sexual orientation?
Joshua Hoe
ifjxh
Wed Jun 10 16:00:28 CDT 1998
I think the argument is getting all twisted around. All I was saying is
that an affirmative action topic would pretty much limit out orientation
which might be an unacceptable consequence. I never said exclude
anyone. My question to the Mancuso bunch was why not make the action
broader than aff action so orientation could be included. I then asked
if they had a reason for excluding orientation. My warrants for why
include orientation are currently turning into a pissing contest - which
was certainly not the intent. My goal was only to try to err on the
side of inclusivity. Josh
>From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Wed Jun 10 12:25:34 1998
>Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.E1EF39A0 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed,
10 Jun 1998 15:24:38 -0400
>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with
> spool id 64410 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Jun 1998
15:24:35
> -0400
>Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu (graf.cc.emory.edu [170.140.1.44]) by
> list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA100918 for
> <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from curly.cc.emory.edu (curly.cc.emory.edu [170.140.1.66])
by
> graf.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA25519 for
> <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: rghosha at curly.cc.emory.edu
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Message-ID:
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980610150157.28481A-100000 at curly.cc.emory.edu>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:23:00 -0400
>Reply-To: raj ghoshal <rghosha at EMORY.EDU>
>Sender: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From: raj ghoshal <rghosha at EMORY.EDU>
>Subject: sexual orientation?
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>In the absence of discussion of specific resolutions, the debate about
>whether or not to include sexual orientation won't get anywhere.
>
>Could proponents of including SO provide a more detailed explanation of
>GROUND ISSUES as they relate to SO in particular resolutions?
>
>Right now I see two possible sets of resolutions as inclusive of SO:
>Mancuso's affirmative action resolution and the more loosely worded
>"increase CRs" resolutions or ones mandating overturning decisions.
From
>my initial estimate neither set lends itself particularly well to
>including SO:
>
>a)Affirmative action--not much literature supporting affirmative action
>based on SO; not much literature opposing it. Including SO in this
>resolution could cause the Mexico and Security Assistance problem of
lots
>of cases without any literature, no good ground for the aff or neg, and
>bad debates. Or it could produce no cases in which case inclusion
would
>be pointless.
>
>b)Broader resolutions--This is the one place where I actually find the
>bias argument of those who opposed this topic area compelling. Is
there
>anyone out there who can actually defend Bowers v. Hardwick, defend the
>laws barring queer individuals from teaching, etcetera? There's simply
>too much good ground for the affirmative in this area. I didn't
support
>this topic area so that I could end up going for the Clinton DA against
>overturning Bowers, and I don't think that was what anyone who voted
for
>the resolution would want.
>
>I haven't saved all the posts discussing including SO, so a balanced
>proposal for including SO may well be slipping my mind. But I'd like
to
>hear about it if it's out there.
>
>raj ghoshal 9120 n lincoln
ave
>(847)299-1154 des plaines, il
60016
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. hate
cannot
> drive out hate; only love can do that. hate multiplies hate, violence
> multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a
descending
> spiral of destruction . . . the chain reaction of evil--hate
begetting
>hate, wars produing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged
into
> the dark abyss of annihilation."
>
> --dr. martin luther king jr., _strength to love_, 1963
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> o \o/ _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \o/ o
> /|\ | /\ __\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\
> / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>From Wed Jun 10 17:06:49 1998
Message-Id: <WED.10.JUN.1998.170649.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 66706 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:06:54
-0400
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA82052 for
<EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MACON2.MERCER.EDU by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28255) with ESMTP
id <01IY2UNA2J160014SF at Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10
Jun 1998 17:06:50 EDT
Received: from Macon2.Mercer.EDU by Macon2.Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28254) id
<01IY2UN9G4N48WXO5L at Macon2.Mercer.EDU>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:06:49
-0400 (EDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980610170523.539048073A-100000 at Macon2.Mercer.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:06:49 -0400
Reply-To: zompetti_jp at MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joseph Zompetti <zompetti_jp at MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination based on sexual orientation--sources on income
disparity
Comments: To: MWilliams <mgremillion at SELU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <01IY2QFK597U9N66E8 at selu.edu>
And what about "redneck" bashing? Why is it that whenever someone
imagines racial slurs or bigotry they portray "rednecks," usually with
a Southern accent? Perhaps my arrival to Georgia has made me more
sensitive to this issue, but I don't see the value in replacing one
pejorative stereotype with another.
Zompetti
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, MWilliams wrote:
> Just so Kevin can have some sources:
> Chicago Tribune Feb. 18, 1998. National survey of Gay Newspaper readers--average income of over $48,000 per year.
>
> CNBC News Transcripts Oct. 16, 1996. Incomes above the national average.
>
> Businesswire, 1996. Marketing firms find avaerage income for gay $36,800.
>
> Those are all above the national average.
>
> shawn Whalen mentioned something I want to respond to. He said that touting your relative income won't help you when you are getting the shit kicked out of you.
> All the Civil Rights legislation in the world won't stop a redneck from
> gay bashing.
>
> Civil Rights legislation, if it has any impact at all, should focus on areas
> such as income disparity, housing, and educational opportunity.
> Scott Elliott
>
More information about the Mailman
mailing list