NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/politics/homosexu/7546

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.6 KB | 64 lines

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!ux1!fcom.cc.utah.edu!mail.physics.utah.edu!freier
From: [e-mail] (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: What about OUR rights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:05:05 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
|>
|>   There has been alot of talk recently about the rights of homosexuals, and this
|> debate has included the consideration of allowing homosexuals in the military.
|> With all this talk, however, people are ignoring what is really important- the
|> rights of American men who choose a normal and decent type of lifestyle.  If
|> America gives in to the voice of the minority and grants homosexuals equal
|> rights and even allows them to enlist in the service, then America will have
|> ignored the rights of the majority.  Just think of the man in the Navy who now
|> is forced to shower with a man who is homosexual.

It's already happened.  There were, are, and will be homosexuals in the military.
They are forced to hide it and likely remain celibate for quite a while, but
they're there.

Just think of the man in the Navy who is blackballed and stripped of all honors
after distinguished and unblemished service just because his superiors find out
that the label "gay" applies to him.  And not because he DOES anything, but just
because he tells someone.

|>   With  this in mind, America has realized that thehomosexual lifestyle is not to
|> homosexual lifestyle is not to be condoned.  Even with a president who had pro-
|> claimed he was in favor of homosexual rights, America is sending a message loud
|> and clear which is causing Bill Clinton to be a little less outspoken on this
|> issue.  It is evident in a recent Newsweek poll in which less than half of those
|> polled think gays should be allowed in the military.
|>   Assuming that the homosexual lifestyle is normal, the men and women of this
|> country realize that we do not live in a nation that caters to special interests
|> or alternative preferences.  We must protect the rights of the majority of citi-
|> zens and hold what is morally right and just.  The  message is finally loud and
|> clear.

Let me switch gears here.  Was it morally right for the Boy Scout leader to
interrogate, humiliate, and oust the Scout who came to him in confidence and
tried to discuss his sexuality?  How are you protecting the rights of the majority
by allowing this kind of crap?  Was the majority granted the right to hurt people
they don't like when given the slightest incentive?  (Note:  I am not saying the
Scout Leader had to approve of him.  In my opinion, he was morally obligated to
respect the boy's privacy. )

And what about the servicemen who have lost all the credit for their outstanding
service when they were "found out?"  Apparently it's more "morally right" (at
least to you) to make everyone comfortable in the shower than it is to make sure
no one loses the benefits of their hard work unjustly.

Ahh... wait.  I think I see your reasoning.  You believe gays have committed
hideously immoral acts.  Therefore, you feel perfectly justified and well
within the "moral right" to commit hideously immoral acts against them.
Is this true?  If it is, I think I now understand you people a little better.

Rod
([e-mail])