From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.204903.27695@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes...
}In article <21AUG199215151282@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes...
}>
}>}6) I do not think that a law should be made against homosexuality b/c I said
}>}   so or b/c it is in my religion.
}>
}>Well, for once we agree. I would go further, and say that the govenment has
}>an obligation to ensure that it does not discriminate against homosexuals
}>legally. Which it _does_ currently. Homosexuals are not allowed in the
}>military. Couples are not allowed the same legal rights that hetero. couples
}>are. What possible justification, other than religious, can you possibly give
}>for that?
}>
}Some analogies:  What possible justification can you possibly give for not
}allowing prostitutes to practice their trade?  

None.

}What possible justification
}can you possibly give for not allowing brothers and sisters or first
}cousins to marry?  

Only that children born of inbreeding _that_ close have a higher likelyhood
of congenital defects. (Any weakness in one parent's genes is not as likely
to be made up for when the other parent has nearly identical genes). I
still wouldn't suggest a law forbidding it.

}What possible justification can you give for not 
}allowing children under the age of 18 to have the free choice to engage
}in sexual relations with adults?  

Age 18? None. Before puberty, their physical body is not yet adapted to
engage in intercourse.

}The point here is that while a just
}society may tolerate various activities, it is not always obligated to
}do so and is certainly not obligated to legally sanction them.  

Whether 'society' sanctions them or not is irrelevant. The _government_
has no business in discriminating against homosexuals when the _only_
justification is religiously based. If you can come up with an undeniable
justification for discriminating against homosexuals that is not religiously
based, I might agree with you. I doubt seriously that you, or anyone else
can.

}For
}example, most Americans do not worry about and would not interfere with
}what two adults do in private.  But do not expect that they will ever
}allow the same legal recognition of homosexual "marriages" that they 
}grant to heterosexual ones.

Expect, hell... I demand it. There was a bill _almost_ passed in Congress
this session that would have given just that. I feel confidant in asuring
you that it will happen within the decade, if not within the next four years.

}Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago
}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism