From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:23:56 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug26.164259.29368@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) says:
>
>>In article <nate.504@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>>
>>>>> Is this [gay marriage] an idea you support?
>>>
>>>>Yes, Mr. Porter, this is an idea I support.  Other ideas I support:
>>>
Kelley writes:

>Nonsense.  Many theists have presented such arguements before, but in the
>final analysis, they are in truth hiding behinfd their metephysical beliefs,
>claiming they feel homosexuality is wrong because their god has said it is,
>instead of admitting that they are opposed to homosexuality because they
>find it personally distasteful.

The above remarks are not an argument.  They serve only to deny my thesis by
implicating motivations of the argument giver.  For example, let's say you
argue that bannanas prevent muscle cramps.

	You:	banannas prevent muscle cramps
		Muscle cramps hurt
		Hence, if you want to avoid pain from muscle cramps, eat bannas.

	Me:	You are just oppesed to muscle cramps and want people to eat
		bannans.

You see, my argument does not counter yours at all.  The logic of your
argument is still intact.  Whether I, or anyone else for that matter, find
homosexuality to be "personally distatasteful" has nothing to do with the
logic of my argument.  	


>>  There would
>>wisely be a difference made between the homosexual activity and the person
>>who engages in such activity.
>>
>And what of the people who are homosexual, yet practice abstenance?

What of them?  The would be cared for, loved, and counseling would be
offered so that heterosexual tendencies could be drawn out and amplified.

>
>>Hence, if (1) were true, homosexuals would not be denied fundamental rights
>>(in terms of natural law) if they were not permitted to marry, for allowing
>>such marriages would be contrary to the fundamental nature of reality.
>
>Again, nonsense.  If a group is denied the rights another group in the same
>society is intitled to strictly on metaphysical basis, it is wrong. 

Not possible if a certain view of reality is the right view.  If the God
Abraham exists, or if you follow the ways Zen,
then a majority of followers of this God or of Zen who have formed a
nation have all the right in the realm of democratic logic to vote for the
denial of homosexual marriages.  Not only would homosexuality not be
 a Natural right, for homosexuality would not conform to the fundamental
 nature of reality, hence it would not be a natural right to have. 
 
> I don't
>know where you derive this idea of "Natural Law", but I suspect what you are
>citing is "Natural Law according to the devinely inspired scripture of the
>judeo-christian bible."

Many people do derive natural rights from the Jewish and Christian
scriptures, but that is no argument that there are no natural rights or that
the ones that these people are suggesting are not true.
>
>I think there is a fundemental difference between emposition of morality
>and creeation of law for the common good.  Could you explain to me how a
>ban on homosexual rights could be classified as law for the common good?

One could argue from Kant that a law could be enacted on the basis of the
categorical imperative. In effect, If a homosexual behavior was willed as a
universal maxim, the human race cease to exist after one generation,
provided that women would also refuse to be given sperm by artificial means
and that science could not completely produce and embryo in a petri and
raise it to term.  Here, I am not being funny. If homosexuality was willed
as a universal maxim, humans would die off completely.  If you disagree with
Kant's categorical imperative, please give an argument (valid and sound)
against the imperative.

About the failure of homosexual rights to gain full status in most states,
it is suggested by Kelley that:

>I suspect you will be disapointed sometime in the next ten years or so...

So in 10 or 15 years we will see the majority of states give marriage rights
to homosexuals.  Please take my address and send me a note when this
happens. I presume you are basing this prediction on the false assumption
that 15-20% of the population is homosexual?  The correct percentage is
closer to 5%.  

>-- 
>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
>*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
>*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
>****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************

In closing, I find your signature to be lacking, espcially this blatant
hatred for Jews, Muslims, and Christians.  I don't think your bad taste in
signatures comports with your true person, however.

Cordially

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh