Unhappy with spacing behind a B767 on approach to parallel runway; an A320 Flight Crew executes go around at SFO.

Narrative

Refused visual approach clearance when issued clearance to fly Visual 28R after being vectored to 1 mile in trail of a 767 for 28L. Uneventful go around and subsequent landing executed. Following day I was advised that NORCAL wished to talk to me. Spoke to Quality Control and realized that we do not view this in the same light. I do not see the need for me to fly in trail of a heavy when operating to parallel rwys within 2500 feet of each other. I see no reason for me not to have been vectored abeam; ahead or a little in trail (1/4 to 1/2 mile) as opposed to 1 mile in trail when the turbulence reaches max levels. In addition; approach speed difference would mean I would fall further behind and more into the danger zone. I thought ATC was supposed to maintain responsibility for my heavy turbulence clearance until it issues me the visual clearance. If this is true then how could I have gotten to 1 mile in trail if they did not violate this requirement. My main reason for this report is the disagreement (cordial) between NORCAL and I as to; #1 the importance of NORCAL maintaining heavy separation for me until I accept a visual clearance; #2 NORCAL stated policy to me that putting me ahead; abeam or inside 1/2 mile in trail is not as important to them as closure rates or the fear that the 767 might pass me and consequently need to go around; and #3 their complete befuddlement at why a pilot would refuse such a clearance; quote 'no other pilots have done that'.