From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:41:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.j3kmvtq.phil
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <14nhu1INN238@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
    >>Is it fear or dislike? I can not stand lima beans, yet I am
    >>not lima bean phobic. I think that much of what really ticks
    >>me off in these kinds of discussion is the refusal to make a
    >>distinction between dislike, especially strong dislike, and
    >>fear.
    >>
    >Here's why people are accusing you and Clayton of being
    >phobic and not just having a strong dislike for gays. People
    >who don't like lima beans simply don't eat them. But to
    >continue this analogy, you and Clayton go beyond just not
    >eating lima beans. You (but more especially Clayton) use a
    >huge amount of personal energy crusading on the net against
    >lima beans, doing your best at all times to cast lima beans,
    >their friends and defenders into the worst possible light.
    >The only kind of rationale for this level of intensity that I
    >can come up with is fear. If you prefer being accused of
    >obsessive hatred instead, because fear is unmanly and might
    >associate you with the dread enemy, those unmanly
    >homosexuals, fine.

Eh? But NOBODY is trying to FORCE me to eat lima beans!!!

For example, two women looking for a third roommate accepted a woman,
then turned her down because she informed them that she is a lesbian.
They didn't want a lesbian roommate. As one of the two women had
a sublease clause, she was considered by law a landlord, and (has so far)
lost a discrimination case -- discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in housing.

Another example -- a high official in the Navy reasigned because he was
protecting one of his aides who was guilty of sexual harassment. Said aide
was a son of an old family friend. The aide is homosexual and was sexually
harassing enlisted men.

We woulkd all likely agree (?) that coed showers in the military would not
be a good idea. Most women are not likely to enjoy being naked around
men -- it is a violation of the sense of privacy. If women are naked, men
will look and enjoy the show. I don't think just because a man is homosexual
that that part of him disappears. Do you claim otherwise? Yet why is their
such vehemence in maintaining the crusade against the military policy
against homosexuals? The lack of a matching crusade FOR total coed
showers, latrines, housing is conspicous by its absence -- or is there
something to privacy, expecially in sexual matters?


So HEY -- don't try to force me to eat lima benas and I won't get upset.

Deal?

    >Why don't you want homosexual role models for your children?
    >Because they might find out that what you teach them about
    >homosexuals is not true? As for myself, when my wife and I
    >have kids, I want to make sure that they *do* know that gays
    >are human beings to be treated with respect.

For the same reason I don't want a lot of people who engage/are inb
activities that are legal, moral, permissible -- because it is not want I
want for her to be, see, or ACCEPT AS O.K.

I believe in freedom. For example, all victimless "crimes", such as gambling
and prostitution, should be legal.

Yet, I don't want my daughter to be, or be exposed to as a role model,
gamblers or prostitutes.

Got it?

Should an adamant vegetarian feel free to not have adamant meat eaters
serve as role models to their young?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics