From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: A question about Stephen M. Conley
Date: 12 Dec 1992 18:39:57 -0500
Organization: P.L.T.S., North Plainfield, NJ, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: plts.uucp

In article <1992Dec12.065457.13041@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>In article <1g6ccuINN6he@plts.uucp> tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>
>[...]
>>
>>Anyway, substitute "not doing activism" for "straight" and I feel
>>that my argument still holds.
>
>That seems like a pretty good way of discouraging activism, if all the
>activists get together and tell the non-activists to piss off.  The point
>of all my arguments has been that I simply cannot accept anti-discrimination
>legislation without some sort of evidence that it does not violate the
>individual's right to associate freely.  I am interested in and will gladly
>participate in activism that doesn't violate individual rights (better 
>definitions forthcoming after my post-finals carousing has left my 
>bloodstream).

I didn't say that all non-activists should be told to piss off.  I said
all anti-activists should piss off.  Ha ha, only serious.

I can accept that you fear anti-discrimination legislation might
vilotate the individual's right to associate freely.  I don't have this
fear.  Fine.  There.  We've concisely stated our disagreement.

The problem with an ideology debate is that we can continually bring up
new hypotheticals;  "But what if the law said THIS", "But not if a law
said THAT", etc.

I would rather we pick a specific example and debated that.  I have the
text of my home state's anti-discrimination law.  I'll post it and we
can keep the discussion focused to that.  If you want to pick a
different legal code, suggest it.  I would rather go this way because
I'm not going to debate about ideology anymore.  I've said everything
I can on the topic and I'm not going to waste bits repeating myself.

So, wanna bend the discussion in that direction?

------------------- a whole nother topic -------------------

>Okay, I won't start any ideological debates (at least, I hope not).  But I 
>have to point out that there are other ideas involved in politics besides 
>those relating directly to les/bi/gay rights.  If I believe in free trade,
>non-interventionism, and les/bi/gay rights, shouldn't I support the party
>that best reflects that?  How does that make me any less queer?

Great, I love free trade.  Non-interventionism gets me real hot.  If
you had mentioned saving the spotted owl I'd be cumming all over my
keyboard.  Let me be right back, I have to check what newsgroup I'm
reading before I continue.  [ 2 second pause ] Ok.  I'm reading
soc.bi.  So I guess you're saying that you pick a candidate or party
based on who supports all of your ideals (and your priorities) the
closest.  Fine by me.  I'm happy that you do that.  Anyone that doesn't
do that is blind.

ARE YOU ACTUALLY SAYING THAT BI PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT CAUSES AND
PRIORITIES?  I THOUGHT WE ALL THOUGHT EXACTLY THE SAME, LOOKED THE
SAME, AND ACTED THE SAME, AND THEREFORE HAD TO VOTE EXACTLY THE
SAME???

Oh, wrong reality.

So, I'll let you make your decision based on your (what I feel are)
stupid ill-conceived politics and priorities if you let me make my
decisions based on my (what you might feel are) stupid ill-conceived
politices and priorities also.

I think we've achieved a lot here.  Let's keep moving forward.

TTFN,

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
Heros falling to the ground / like hell's magnet / pulls me down / on my knees
/ I try to please his eyes / his idol eyes. / Jerking motions won't revive him
/ mouth to mount resusitation / I just lay down beside him / and idolize.
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss