Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:09:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Robert

1)  Homosexuality - [willfully] participating in sex acts with one(s)
    of the same gender.

        [Note: I believe that Robert meant to define homosexuality in
        terms of WILLFUL participation in such activity--a person who
        was subject to homosexual rape would not be considered a homo-
        sexual according to Robert.]

2)  Perversion    - deviation from what is right.

        Note: If this definition is accepted, then the claim that all
        perversions are wrong becomes a meaningless tautoloty; for it
        must necessarily be the case that all deviations from what is
        right are wrong.  So, I will drop all discussion of "perversion"
        from this set and simply talk about what is right and wrong.

3)  Anything which is contradictory to God's word is wrong.
4)  Homosexuality is contrary to God's word.
5)  Homosexuality is wrong. (This follows from (3) and (4)).
6)  Whoever engages in a wrongful activity should be prohibited from
    adopting children.
7)  Therefore, homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.

        Robert rejects (6)--correctly, I might add.  His new argument for
prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children is:

6') Anybody who willfully engages in wrongful behavior should be prohibited
    from adopting children.
7') Homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.  [This follows
    from (1), (5), and (6').]

        This appears to be a valid argument.  [Logic czar, could I have
a ruling on this please.]  As such, the only way to question this argu-
ment is to question the truth of the premises.

Objections and requests for clarifications:

First, I believe that an argument can be raised that (6') is still too
strong.  Not only is it true of virtually all people (not to be confused
with all virtual people) that they engage in wrongful activity, but
virtually all people willfully engage in activities they know are wrong--
from time to time.  In particular, I believe that dishonesty in one
form or another is much more common than, say, sodomy.  Consequently,
we would still end up with vurtually nobody who is qualified to adopt
children under this standard.  Do you believe that it is false that will-
ful wrongdoing is common?

Second, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic
church, all of the followings are contrary to the will of God.  Would you
please indicate which, if any, of the following prescriptions you believe
do not correctly describe the will of God.

a)      Masturbation.
b)      The use of artificial birth control.
c)      Surgical sterilization (e.g. castration)
d)      In vitro fertilization (as well as other artificial reproductive
        technologies).
e)      Marriage for a person who is divorced.  (Note: the catholic church
        does not prohibit divorce itself--though it is strongly dis-
        couraged.)

In addition, I have sought a clarification of the premises leading (5) by
asking the following:

>> Is homosexuality wrong BECAUSE it is contrary to God's word, or does God
>> prohibit homosexuality BECAUSE it is wrong?

Robert's response:
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
>  was God". - John 1:1
>
> The answer to your question is *yes*.

        I am afraid that I do not understand this response.  Am I inter-
preting you correctly in saying that both of the claims are true?  In
other words: do you believe that either of the following two propositions
are false?

3')  If 'H' is wrong this is because God prohibits us from doing 'H.'
3")  If God prohibits us from doing 'H,' this is because H is wrong.

Or, [again I appeal to the logic czar for a ruling on this] another way
of claiming both (3') and (3") are true is to say:

3*)  'H' is wrong if and only if God prohibits us from doing 'H.'


                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu

P.S.:  I have no trap set for you.  You actually do pretty good at this
logic thing when you want to.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)