From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedrock Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:16:35 GMT

What: <1993Jan1.203932.14230@wam.umd.edu>
Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)

>> = Howard Black
>>>= Yamanari

[wrt homosexuality]

>>>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>>>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>>>		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
>>>		thieves.
>>
>>    But only those who seek help or are a danger.  Gays are not in either
>>category.
>
>	Not true (to the first part).

So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
"cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
attracted to men.

>       For the second, if homosexuality
>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).

Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.
Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that it is a danger to children.

>>>		just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to 
>>>		argue the two assertions above, try the second one, 
>>>		becausethe first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")
>>
>>    Sure it is.  It's an opinion, to which you're entitled.
>
>	It is not an opinion.  Shall I enlighten you?
>
>	Deviant:  deviating from the NORM

And thus we see a common logical and intellectual fallacy - changing
definitions midstream.

There are at least three definitions of normal:  (1) that which is
morally acceptable, (2) that which is statistically expected, and
(3) 90-degrees to (a math definition).

Homosexuality deviates from the STATISTICAL norm only.  You have not
shown that it deviates from a "moral" norm, as the word "deviant"
imples.  As Howard Black has stated, that homosexuality is morally
deviant is your opinion only, and though you are entitled to it, it
is not fact.

>>>	it is not going to draw attention as needing to be cured.  I
>>>	suppose that if we needed an answer for this question that yes,
>>>	heterosexuality could be cured.  Probably pretty easily.
>>
>>    Probably not.  Just like being gay.
>
>	Back it up.

Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.

>	At least I think.  That's more than I can say for someone too dense
>	to realize the definition of a simple word.

As opposed to one who invokes one definition of a word, and then uses it
to justify a position based on a totally separate definition of that word?

Feh.

>>>	Ahh, then--suppose that I believe it is my duty to the great and
>>>	mighty two headed cow god to sacrifice a number of cuddly 
>>>	animals every day in front of my children--is it still my
>>>	opinion, and am I still entitled to act on it?
>>
>>    Yes, no.  You are harming both the animals and children.  
>
>	It is my belief that they consent.

This is an interesting twist.  If you could demonstrate that animals
consent as easily as I could demonstrate that two adults consent, then
you might have something.  I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.
This is hardly an analogy to homosexuality.

It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
one another.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex