From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:39:25 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) says:
>>    I'm afraid Ted is right here, Kelly. You seem to be accusing those 
>>"theists" of intellectual dishonesty without considering the possibility 
>>that their religions may in fact really preach intolerance towards 
>>homosexuality as a positive moral virtue.

>I don't doubt that many religions do, in fact, preach so.  However, as I
>stated, "In the final analysis...", it makes no difference whether this
>intellectual dishonesty comes from the pulpet or the follower, it IS the
>primary reason.

    I'm afraid that I'm still confused by your insistence that the "theists" 
are being intellectually dishonest (whether they're standing at the pulpit 
or sitting in the pews). If their religion really does tell them that 
homosexuality is unacceptable, then I would think that intellectual 
honesty would dictate that they have no choice but to go along with their 
choosen belief system. I could see how you might argue that this constitutes 
intellectual laziness in that they don't question the reasons or truth of 
what their religion tells them, but I just can't see any argument for 
dishonesty. 

    The way I understand it, intellectual dishonesty would be indicated 
only if you could prove that their disapproval of homosexuality is based 
solely on their personal feelings - I'd say that would be a really tough 
proof since there's no way to really determine what their personal feelings 
are. After all, since you're already accusing them of dishonesty, would 
you trust anything they told you about their feelings?

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that these "theists" may have 
real, deep-felt, religiously based feelings about homosexuality? It may 
seem comforting to feel that they're all just a bunch of bigots who oppose 
homosexuality in spite of what the Bible says rather than because of it,
but I think that if that's your argument, then *you* may be the person 
suffering from intellectual dishonesty.

>>    I'm afraid that when you get right down to it, the people who find 
>>homosexual behavior simply distasteful are not the greatest of your 
>>worries. In all honesty, I admit that *I* find homosexuality distasteful, 
>>but I support equal rights for gays.

>I thank you for that support, in the name of the gay community, but I have
>to disagree that this is not my greatedst worry.  With groups like the OCA
>and TVC against us, actively trying to have anti-descrimination laws overturned
>and trying to enact legislation to forever prevent homosexuals from being
>granted rights which heterosexuals take for granted, there is no other
>group which IS more worrysome.

    Well, all I can say is that I think you have misplaced priorities or 
skewed definitions. I sincerely doubt that OCA and TVC are doing what they 
do just because they find homosexuality distasteful. As I've already pointed 
out, *I* find it distasteful but you don't see me trying to overturn any 
legislation. IMHO the motivations of those two groups are really based 
on religious beliefs, and I don't think you do your cause any good by 
questioning their honesty or trying to second-guess the depth of their 
convictions. You're certainly not going to win any sympathy from any 
Christians by calling them a pack of liars.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5001 alt.rush-limbaugh:4186