From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Response on Homosexuality - LONG POST
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:50:45 GMT

> I assume that you are friends of amycat (that is the nickname
> that I know her as) who have joined the list to lend her moral support,
> increase the number of openly homosexual voices on the list, engage in

First, I am openly Bisexual.  Second, it is an error on your part to equate
support of gay rights with being gay.  My very heterosexual parents openly
support gay rights, for example.

> I believe that homosexuality is a sin.  This is a religous belief.
> 
> I believe that many people have homosexual urges, just as they
> have the urge to lie, cheat, or commit adultry.  Like all those
> things, it is "wrong" when a person gives in completely to the
> temptation, and becomes a lifelong liar, cheater, or adulteror.
> 
> These are my personal beliefs.  They are taken directly from
> the Bible.

And as such, have no place in the formation of American law.
 
> Unlike murder or adultry, homosexuality is an act of consenting adults
> and does not hurt anyone (I don't fully believe that, as I think
> widespread homosexuality has a negative impact upon society, but
> leave that concern aside for now).  Since 1) homosexuality is
> between consenting adults without hurting anyone and 2) it is based
> upon a religous belief, the law should not represent these views.

Agreed.
 
> So, I seperate my personal beliefs about homosexuality, which are simple,
> from my beliefs about how the law should regard homosexuals, which are
> more complicated.  The goal of the law, in my opinion, is to neither
> encourage nor prohibit homosexuality lifestyle.

I submit to you that unless the goal of the law is also to neither encourage
nor prohibit heterosexual lifestyle, the law is representing the views you have
just said that it should not represent.  I further submit that the goal of the
law is not to take a neutral stance on heterosexual lifestyle, but to promote
it.  Thus, in order to live up to your above statement, the law must change
either to promote homosexual lifestyle as well as hetersexual, or to become
neutral on heterosexual lifestyle.
 
> At the same time, I think laws that "encourage" or "legitimize"
> homosexuality are wrong.  So, I do not favor granting homosexuals a legal
> marrage status like that enjoyed by hetrosexual couples.  I would
> strongly resist a law that prevented me from discriminating based
> upon sexual preference.

See the above.  How is this not failing to live up to the principle seperating
your religious beliefs from American law which you espoused above?
 
> Finally, the above is not homophobic, as I understand the word
> (I think it is not useful to define as homophobic anyone who does
> not adopt the full legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle).  

That is debatable, but to forestall said debate, permit me to introduce the
term heterosexist to your vocabulary.  The above may or may not be homophobic,
but it is most certainly heterosexist.

>But,
> apart from what is above, I am homophobic, and openly so.  It
> is related to AIDS and the notirous prison violence (i know that
> both are irrational, but that is the essence of a phobia, right?).

Your fears are based on several errors.

Primus, AIDS is a "gay disease" only in the United States.  In most of the
world, it is spread primarily through heterosexual contact.

Secundus, lesbians are the lowest risk group around, lower even than
heterosexuals.

Tertius, prison rape is not homosexual activity, but rape.  The people engaging
in the behavior identify as heterosexual before, during, and after the rape. 
They are using the act as a method of establishing dominance, not as a way of
expressing love.  For support of this statement, check _Sociological Abstracts_
under "Rape" for the host of studies of prison rape over the years.
 
> So, in sum, I think that people who engage in the homosexual lifestyle
> are giving into a sinful temptation, which is wrong and should be
> changed.  I know you don't want this, and that it is somewhat insulting
> to offer it, but I would hope that you are someday able to resist these
> sinful urges.  Until that time, I think society should be tollerant of your
> actions, but not encourage them.

I think that people who engage in bigotry are giving in to sinful temptation,
which is wrong and should be changed.  I know you don't want this, and that it
is somewhat insulting to offer it, but I would hope that you are someday able
to resist these sinful urges.  Until that time, I think society should be
tolerant of your actions, but not encourage them.

---===--- 
> Well, I have not seen the film (but I wonder about the tremendous
> furor by the homosexual community over the film before ANY of them
> saw it).

Several Gay Rights groups were approached by the producer and shown the
screenplay ahead of time.  They worked out a screenplay together which was less
offensive.  It was later learned that the second screenplay was never used.
 
> There are three aspects to a marrage in society: religous, legal, and
> societal.  The religous is a personal matter of course.  Some people
> consider there to be no religous content to their marrage.  In my
> religon, a homosexual marrage is a sacrelige, like a holy commitment to
> lifelong adultry done in a church.
> 
> There are some churches taht consider homosexual marrages to be OK.
> Since I believe in religous tollerance, I will not say anything
> about them, but I will tell you that I am trying to convince my
> (hetrosexual) friends who belong to such a church to leave.

There are several non-Christian religions, such as Wicca, that teach that
same-sex marriages are as sacred as opposite sex marriages.

> The second component of a marrage is the legal benefits.  These are
> purely a matter of planning.  If two people have enough forethouht
> and commitment to get married (and here I eschew the notion that
> homosexual "marrages" are transitory, flighty things) then it is wholly
> irresponsibile for them to not make the legal arrangements between each
> other.
> 
> When I hear of a homosexual couple who are "caught" in a problem like
> a will, access in a hospital, etc, I always have the same question:
> Why didn't they take care of it before the tragedy?

Because it is not something which occurs to most people to forsee. 
Heterosexuals don't have to go to alot of trouble (and legal fees!) to get all
these arrangements.  All my wife and I had to do to get all these goodies was
shell out $40 to the Cook County clerk of courts, have an Witch (Robin and I 
are Wiccan, which religion has legal recognition) sign the marriage license, 
and mail it in.  A same-sex couple has to draw up contracts, probably run it
past a lawyer (for considerably more than $40), and still not be able to file a
joint tax return, get included on their spouse's health benefits, and so
forth.

> The marrage-related rights that are legal in nature are wholly conferable
> in every state by a simple contract between the two.  Given the seriousness
> of marrage, I have little sympathy for people who consider it too
> bothersome to arrange the legal details.

Yet you have no problem making some people go to a whole lot more trouble to
get them taken care of than others.

> Our tax code is designed to elicit certain behavior.  A family unit is
> a good thing.  Tax code that encourages family units is good.

A same-sex couple which is married *is* a family.
 
> You want me to accept you and your rights.  I do.  

Bull.  You have just advocated governmental discrimination against gays. 
Exactly what rights of gays and lesbians do you take yourself to support?

>But, can't you accept
> me and my rights?   One of my rights is to not participate in a system
> that supports things I find religously objectionable.  If my tax dollars
> are used to encourage, or legitimise homosexuality, you tax me for a
> purpose I find objectionable. 

By this logic, Quakers should not have to pay for the military, Moslems should
not have to pay for foreign aid to Israel, Jews should not have to pay for
foreign aid to Arab nations, and so forth.  Our tax dollars can be shown to pay
for something that is religiously objectionable to just about every religion.

> If you make me hire homosexuals, you remove my right to association.

Do you also oppose previous civil rights legislation making you hire women and
minorities?

> 
> I know that these arguments have been used before, as a basis for
> continuing Seperate but Equal, for example.  The court and society
> rejected them.  I find their application here to be different.  Why?
> Substitute "adultry" for "homosexual" in your demands.  

Adultery is not comparable to homosexuality, as adultery involves (by
definition) violation of one's promise of monogamy to another.

>Should I be taxed to encourage or legitimse adulters?  Should I be forced to 
>hire them?

I don't see that it is any of your business whether someone is an adulterer or
not.  That is between the person, the spouse, the third party, and possibly the
government (breach of contract remains breach of contract.)
 
> Can you give me a reason why there is a difference between homosexuals
> and adulters that is important.  Don't make a moral argument, as I suspect
> we have different moral structuers.  Besides, morality should not be a basis
> for law.

You argue above that it should, in your support of discriminatory marriage and
tax laws.  Please do make up your mind.  I have said it above, but I should
probably reiterate it here plainly:  Adultery is by definition a breach ofthe
marriage contract.

> I disagree with the Army's rationale.  I think there is a better one.
> In the military 1) homosexuals would be the target of special violence and
> 2) their presence will reduce the functionality of the unit.

