From: edrury@3cpu.rain.com (Ed Drury)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:35:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: 3cpu.4307
Reply-To: edrury@3cpu.UUCP (Ed Drury)
Organization: Garden Lane Software

In article <1992Nov10.001354.9471@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.113402.23405@sequent.com> newell@sequent.com (Donald Newell) writes:
>Reply to my posting:
>>
>> The intent of Measure 9 was to discriminate, plain and simple.  The "progay"
>> government stance I hear about most often was the executive order by
>> Goldschmidt barring discrimination in state jobs. Alas, this was overturned
>> by M8 a couple years ago. What terrible laws are being instituted at the
>> local level that I haven't heard about?
>>
>> I'm not sure of the efficacy of putting the right to not be harassed up
>> for a vote. At what granularity should this happen? Which of your
>> prerogatives are you wanting me to vote on?
>>
>> Don N.
>
>Yes the intent was to discriminate. Because of the push to have the
>gay lifestyle accepted as a normal alternative to a hetrosexual life
>the measure was put on the ballot. Another locally sucessful act is
>the Multnomah Co. order allowing homosexual couples to have spousal
>medical benifits. Also Portland has a nondiscrimination towards
>homosexuals regulation. The question for a lot of people was whether
>to allow the advancement of priveledges by doing nothing or try to
>stop the progression by taking a procative stance.


 The "advancement of priveledges" which you point to are just priveledges
which I enjoy as a heterosexual married person. Why should a homosexual
couple be denied the same options I have as a married man in terms of
adding my spouse to my medical benefits (or the other way around)? Is
this because they're "abnormal"? How much of a chance to be "normal"
are they accorded in our society? It's seems , to me, that a lot of
people get pretty  threatened whenever they try to live as a married
monogamous couple.

 
>
>Getting back to the discrimination matter, there are people that do
>not believe that homosexuality is a moral life style.

 There are people who do not believe that almost anyone other than
themselves do not live a moral life style.

> When people look at a problem with different assumptions about the problem
>agreement on a solution is highly unlikely. I would suggest you try
>to educate people to your ("your" is used generically I do not know
>what your specific assumptions on this issue are) basic assumptions
>that homosexuality is ok and not an immoral lifestyle. Once the
>assumptions are the same, the solution should be the same.

 I thought that people trying to educate us that Homosexuality is an
ok and moral life style was the entire objection. I would suggest you
try to look at solutions which are not based on assumptions but facts.
Then the solution might become more obvious. If we start voting laws
and ammending the Constitution based on what we feel is moral and ok
*only* we'll wind up without all our basic freedoms. Two heterosexuals
living together "in sin" is considered by many to be neither moral
or "ok". Should be pass laws that the State shall set a standard in
teaching that heterosexual sex between adults who are not married
is preverse and un-natural? Adultry is a sin and hell , we elect
Presidents who have commited it. This is probably the Adulters Secret
agenda to advance the priveledges of people who commit the sin of
Adultry. Where is it moral and ok to draw the line? Well , let see,
"living in sin" is probably more moral than having sex with someone
of the same sex so , nah we'll not worry about that and concetrate
on the "greater evil". And so on....

 I've heard a lot of talk about the so called "Gay Agenda", but I
would like to know what the agenda of the OCA is. This is still
the United States of America and the OCA has their rights protected
under the Constitution. But their rights end when they attack the
rights of others. We have freedom of religion, and no one group
has entitlement to the bill of rights over another.


-- 
   __
 /--   __/
(___, (_/rury@3cpu.rain.com
Newsgroups: pnw.general