From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 02:01:37 GMT

Milo D. Cooper (mdc@crash.cts.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.232748.9736@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
e A. McAngus) writes:
: o> Jim Shirreffs (jpsb@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: o> :
: o> : If I am correct that homosexual sex is wrong am I still am bigot?
: o>
: o> Meaningless question since matters of ethics, morals, and philosophy are n
ot
: o> provable as right or wrong.
:
:    On the contrary, Mr. McAngus, I can safely point out that the
: abolition of slavery was a good thing, especially since I'm a black male.
: Only a political anarchist would dare declare that ethics and morals are
: beyond judgment.  Please support this assertion of your's with a lucid and
: obvious example or two, or better yet, prove my submission that slavery
: is immoral false.

A) I said "provable", as in provable from universally accepted axioms.
B) I obviously wasn't thinking very clearly because I did not consider all the
impications of my statement.

:
: o> : If homosexual sex is not wrong then it should have the same moral
: o> : standing as heterosexual sex,
: o>
: o>Correct. Concentual sex between adults who are aware of their actions shoul
d
: o>not be censured by the laws or by society. If you disagree with certain for
ms
: o>of sexual expression, then don't engage in them.
:
:    Tell me, Mike, do you believe that it is just as beneficial for
: a child to have two sexually homogenous parents as it is for that child
: to have two sexually heterogenous parents?

Yes, all other things being equal (family finances, family harmony, societal
acceptance, etc.)

:
: o> :                                then what?  Group sex,
: o>
: o> Sure, if the group is composed of adults who are aware of their actions.
:
:    Assuming that group sex imposes no ill effects upon society
: (which it does, such as the devaluation of a relationship between two
: and only two people, homosexual or not),

What is sacrosanct about a relationship between two and only two people?

:                                          the fact the someone is aware
: of his or her morally acceptable actions is not the sole criterium by
: which any action should be rated innocuous, beneficial, or harmful.

I am not arguing wrt "any action" but only sexual relations.

:                                                                      All
: actions, good or bad, have consequences, good or bad, as Limbaugh states
: at the start of _Ought_.  Actions generally accepted as harmless, or
: even altruistic, can result in morally undesirable, even disastrous,
: situations.  For example, it is unwise to abruptly free a long-caged pet
: parakeet because such an animal has not the necessary experience with an
: outdoor environment needed in order to survive.

How is this related to sexual relations?

:
: o> :                                                       sex with animals
: o>
: o>Nope. Animals are not adults (oh sure they may be "adult" in their particul
ar
: o>species, but I'm talking about adult humans).
:
:    Well, both the human and animal in question would certainly be
: "aware of their actions," so why the inconsistency, Mike?

There is also the aspect of "consentual" relations.  How do you get the consent
of an animal?

: o> : sex with dead people,
: o>
: o> Nope.  The deceased are not concenting by definition.
:
:    In an effort to save you from possible future embarassment,
: minor though it may be, I will point out that the word is spelled
: "consent."
:

Thank you very much.  As I said above, I obviously wasn't thinking very
clearly.

: o> :                       sex with children, etc.
: o>
: o> Nope.  Children are not adults.
:
:    But they are usually "aware of their actions," yes?

Both adulthood and consent are required in the statement I mad above.

:
: o> All these sexual practices are beside the point. There are not groups call
ing
: o> for society to allow them to engage in these sexual practices (except NAMB
LA,
: o> but only adults are qualified to choose their own personal lifestyle).
:
:    Well, Jim and I and others here are going to point out what
: we perceive to be immoral inclinations whether they are respresented
: by vociferous groups or not.

Ah, but since this argument is really, IMNSHO, about civil liberties then if no
one is arguing for such "rights" I have little reason to seriously consider
such questions.  The present day problem is that some people believe that 
discrimination against homosexuals is warrented.  I strongly disagree with this
position.

:
: o> :                                                 If you are going to brea
k
: o> : a 2000 year old precident, you better have a very good reason. And you
: o> : had better be prepared to demostrate the correctness of your view.
: o>
: o> Southern slave-holders made a similar appeal to precident.
:
:    So?  Whether one's views are right or wrong, it's still a
: good idea to be prepared as Jim suggests.

Ok.  Reason that homosexuals should be afforded the rights and privilages of
the heterosexual community:  homosexual orientation and homosexual activity
between consenting adults is not, IMNSHO, a detriment to society.

How do you suggest I "demonstrate the correctness of [my] view"?

:
: o> : Simply calling me a bigot does nothing for your argument. Ive been calle
d
: o> : alot worse. Prove to me that butt fucking is a legitimate expression of
: o> : love between two men.
: o>
: o>Define "legitimate". It is certainly a valid expression between to people w
ho
: o>love each other, provided both people view the activity as such an expressi
on.
:
:    Jim, I must side with Mike here: legitimacy and morality are
: not always subject to mutually synonymous definitions.  To cry out
: in disgust using foul language is a legitimate display of anger, but
: to do so before children is immoral.
:
: o> :                       Prove to me that society will not be harmed by the
: o> : further erosion of our J/C moral The issue here is not tolerance,
: o> : homosexual have acheived a great deal of tolerance towards thier life
: o> : style. Not satisfied with the tolerance society has towards gays, they
: o> : now want thier deviant acts legitismized. Well your are simply asking
: o> : to much of this old straight conservative. I will listen, but don't
: o> : expect me to roll over.
: o>
: o> I would like to address the concept of "proof" wrt social mores, but my wi
fe
: o> (who is willing to let others engage in sodomy, though she refuses to
: o> participate) needs help with preparing dinner.
: o> --
: o> Mike McAngus
:
:    No comment here until Mike actually responds to Jim's chal-
: lenge, although, as a Christian, I certainly agree with Jim's point
: of view.

My problem is with the challenge "Prove to me that society will not be harmed".
"Social Science" is a misnomer because no social experiment is repeatable to
"prove" whether or not the results were produced by the chosen actions.  As a
prognosticating tool, Social Science is very weak.  So Jim is, essentially,
asking me to provide a crystal ball which will show the future based on certain
scenarios.  I can't do this.

If Mr. Shirreffs simply wants a convincing sylogistic proof, then we would 
first have to agree on our premises.  If this is what he is seeking, then I 
suggest we take this discussion to email (because I am having trouble coming up
with premises that will not be very long winded).

I approach the question of homosexual rights from a civil liberties standpoint.
Homosexual relationships do not harm society or individuals, and should not be 
subject to public censure.  If homosexuals are discriminated against soly on 
their sexual orientation then they have the right to petition for redress of 
grevances just like any other social group that has historically been the 
subject of discrimination.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh