Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:07:42 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

I know this is grossly unfair. Carolyn has only just returned,
and I'm stealing her fun. But, I'm just sitting waiting for a print
job to finish, so....

>From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
>
>>From: Sappho was an right-on woman!! <CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>
>>My rules of life are basically live and let live.
>
>Hmm.  Why does this not surprise me?  I've always thought that hedonism would
>get pretty empty after a while, but I doubt I can change your mind on that.

Now JasonZ, get a hold of yourself. You are not this sloppy when you
tell us about economics or the virtues of capitalism.

Hedonism is a way of life that extolls the pursuit of pleasure. Nothing
that Carolyn wrote implies that she is a hedonist.

>>Well, if it walks like a duck....If the net effect is discrimination, then
>>I do consider them to be the same. Religion has been a tool for discrimination
>>for centuries. The same argument used to justify discrimination against gays
>>has been used against Blacks, women, & Jews.
>
>Of course, the Bible does explictly condemn homosexuality, whereas it does
>nothing of the kind with being black or female or even Jewish, as long as you
>eventually convert.

What a break for Jews.
Still, Carolyn's main point is that basing laws on bigotry may not
turn out very differently from basing them on revealed truth.

>>>that the state therefore has the power to stop gays from adopting children,
>I'm not so sure.  I do remember reading that children of homosexual parents are
>more likely to suffer from emotional disorders, although it's unclear how much
>of this stems from society's pressure and how much comes from being in a
>dysfunctional family.

It would be a very different argument if you could show that being
raised in a homosexual household harms a child. There would then
be significant common ground for discussion of the issue, which there
is not when the premise of the argument is a revealed truth that
many of us simply do not see.

>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?

>And since most
>Americans agree that homosexuality IS immoral, then that definition of morality
>has to be used when the state protects the moral well-being of its wards.

More on this below.

>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.)

>Probably.  However, when the state attempts to protect the moral well-being of
>its wards, we have to use the absolutes or lack thereof of the majority, which
>means not allowing gays to adopt children.

Ok, here's the "below" part that I promised above.

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.

>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 think
>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 your
>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.

>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?

>Yup, I can vouch for this. It's been nearly 2.5 years since mine. I still
>hear complements on how beautiful the ceremony was. It was performed at
>the Unitarian church.

Mine was three years ago. It was performed by a Unitarian minister.

Did your Unitarian believe in god?

>Why doesn't this surprise me?  "Unitarian church" is really an oxymoron.

Kind of, yeah, you're right!

>None of the things you mentioned are "rights" the deprivation of which would
>constitue illegal discrimination.

JasonZ is correct that the things Carolyn listed are not generally
considered rights. But, it does NOT follow that her rights can
be respected if others are granted the privileges or benefits
(or whatever you want to call them) and she is denied them.

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.

>>is no legitimate, non-religious reasons for the gov't to discriminate against
>>gays.
>
>Of course this is true.  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.

There. Printing job is done.

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