From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:25:30 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec21.214821.2250@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>You are missing the whole point -- or perhaps you do see it but feel you
>must ignore it.
>
>1. We are "put here" with but one goal -- to seek happiness. All the world's
>   religions (Chritian, Moslem, Communisn/Socialism, Eco fascism) that tell
>   you otherwise ("ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you
>   can do for your country" -- J. "Benito" Kennedy) are full of shit and
>   basically are seeking your submission to their needs for their
>   aggrandisement.
>

Why is seeking happiness our one goal.  This seems very narrow and not
very interesting.  And you cannot have happiness without sadness, no
light without dark.  

When one lives in the world they are being ask to do things and to have
things done for them.  People will believe what their knowledge tells
them to believe, and so they will move in the direction that appears
best to them.  A social system, agreement has to have participates in
order to work and work smoothly- and you must submit part of your own
freedom to make it work- you benefit greatly from the structure that we
live in now, so you cannot simply divorce yourself and move merrily on
without giving it all up, or in your words, you are immoral.

>2. Happiness is TOTALLY subjective.

This is strange when you yourself support the concept of absolutes within
the realm of FOA etc.  If happiness is subjective then it is totally feasible
that I find my happiness in oppressing people and taking their property.  

>
>3. If any one comes along and tries to tell you that being happy "that way"
>   isn't rational, well, grab your wallet and run away.
>

Someone may tell you that- if fact, most of what you do from childhood up
and through adulthood, is act out processes that someone else taught you.
You latched on to things that seemed most acceptable to you, and it is all
built of a very subtle foundation of persuasion and 'coercion'.
>
>You keep asking me WHY I have the opinions I do. You keep bringing rationality
>into it. Why?
>
>A. Guys butt fucking each other is unnatural.
>B. We have evolved to sexually couple male/female.
>C. The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.
>D. Homosexuality in other species, such as rats, is only observed in
>   pathological conditions.
>E. And so on ...
>
>There, homosexuality is not rational.

So how do you connect 'natural' and 'rational'?  

A. How is it unnatural? What are parameters that define it as such?
B. If we apply the condition that sex is strictly for procreation,
   then this is true.  But we know that most people have sex becuase
   if feels physically pleasant.  Or at least we think it does.
C. This is open to subjective interpretation.  And keep in mind that
   sexual intercourse can mean many things.
D. This is not a known cause and effect condition.  We deduct that it
   is, in your rat case in has to do usually with overpopulation in
   a limit space, this may be a safety mechanism for survival.  Also
   there are animal observations of homosexuality that are not related
   to pathological conditions.
E. And so on and so on and so on...

BTW, why not include oral sex in the above statements.  Does this mean
that oral sex is OK period.

And as for the basis of whether homosexuality is rational or not, that
is extremely subjective.  I could pose arguments that could demostrate
that homosexual is quite rational in the arena of population control.

>
>Homosexuality is not rational. Not biologically, and perhaps not emotionally.
>
See above.

>See the problem?
>
>Probably not - at least not willingly.
>
>
>And I think that's why Coloradans passed the no special rights for homosexuals
>law. They were tired, as I am, of seeing this and that group get new legal
>coercive clubs with which to coerce other people.
>
>I am pro-choice on abortion, yet, I truly feel for people that are
>anti-abortion that see THEIR tax dollars go to support something that
>truly does revolt their entire being.
>
>Why do YOU want a law that would force, say, a Christian landlord that
>believes stronlg that homosexuality is a sin to rent to a homosexual?

Work on the sentence structure.  I know of know law that forces anyone
to rent to someone they don't want to.  There are regulations in place
that allow recourse through the legal system for people who feel they
have been unfairly treated.  And when we are dealing in the sphere
of business there is no reason to deny product to a customer.  I am
sure that many stores and restuarants could care less about my sexual
desires, as long as pay the bill, and don't do anything that is offensive.

>
>Because it's not rational you say? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps
>homosexuality isn't rational.
>

Perhaps homosexuality is not rational?  Have you changed your position
already?  You stated above that it was not rational.

>
>I don't ask YOU why you are homosexual. I don't ask you why you are "fucking
>the wrong sex". I do ask you to let me have the same freedom of choice that you

And this is the type of statement that will only get you in trouble, because
you believe (and do) have the right to make it, but it only causes furthur
clouding of the issues, avoidance at best. 

>want. You don't have to explain to me why you fuck what you fuck, and I
>don't have to explain to you why I hire what I hire.
>
>Capische?
>

We have many choices in our lives and how we proceed.  One aspect is
that everyone does what they want and when they want.  This would be
fine except for the fact that we are a community of individuals and
that for the good of the overall community we attempt to maximize and
protect the individuals rights and freedoms, while trying to maximize
and protect the community as a whole.  Our country and its' political
philosophy attempts to protect both the community and the individual
in the fairest way possible. And it is obvious that this is not always
true.

And you do have the freedom of choice to associate with whom you wish.
For instance, just becuase you rent a property to gay people doesn't mean
that you have to associate with them, except in the business transactions.
And that is the point of public domain affairs, in general you can not 
know every customer that you have, and therefore you will be associating
out of ignorance.

We would all love to live in the dream world of total freedom and total
independence, but it just isn't so.  And as long as you benefit from the
system, then you need to fairly participate, or make an effort to change
it to the way you wish it to be.  I would bet though, that most people like
the system mostly, and would not change much of it.  We are all products
of our cultural/social environment, we have the ability to becoming thinking
rational creatures and change it, if at all possible. But we are also 
prisoners within the scope of the community to the degree that we have
to make concessions in order for it to work properly and to be fair to
all that are involved.  

Rationality may end up saving the world.  Since we use so many technological
advantages it is time that we take responsibility for our actions.
Newsgroups: ba.politics