The Army does use #2.  They also used it to explain why Blacks wouldn't be
allowed in the Army.  It turned out they were wrong about it.

> I am in favor of women being in the military, if they meet the exact
> same standards as men, because the actually increase the unit's capability.
> The presence of homosexuals, in 1992, would lessen their ability.  mabye
> in time, as homosexuals are more accepted, that will change.  The problem
> is not in the Pentagon, whom I suspect would rather be rid of a political
> problem and let you in.  The problem is that you cannot fiat the attitudes of
> people like me.  And there are a lot of people like me (who can spell to
> boot) in the military.  And others who are not, but it is the ones like
> me that are the problem.

You're catching us in a Catch-22, Jay.  You won't give us rights until we are
more accepted, and you won't give us rights on the grounds that we would become
more accepted.
 
> Ask yourself this:  would you ask that handicaped people be allowed to
> serve?  (I know that some do, but they are in specialized areas.  I would be
> in favor of homosexuals being let into non-combat and non-field units,
> such as administration.)  The handicapped would 1) get themselves hurt
> and 2) hurt the unit.  This is too high a price to pay for some abstract
> notion of equality.  People who choose to be homosexuals have rejected that
> standard themselves.

Could you clarify that last statement?
 
> 
>>        3) To be portrayed fairly and accurately by the media
> 
> Boy do we disagree here.
> 
> From my point of view, it is religion taht is never treated fairly by the 
> media.

Has it occurred to you that these are not mutually exclusive statements?

>>        4) To be able to walk hand in hand with my lover down a street
> 
> When I was an ungergrad, my girlfriend attended North Georgia
> College, where we were not allowed to hold hands either.

Did you get shot if you held her hand?

>>        6) To not lose my job, housing, etc... because I am gay
> 
> Should an adulteror be granted such rights? Certainly not.  Why?
> Because the law should not force me to violate my religous beliefs. 
>
> Let me make another example.  I am not arguing that homosexuals and racists
> are the same thing, so please do not misunderstand me.
> 
> I rent space in my father-in-law's house.  I found out that the tennant
> was a racist.  I threw him out.
> 
> I would not allow a racist to work for me, either.

You might well find yourself sued for discriminating on the basis of the
racist's political beliefs.   Odds are the ACLU would be bringing the suit, as
they did on behalf of the American Nazi Party against Skokie, IL several years
ago.

> Should the law prohibit me from discriminating on this basis?  Once again,
> I ask you what important distinction there is between homosexuals
> and racists that would make the case for homosexuals different?

I believe that the law does prohibit you from discriminating on this basis, in
the same way that you wouldn't be allowed to evict someone for being a
Democrat, or a Protestant.  After all, the racist's religious views might
require him to be racist. :-(

> They are, however, a list of ways to "legitimise" or I would say "encourage"
> homosexuality.  There are reasons why this should not be done.  They include
> the reproductive issue, 

Could you elaborate on what the "reproductive issue" is?

>the importance of family units,

You are impeding the formation of family units with your policy, not promoting
them.

> the religous
> beliefs of the majority of people, and a host of other factors.

The majority religion gets to be imposed on the minority?  Where do you read
that in the constitution?

---===--- 
>>Wrong again!  YOUR God has already punished them with AIDS.
> 
> 1) He is your God too.

YHVH is no god of mine.  My God has names like Ra, Osiris, Thor, Pan, Tammuz,
Herne, Dagda, and a thousand others.  My Goddess has names like Isis, Astarte,
Demeter, Hecate, Kali, Diana, Aradia, and a thousand others.

> 3) My God does not punish people in this way.  People are aflicted for a
> variety of reasons and people are judged based upon what they do.  Their
> punishment is not in this world.

Have you read Exodus lately?  Something about a tiff between Moses and Pharoah? 
Ezekial?  Something about bears and baldness?  Are you maintaining that the God
of the Old Testament is not your God?

> ---
---===---
> Let me again remind you that I am not anti-gay.  I am against the
> homosexual lifestyle.

The distinction escapes me.  Can you elaborate?

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Saddam Hussein still has a job.  Do you?
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU