home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!world!smoir
- From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
- Subject: Re: No Liberty Without Ethics
- Message-ID: <C1II24.5p2@world.std.com>
- Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
- References: <18436@autodesk.COM> <1993Jan22.075753.29278@macc.wisc.edu> <1993Jan26.230113.811@netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:15:38 GMT
- Lines: 56
-
- In article <1993Jan26.230113.811@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
- >In article <1993Jan22.075753.29278@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
- >>
- >>In article <18436@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen
- >>Rowley) writes:
- >
- >>The argument by example -- some LGB people have done some
- >>very good things -- is not adequate to secure liberty and
- >>equality for us all. The society as a collective enterprise
- >>-- taking nothing away from its diversities during or after
- >>the debate -- will have to undertake the enormously
- >>difficult, fractious activity of *not* bypassing the
- >>formation of ethical values. You have several times
- >>mentioned taking principled positions; *this* principle
- >>underlies all others in our domain of discourse.
-
- The basis for having equality for all of us exists in the rules that our
- country uses now. We need to point out the fact that they are there, they
- are being ignored, and that this must change. I agree that we need to
- stick to a set of ethics, but that could mean as simple a concept as
- self-consistency.
-
- >At this point I think that institutionalised homophobia, and rampant
- >ignorance of who and what we really are, make rapid acceptance
- >improbable.
-
- In real terms, the government has much to do with what happens to us (or
- any minority) by use of its rules and policies. I listen to the noise that
- is starting because of President Clinton's determination to remove the ban
- of gays in the military and I hear the same arguments that were used
- against blacks in the military. In fact, there are people in Congress
- STILL who fought against blacks in the military.
-
- I think that if we were to choose an objective as a first step in making
- progressive changes, we should shoot for term limitations. The reason that
- the rules aren't changing is because the people making the rules aren't
- changing.
-
- >Coming out on an individual basis is often astaged process, and
- >i suspect that our collective coming out must be too.
- >A good first step is to demonstrate value, and to re-iterate that
- >ultimately no matter what they think of our ways, our lives are just
- >as precious to us as theirs are to them.
-
- Most people are nothing more than sheep and will follow what their priests
- and leaders tell them. Get that message to change, and opinion will begin
- to shift.
-
- Scott
-
-
- --
- Scott Moir / Satyr on IRC ______ # "There's really only one requirement
- smoir@world.std.com \ \/ / # for a Prophet, and you've got it."
- B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+ \/\/ # "What's that?"
- Also: pentangl@ursa-major.spdcc.com # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbsl
-