From: urgent@elea.umd.edu (Gen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Summary: Dogmatics in action...
Keywords: DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:43:32 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) 
(or perhaps Robert), in a "conversation" with Howard Black, scribes:
>
>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.

"it's", reffering to homossexuality, or homosexual
behavior, or homosexual "tendencies", or homosexual
behavioral longings...

"deviant", one definition being (and I think a succinct
one) 'that which deviates from the norm'. (I won't endevour
to define deviate-- then again, why not! 'veer, wander, stray').

The point: Not that one might stack the deck differently (i.e.,
one might find a different norm for comparison), but, what's so
great about inclusion in the norm?

>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
>		thieves.

Your list is strange, and I wonder if you truly believe
it. Nobody tries to "cure" anti-socials or recluses from
anything. Serial killers, child molesters, and thieves
meet justice (of one sort or another) because they infringe
upon the rights of individuals (key word: consent). The mentally-
ill are just that (and it's my opinion that we only pay what
scant attention we do to them because of their potential
to infringe upon our comfort^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrights).

>	3.  I can't think of a *single* moral stand, that--given
>		the two assertions above are true--says people should
			^^^^^^^^^^
>		just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to 
>		argue the two assertions above, try the second one, 
>		because the first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")
>

assertion 1: Can't see what the big deal is about "deviant". And
	I'm not trying to make a semantic argument here. Is
	there something wrong with being different?

assertion 2: "Our culture" likes to live nicely, somewhat
	peacefully, etc. We like to think we do what we can
	to rid ourselves of problems, the things that cause 
	interference with our "progress". Again, what does
	difference in behavior WRT the norm have to do with
	anything?

assertion 3: I guess that assertion 1 is unarguable only if
	I *assume* that deviation is unacceptable. Still, I
	really don't know what you intend to convey in the
	phrase "moral stand". Care to clarify?

>	However (see next point)
>
>>    What, exactly, needs to be cured?  
>
>	Deviance.

	I sense an impasse here. Could you please state
	why deviance is sick?

>>Can you be cured from being het (I'm
>>assuming you are)?  
>
>	Please do not make assumptions.  It makes an ass of you and me.

Gads... Tired old line. More to the point: I sense you're making
	assumptions left and right. I see your *proposition* that
	deviance is bad as an assumption.

[deletions]

>	Something that is normal is not naturally "cured" if it is
>	changed--i.e. we couldn't "cure" sleep, we would eliminate 
>	the need.  Likewise, we couldn't "cure" death, rather, 
>	eliminate or put a stop to.  Nor "cure" sex--only replace,
>	alter or eliminate.

Many things here WRT normal are subject to interpretation. Death,
	for instance, while natural, is not in itself normal. There
	are normal modes of death that can be identified
	statistically, some of which may be natural, and some not.

[more deletions]

>>In that case, it's
>>illogical to state that being gay is a choice - very few gays remember
>>making a choice to be gay.
>
>
>	The choice issue was part of the message you were responding 
>	to, not what I said.
>
>	I never said it is a choice.  I said that it's either learned
>	or inborn (what else could it be), that the latter was unlikely, and
>	said that the real question is--"can it be cured?"   The "choice"
>	issue meaningless next to that one.  And both pale next 
>	to, "if it can be cured, should it be?"--which is _not_ an 
>	easy answer--no or yes.  (see first point, way beginning of 
>	message).

Well, yeah, but I don't follow your first point. Which makes
	it hard for me to understand why it's not an easy 
	question to answer. For me DEVIATION != SICK. For
	me, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.


>>>	"Orientation"?  Sexual orientation is *behavioral*.  It doesn't
>>>	matter if it's inborn or learned or the result of being kidnapped
>>>	by martians.  _Sexuality_ is behavioral.  It certainly isn't
>>		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>    The expression of sexuality is behavioral.  There is a difference.  To
>>make the above statement shows very shallow thinking.
>
>	SEXUALITY IS BEHAVIORAL.  It doesn't matter one wit that it 
>	can be "expressed" or not.  All aspects of sexuality are 
>	_behavioral_.  In fact, the sex drive *itself* is behavioral--
>	it is defined by behavioral properties and nothing else.  It
>	is not _biological_.  The operation of the sex organs is "biological"--
>	sexual orientation is _behavioral_.
>
>	It shows very shallow thinking that you are unable to grasp this
>	simple conclusion even after having it pointed out.  Thins
>	are either biological or behavioral.  Sexuality is behavioral.

Look, if you're going to argue semantics, then start from square
	one: Sexuality refers to reproductive acts. Homosexuality
	therefore becomes a misnomer. Orientation can then only
	refer to what you wish to spawn with. But this is a rehash
	of many previous discussions. I simply wish to contridict
	you outright: Sexuality is biological.

>>    What are celibate priests - asexual?
>
>	The nice thing about being human beings is that we are able to
>	look (however shallowly) at our own drives.  These priests
>	are either heterosexual or homosexual (a suprising number of the
>	2nd), and this is determined by what they _want_ to do (wanting,
>	is, after all--part of human behavior).  The only asexual
>	would be someone with no drives whatsoever.  Clearly, 
>	celibate priests do not fit into this category.

Clearly, celibate priests are deviant. I believe Roncko 
	sells a cure, along with a special brush for
	defrocking nuns.

Deviantly yours,
gen