them (at least, as far as my limited knowledge
> > goes), but because it's a common concern with minority groups.  But quotas
> > are not what I think of, as a bi female concerned with equal rights.  When
> > I say I want equal rights, I mean I would like to be able to buy a car with
> > my partner, or have a joint bank account, or credit card, or... and so on. 
> > The =legal= rights granted to heterosexual couples in this country without
> > a second thought.  And though I'll admit that I don't =know= if these
> > rights are actually illegal, I can tell you from experience that they're
> > ones a couple doesn't dare to ask for fear of discrimination (i.e., joint
> > insurance -- if your agent doesn't agree with your lifestyle, they can make
> > living rather difficult, and a couple may not be able to afford that). 
> 
> 
> > I'd like to hear others' opinions on this issue, because it seems to
> > me that that's where some of the difficulties with quotas seem to be coming
> > from.
> 
> Good thinking.  As a straight male who has no contact with anyone 
> who he can talk to about these issues (yet), here's what I see as
> "special" vs "equal". 
> 
> SPECIAL
> -------
> Minority status (like race) 
> Quotas (hiring, promotion) 
> 
> 
> EQUAL 
> -----
> Ability to marry (and assoc. bennies, like some of the things you list above) 
> Freedom from discrimination in housing and employment.  While these may not 
>    be considered "rights" by some in the strictest sense, the idea is that 
>    people should be judged on who they are as a person, and what they do; 
>    not on prejudices.  You should get hired/promoted based on how well you 
>    can do the job, not based on your sexual orientation/habits/whatever. 
>    There's no need for that to even come into the equation.  There are some 
>    instances that might need to be exempted.  For example, it would be 
>    appropraite for a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong to reject 
>    a gay candidate for pastor; not that such a person would even want the 
>    job in the first place.  
> Freedom from harassment.  Again, may not be a "right" in the strictest 
>    sense, but it is a basic respect issue. 
> 
> I'm sure I missed some.......but thanks for the chance to express them 
> in a calm manner...
> 
> Walter
>  

Thanks, Walter, for a reasonable and *calm* answer; I was hoping, though,
for more than just one person's thoughts -- I figured defining terms should
get more interest, wonder if I was wrong?  Or is this a question/issue that
no one is really interested in dealing with?  

Jody
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8927 alt.rush-limbaugh:12985 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11496 alt.politics.clinton:19584 alt.politics.bush:15508