From: rlosee@unlinfo.unl.edu (Robert Losee)
Newsgroups: rec.scouting
Subject: Re: More homosexuality opinions that don't belong in rec.scouting...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 14:16:44 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

graham@ravel.udel.edu (Graham McK Segroves) writes:

>Someone made a couple of assertions recently that many people will not agree
>with when they consider the facts, and they were something like this:

>> 1. Homosexuality is immoral; and
>> 2. We have control of our own behavior and should know right from wrong.

>I do _not_ think homsexuality is immoral (I am heterosexual). I can understand
>the arguments of those who say that it is _unnatural_, given that homosexual
>contact is not nature's way of providing for our species' survival. (I do not 
>necessarily agree, but I understand.) But while I can see the logic in saying
>that homosexuality may be unnatural, I understand the fundamental difference   
>between _unnatural_ and _immoral_. Just because something is unnatural does
>not mean that it's immoral. Plastic, for example, isn't natural, but few would
>seriously say that it's immoral. Religion does not occur in nature, but I
>dare not try telling a churchgoer that he is immoral because of that fact.

>I would also hesitate to label homosexuality as "behavior" in the wake of
>scientific studies pointing to the possibilty that it is instead a _genetic_
>characteristic. If it indeed is, then, no, we _don't_ have control over it.
>Homosexuality would therefore be not a matter of right or wrong, since it would
>thus be a _natural_occurrence_. But the scientific jury is still out on this
>one.

>One thing is plain to me: those statements I quoted from another article
>_ARE_NOT_ givens. The attempt to use them to justify BSA policy shows a lack
>of depth, not to mention compassion.

>GRAHAM
>Eagle '91
>University of Delaware.

If one were to rephrase the original poster's statements to:

1. Killing is immoral; and
2. We have control of our own behavior and should know right from wrong.

I don't think anyone would object.  Yet clearly people have a natural 
capacity to anger and hate, and to act on those emotions even to the 
point of murder (look at U.S. murder statistics).  

Graham states that: 
>Just because something is unnatural does not mean that it's immoral. 

The converse is equally true, perhaps more so: Just because something
is natural (hate, killing, rape, and in the case of this topic
homosexuality) doesn't mean it's moral.  Indeed morality is frequently
based on overcoming the natural tendencies of humanity.

In part it is necessary here to realize there are two separate issues.
The first is it natural for humans to hate, to be angry, and perhaps
to be homosexual (scientific evidence must be judged incomplete at
this time).  If being immoral is based on these thoughts then we are
all very immoral creatures and morality becomes a futile thing.

The second issue is the actions based on these thoughts.  It is here
that morality more appropriately applies.  In the case of
homosexuality acting on desires, not having them, is the immoral act,
and I believe we do have control of our behavior here.

In short I don't believe the original poster's statements (Stan's?)
can so easily be dismissed.
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Robert D. Losee                 BITNET: ucas402@unlvm
University of Nebraska          Internet: rlosee@unlinfo.unl.edu
Lincoln NE  68588-0496          Phone: (402) 472-7663