From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Subject: C'mon, folks, let's just ban homosexual "activity"
Summary: Don't try these analogies at home, kids...
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:59:26 GMT


Steve Kellmeyer writes:

>Society used to ban homosexuality and child
>molestation.  Now you are working to make sure it only bans child 
>molestation.  Perhaps the child molesters will work to make sure they are
>also socially acceptable and your words will be viewed as bigoted by
>a later generation.  Will that make child molestation "right" and "good"?

I haven't seen attempts at logic this weak in a long, long time.  

Analogy is a powerful tool but in the hands of the inept it falls
flat on the floor.  You have not provided ANY basis for asserting
that "allowing homosexuality" is analogous to "allowing child-molestation".
By this dim-witted logic, someone 100 years ago could have made the
statement:

  "Society used to ban blacks from voting and child molestation... [etc]"

Simply dumping two issues into the same pot and saying "Watch out, if
you allow the one you are saying the other might be OK someday, too"
may feel impressive when you write it but probably only convinces
the likes of those flunking Intro_to_Logic at the U. of Illinois.

Look, most of us agree that there are some activities that "society"
deems bad enough to "ban", and there are others that, even though
some members of society may disapprove, deem individual choices.
It is a complicated continuum:

   Society does not "ban" .................................. Society "bans"

   What you eat <-------------  middle ground/battle ground -----> murder

Civil rights for blacks have moved from one edge of the spectrum, thru
the middle and (depending on whom you ask) over to the opposite side.
Many issues from the trivial ("women cannot wear pants") to the
momentous (abortion) move thru the continuum at various rates and stop at 
various places.  Homosexuality is currently one of them which is in the
middle ground - there are those who feel it should be banned (yourself),
a growing number who feel it is none of society's business to "ban",
and "society" is grappling with how to treat it.

It is just as ludicrous to say that if we "allow" homosexuality to be
legal we might someday allow murder to be legal, as it is to make the
creative analogy you made re: child molestation.  There is no connection.
(Don't waste any keystrokes for my benefit, Cramer, I stopped even
reading your drivel long ago.)

>You dislike the idea that society may proscribe homosexual activity because
>you engage in homosexual activity.  Too damn bad.  There is action which,
>no matter how pleasant it may be to the actor(s) involved, should not be
>allowed in a society.  

Agreed - there certainly are such actions.  Now, how do we decide
which actions they are?  Ask me and I'll tell you one thing; ask
you and we'll get another.  What to do?  Go to the Bible?  Go to
majority rule?  What, Steve?

>Non sequitor.  Proscribing homosexual activity does not pass any legal, moral,
>or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
>more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that 
>proscribing an activity denies their humanity.  

"Proscribing athletic activity does not pass any legal, moral, or
or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that 
proscribing an activity denies their humanity."

Ludicrous?  Of course.  But why is your statement any less?  First,
you must convince us that there is a *reason* for banning homosexual
activity, not just make the totally irrelevant assertion that a gay person
should be able to function without the "activity".  You repeatedly 
claim that homosexual activity should be banned, but we are waiting 
with bated breath for the reasoning by which you came to this conclusion.  

>Oh, please, what gives you the right to label the act "molestation"?  You've
>just said morality is in the eye of the beholder.  You've said there is
>no right or wrong.  Child molestation, by your definition, cannot possibly
>be attacked as wrong - it is simply a different way to live one's life.
>If a 12-year old adult wants to have sex with a 35-year old adult, who are
>you to say it's wrong, hmmmmm?

Ahh, the old freshman technique of "since your moral stand is more
flexible on some issues than mine, you believe there is no right
and wrong."  It's almost embarrassing to read this stuff.

Why don't you light that straw man on fire while you're at it, Steve...

>I know several gay people.  I know several people who have used illegal
>drugs.  I know several people who stole things.  I know people who have
>molested children.  I know people who lie.  All of them are, or can be,
>good people when they want to be.  Their actions are detrimental to 
>society, however...

Ah, wait, could this be the shred of rationale we've been searching
for?  "Detrimental to society".  All right - simple enough - if
something is detrimental to society let's ban it.  Do I read you
right?  Fine - you feel that homosexual "actions" fall in this category.
If you can convince us of that, Steve, we'll all be on your side,
lining up to ban homosexual activity.  So you should be really
motivated to explain your reasoning, evidence, and source for the
assertion that if I want to have consenting sexual relations with 
someone of the same sex in private this is detrimental to society.

We're all ears.

jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know we're going to win this - I'll bet you a thousand dollars."

			- Mary Matalin, Bush campaign lackey, Oct. 92