From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Levis Drops Boy Scouts...
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:06:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug10.215839.8088@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.060422.8436@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In what universe is bigotry and intolerance a decent moral value?
>
>In what universe is exposing young boys to sexual assault a decent
>moral value?  We don't allow boys to join the Girl Scouts in part
>because young boys would rapidly learn that camping trips are a great
>way to have sex with young girls.

      Show a reference for this, please.


>Homosexuality =IS= a changeable trait.  It is as changeable as your
>religion, your political affiliation or your favorite food.  But you
>don't want to accept its changeability because doing so would mean
>that YOU were responsible for your homosexuality.

      Yawn.  Aside from the fact that whether or not sexuality is
"changeable" is irrelevant to discrimination issues, please demonstrate
to me any scrap of evidence that a person can change their
sexuality.  Could you decide to be gay for a day?


>  Most people can't
>express WHY they are liberal or conservative (except to say that
>being one or the other is ``right'') anymore than you can explain
>that you are a ``homosexual'' because you were ``born one.''  Yet
>you obviously choose to be liberal or conservative at some point in
>your life.

      I agree.  In order to be liberal or conservative, you would
need to be educated to a point where you could minimally comprehend
the issues involved.  This is not the case with sexuality.


>  You likewise chose to be gay.  You may not remember
>making the choice, and you may HATE having made that choice, but it's
>your choice to make - and even your choice to rethink.

      Please show me evidence to support your claim.


>But that doesn't change the FACT that hundreds and thousands of gay
>men EVERY YEAR can, and do change their sexual orientation.  Our
>very own Elf!! has admitted numerous times that he chooses to be
>bi-sexual.  It is quite rare to find a friend in this argument, but
>I'll take Elf's word that he did indeed CHOOSE to start sleeping
>with men.

      Oh, I understand now.  You seem to think that sexuality is
equivalent to sexual practice.  This is not the case, I can assure
you.


>  You could just wake up tomorrow and decide that you have
>had enough sleeping around, worrying about AIDS or TB, and going
>through all the scorn that you receive as a result of your immoral
>behavior.  It wouldn't be easy, but that is the nature of bad
>habits - smokers have a rough time quitting that habit, and likewise
>homosexuals that decide to improve their life have a very hard time
>as well.  But it can be done and the change would probably be very
>well worth the effort.

     Celibacy does not change a person's sexual orientation.  It
changes their expression of that sexuality, yes, but not the underlying
sexuality itself.


>>But can you decide not to like women? Would you want people telling
>>you that inorder to be accepted you must never act on your heterosexual
>>urges? No sex ever, no marriage, no kids...
>
>This is nonsense.
>
>You could just decide that women turn you on sexually.  Men do it all
>the time - we decide one week that tall skinny women turn us on.  Then
>we decide that short, muscular women with large breasts turn us on.
>Then we decide that medium sized, red-headed women with large breasts
>and Latin rear-ends turn us on.  I have never been attracted to women
>that are overweight - but no doubt if I suddenly saw some oppurtunity
>for sexual gratification (and if my wife didn't mind ;-), I'm sure I
>might suddenly find large women to be sexually attractive.  

      Interesting that you condemn promiscuity on one hand, and
admit that you might change your beliefs given the possibility of
"sexual gratification".  


>If you'd
>just realize that sexual gratification is available from members of the
>opposite sex, and then allow yourself to have a MEANINGFUL relationship
>with a member of the opposite sex, you'd see right away that you too
>can be heterosexual.

     Ah - did you know that sexual gratification may be available
to you from men?  Will you be running out to sleep with some now?
     It never ceases to amaze me that certain people will use this
tired and obvious hole-ridden argument without realizing the
consequences of its converse.


>The proof is in the machinations that you use to locate sex partners.
>Does that man attact you only because he is a man, or because he has
>the right "bear code" in his .signature?  Well, just change the "bear
>code" that you find attractive to include XX instead of XY and you are
>now heterosexual.  

     As you said before, this is nonsense.


>I've yet to find many heterosexuals that are
>attracted to the wide range of available partners.  Whites date and
>marry whites.  Jews date and marry Jews.  Cat people date and marry
>cat people.  Not because there is some "inborn" need for conservatives
>to breed almost exclusively with conservatives - but because we CHOOSE
>to be with certain people.

     Interesting examples.  What about blacks who marry whites?
Is that also immoral but changeable?  Should we discriminate against
such mixed marriages, since they had the "choice" to fall in love?


>>How can one be born immoral? 
>>Don't claim it is behavior you know as well as I do that a virgin
>>homosexual scout leader would not be allowed.
>
>How can one be born an axe murderer?  The question is MEANINGLESS.

      No, the question is sound.  Your counterexample is meaningless.


>How were you born a computer programmer or a liberal?  How was I born
>to become an Episcopalian after several years as a Presbyterian, a
>Baptist, and an atheist?

     Interesting.  Religion is clearly changeable - therefore, by
your logic, it shouldn't be protected from discrimination.


>>Who said a homosexual scout master would ever bring up the issue
>>of sex?
>
>Who said a 15 year old homosexual Boy Scout wouldn't try doing what a
>15 year old heterosexual Boy Scout would love to do if he could just
>get his hands on a troop full of Girl Scouts?

     Please stop projecting your own narrow sexual drive onto the
rest of the world.  I know 15 year olds who have quite a bit more
self-control than you give them credit for.


>The worst thing that could happen is that BSA caves in.  Then they will
>lose the respect and support of the 75% of America that finds
>homosexuality to be morally offensive (and when you take out the 10%
>of American that Kinsey pretends is gay, that doesn't leave many non-gays
>who think homosexuality is OK [ and you still have to account for
>bisexuals ] ...), as well as the support of any pro-gay people who still
>don't want their sons and daughters going away on camping trips with
>other kids that view them as sexual oppurtunities.

      Do you have a reference for this 75% figure?

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality