X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:50:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>Regardless, it seems self-evident that children growing up in such an
>>environment would find their moral health jeopardized.

>Will it surprise you to learn that this is far from self-evident
>to many of us?

Of course not.  If you don't see homosexuality as immoral, then I see no
grounds for claiming that the child's moral health is in danger.

More on this later (probably).

>>Unless, of course, you don't think the state should do that.  In which case I
>>assume you would also be perfectly comfortable putting a 6 year old kid in a
>>house with a chronic alcoholic or prostitute.  Do you?

>The harm that results from being raised in an alcoholic family is one
>that we all recognize. It is psychological, documentable, scientific.
>We do hold that it is sometimes justifiable to remove a child from
>a household in which it is likely to be harmed. (Hilary Clinton
>got raked over the coals for saying so, but I think we do all
>believe it anyway.)

Okay, you handled one hypothetical situation (the one with the alcoholic).  Now
what about putting a kid in the home of a prostitute (assuming you live in
Nevada where it's legal -- keep the crime element out of it).  Would you be
comfortable allowing a prostitute to adopt a child?  It seems to me that this
situation is almost identical to that of gay adoptions since they both deal
with activities between consenting adults.  And aside from scripture, I can
think of no reason why prostitution is any more/less moral than homosexuality.
So would you differentiate between the two, and, if so, why?

>There is a reasonable (though controversial) position that says, when
>we face issues over which there is genuine and deeply contested
>disagreement in our society, disagreement that is sincere and moral,
>in the sense that there are people on either side who have considered,
>reflective, reasoned moral positions, then we let majoritarian
>democracy decide the question. (There is also a reasonable position
>that says that in such cases, the government should stay out.)
>But we have some standards for what should count as a considered,
>reasoned, moral position. Simply appealing to revealed truth cannot
>be enough. If a majority claims that it is revealed to them that
>JasonZ is a witch, that is not a good enough reason to let his
>execution depend on a vote.

Ordinarily, I would say that the gov't should stay out and let people deal with
these problems themselves.  This means letting gays engage in whatever
activities they want (assuming consenting adults, of course).  It also means
giving those who disapprove of homosexuality the right to avoid them (not hire
them if you own a business, etc.).  Such laissez faire ought to work both ways.

In the case of adoption, though, we're not dealing with adults.  We are dealing
with children, and I feel that the state (as the child's "parent") has the
responsibility to safeguard the child's moral development, which requires the
state to adopt the moral position of the community.  As far as I'm concerned,
Biblical "revealed" truth is good enough since it has some written, concrete
basis.

As far as the execution example goes, I am not a ward of the state.  I would
also never support any attempt to execute people based on a revealed truth
(fortunately, Christianity does not advcate genocide).  That would be a case of
unwarranted gov't intervention (to the extreme).

>>No, there is a relationship.  You yourself said that you just "live and let
>>live."  Does that mean that you have no moral objection to bestiality?  I thin
   k
>>the point Robert was making is that is that homosexuality is a morally deviant
>>lifestyle similar to that lived by the beastiality-lover.  I see no differece
>>between the two in a moral sense, but maybe you do.  If so, I'd appreciate you
   r
>>reasoning.

>We've already heard about beastiality. But in any case, what exactly
>is the similarity between homosexuality and child molesting? Is it
>anything besides the fact that they seem similar to you? That they
>are both "deviant" (by which perhaps you mean, "different")?

>If you truly see no difference between love between consenting
>adults, a voluntary association, on the one hand, and assault
>against a child, on the other, then there isn't much point in
>continuing the discussion.

I never said that child molestation and homosexuality had anything in common.
That was Robert (I responded to Carolyn's arguments with several people,
including myself).  I agree with you that there is a big difference (consent).

I have yet to hear the difference between bestiality and homosexuality, though.
Both are considered immoral only because of revealed truth, and neither harms
anyone else.  So what IS the difference, as you see it?  Or is there none?

>>Out of curiosity, how do you know that being gay won't impact upon your
>>parenting skills?

>Huh?
>How do you know that being an economist won't impact upon your
>parenting skills?

My point here was that if homosexuality is genetically determined, then other
areas of behavior could be genetically determined as well.  I saw a report the
other night on the Discovery Channel that said that the same lack of
testosterone which might cause men to be gay also produces effeminate behavior
in some of those men -- that stereotype has some basis in fact.  I'm not sure
if any of this is true, but since parenting ability (or at least parenting
style) is also partly controlled by sex hormones (the maternal instinct), then
its not inconcievable that being lesbian and poor parenting skills *could* be
correlated.

I'm not really convinced by the chemical/genetic arguments, but many gays make
that argument, while refusing to concede that other aspects of their behavior,
aside from sexual preference, could be determined by the same hormone imbalance.

>Nobody has a right to attend medical school. I mean, no one has
>a right to be admitted to medical school. But, if Carolyn is
>denied admission to a state medical school because of racial
                       ^^^^^
>prejudice, then her right to equal protection is violated.
>And the same is true if she is denied admission because of
>her sexual preference.

True, assuming you limit your argument to state schools.  As far as I'm
concerned, public institutions ought to admit whoever regardless of sexual
orientation, race, etc. regardless of the 14th Amendment.  It's just the right
thing to do.

Private institutions (including businesses) are a different matter entirely
since that is a case of two individuals reaching a contract.  Again, the
governemnt should keep its hands off these individual affairs.


>>But by excluding religion, you've arbitrarily cut off
>>the anti-homosexuality arguments.  That's kind of like saying that there's no
>>non-political reason to have a democratic governement.

>The cut-off isn't arbitrary.
>Religious bases of arguments are excluded for a good reason. Revealed
>truth is not available to the public at large. We can't argue about
>it in any meaningful way, we cannot inspect it to check whether it
>is true, we cannot test it or look into its premises. In these ways,
>appeal to revealed truth IS like bigotry. We have no ground for your
>claim that homosexuality is immoral except you word, your assurance
>that it is. I'm not saying that it is the same as bigotry. Only that
>the differences are not of a kind that are relevant in the context
>of political decision making.

This is why we'll never agree on these issues.  I don't think that just any
revealed truth should be used for political decision making.  But Christianity
is not just any revealed truth.  At least 50% of the population considers
itself some brand of Christian.  That alone is enough, in my books, for that
particular revealed truth to advance to a legitimate moral philosophy.  The
same goes for any major religion.  I don't agree with Hinduism, but I don't
question its legitimacy as a moral code (flawed as it may be).

As far as testing the truth of this revealed truth goes, what makes you think
we can test the eternal truth of human logic, which I assume you use as a
replacement for religion?  Rational, thoughtful human beings genuinely disagree
on an infinite number of issues.  This fact alone suggests to me that human
reason can never be counted upon as an eternal, reliable moral guide.

For example, many would argue that drug use is immoral for purely rational
(nonreligious) reasons.  Others would maintain that it is perfectly moral.  The
fact that this disagreement exists indicates that human reason is really no
more testable than revealed truth.

Sure, we can test logical arguments against rules of logic.  But there are many
cases (such as the drug use example) where this doesn't apply.  Suppose I claim
that drug use is okay since it harms no one but myself (I don't believe this,
but bear with me).  Under cross-examiniation, I claim that this activity is
okay because I should be free to harm myself.  Why?  Because freedom is better
than slavery?  Why?  Because human beings shouldn't control others.  Why?...
The "why"s just keep going until you get to some absolute principle which
cannot be justified in any way other than "it just is."  That strikes me as the
same as revealed truth.  Since EVERYTHING eventually breaks down to such a
dogmatic, unreasoning foundation, religious revealed truth seems to me as
legitimate a guide as any for our morality.

The main qualification is that you must follow this moral code consistently.
You cannot say "I think homosexuality is bad because Paul says so" and then say
"Its okay to commit adultery" because you've just contradicted your own
comprehensive code.  Again, this seems the same as the fact that you can't say
"you can do drugs because freedom is good" and then say "prostitution shuold be
illegal."  You have just violated your own moral code based on unrestrained
freedom.  Again, religion and "reason" seem to boil down to the same thing, as
far as legitimacy goes.

I hope this made some sense.  It made sense to me, but if its too
convoluted/rambling, let me know and I'll try to explain.  If we don't resolve
the moral legitimacy issue, we're never going to reach a consensus on this.

>Jamie

JasonZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU