The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/g/gayright.txt

Text File | 1993-03-15 | 6KB | 115 lines

Time for a dose of reality.

The gay community is attempting to put "gay rights" on the same
footing as the struggle that many blacks have given their all
for...many women have fought for, or any of those who have been
discriminated against because of their age, color, or sex.  It is
very wrong to do so.

The conflicts are simply too far apart to be equated with one
another.  People are born white, black, red, yellow, male,
female..not gay.  Gay is something that comes because of a person's
environment, like men who prefer their women fat, or women who
prefer their men bearded.  Societies rear their young to prefer
certain sexual attractions, but none are stupid enough to make it
a law.  Standard, "let's have children, keep the world going," sex
- requires male and female.  Anything else is
preference...including gay.

The worlds of "preference" run from simple to extremely bizarre.
The worst of these encompasses the abuse of children, or even the
taking of life.  No, I am not for even a second saying that these
cases of preference are part of the gay world.  But, as the gays
fight to achieve what they consider their "rights," others are
hanging on their coattails.  Who are "Hookers from Hell,"  "S&M
Chapters of San Francisco," and NAMBLA?

Attend the next gay rights parade.  They will be there.

Let's imagine for a moment that a NAMBLA member rents an apartment
across the hall from yours.  Your family has children, who make
friends with those across the hall.  Eventually, you discover that
NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association.  Their
philosophy runs to, "let's have sex with our children, and the
children of friends...so we don't get AIDS."  With sexual
"preference" rights, who moves?  You or them?  Who loses their
rights?

The problem is ----- WHO draws the line where "preference" stops
and deviation begins? Ignore, if you would, all the major world
religions.  Who, then, is going to say where the line goes?  Take
away moral value from the law and there are really no limits to
where liberalism can go, and where exploitation of people's
fantasies can grow into a monster that takes lives.

Would I feel secure if a gay couple moved in next to me?  Probably
just as much as with any unknown couple.  In today's world,
everyone is suspect when it comes to the safety of your children.

How would I feel if a bizarre deviant with "preference rights"
moved in?  How would you feel, knowing that if you make the wrong
move, say the wrong thing, you might violate those rights, and lose
yours to a man who likes little boys?

Gays today need to rely upon our system of laws to achieve what
they consider their "rights," their paths to liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.  They need no "Gay rights" to have the same
privileges as everyone else.

Gays can come to the same end without anyone legislating it.  The
laws are already in place to protect everyone's basic rights.  Once
"sexual preference" rights become law, the other people ALL of us
fear have their foot in the door.

Let's consider another aspect about gays, which our times are
forcing upon us....the military.  Why do you suppose that women
have never been part of the fighting forces of nearly all armies in
the history of mankind?  There have been exceptions, but generally,
women are not in the foxhole.

It's not because they can't fight.  It's because it changes the way
that men fight.  They tend to make errors in judgement to protect
the women up front that cost them all their lives.  They are less
reluctant to take the offensive when women are present.  Sometimes
enforced isolation creates emotional monsters that destroy the
cohesion of a combat unit, where raw emotional strength is
necessary to survive.

Members of our military feel that this same attitude may occur when
gays are openly members of the military.  Now, with the ban on
gays, fewer are bold enough to join, and those that do limit their
relationships.  Once this restriction goes away no one knows what
might happen?  Is Joe likely to order his friend Mark to his
possible death when they're lovers?  Is a pre-dominantly gay
platoon a good risk in combat?  (once gays are permitted, you can
be assured that they will have a tendency to group together)

Most members of the military scorn gays because of the traditional
onus society places on its members to do so.  Truth be told, this
has become largely a reflex.  Who can deny that people living the
gay life-style are not threaded throughout our entire population?
Scorn is now turning to real fear and concern that living with gays
will become a snake's pit of emotion and the fear of saying the
wrong thing.  How can a drill sergeant scream at a recruit to
instill discipline and not fear being accused of "gay bashing?"

How can a soldier, male or female, take a shower with others and
not feel that they might be looked on as a sexual object? How
secure can a young man sleep when the man above him just yesterday
asked if he was also gay?  If you have ever been in a military
barracks, you understand that there is no privacy at all, and
inserting sex into it can be very, very dangerous.

We must leave the military alone, and keep gays out of combat.  At
least we should have enough common sense not to subject them to the
hazards of living with others who fear them.

Pumping out laws and regulations to force gays into privileged
"preference" positions is dangerous both for gays and straights.
It creates resentment, fear, and a launching platform for those
with darker "preferences."  Our society is weak enough without
badgering it into accepting that too.

Dane R. Amos