🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C150KH.Gvn@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>It sounds to me like "gay civil rights" is an explicit recognition
>that gay people should enjoy the same rights and privileges as
>straight people.  And I'm more than happy to explain that to anyone
>who seems to believe otherwise.

But that is the problem with the terminology... we are both talking
about the same thing, but when the average Jane (sorry Jane) hears
"gay civil rights," she has this vision of special, different, and/or
superior rights.  Using the terminology "protection of equal rights"
drives home the fact that all we are asking is recognition of the real
and disturbing problem that our civil rights are being trampled on and
most people seem to applaude that sort of activity in the (unrightous)
name of morality, humanity, and religion.  We need to make sure that
the non-gay people get the message early that this is not a fight for
different and superior rights.  Using self-explanatory terminology has
got to be high on the priority list when vocalizing our positions.

>The "solution" of abandoning the phrase "civil rights" is not one that
>I find acceptable, however; it tastes like a kowtow.

The *please* consider "protection of equal gay and lesbian civil
rights"... the key is to get the word protection and equal in there.

-- 
|Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.barrett@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
|AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX  78741  |f:512-462-5155 |
|"No is yes, And we're all free" ---Tracy Chapman, "Why?"              |
|My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin  |