From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:18:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1993Jan6.201635.16007@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary) writes:
>What: <1993Jan1.203932.14230@wam.umd.edu>
>Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
>
>>> = Howard Black
>>>>= Yamanari
>
>[wrt homosexuality]
>
>>>>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>>>>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>>>>		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
>>>>		thieves.
>>>
>>>    But only those who seek help or are a danger.  Gays are not in either
>>>category.
>>
>>	Not true (to the first part).
>
>So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
>that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
>about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
>self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
>"cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
>attracted to men.


	I'd hardly consider 20/20 a good source. 


>>       For the second, if homosexuality
>>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).
>
>Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.


	I don't need to.  You haven't shown that it isn't.


>Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that it is a danger to children.


	If there is a *chance* that children can learn it, then they 
	should not be placed in a situation where they do so and become social
	outcasts.

	An ounce of prevention and all of that.  Better safe than sorry.


>>>>		just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to 
>>>>		argue the two assertions above, try the second one, 
>>>>		becausethe first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")
>>>
>>>    Sure it is.  It's an opinion, to which you're entitled.
>>
>>	It is not an opinion.  Shall I enlighten you?
>>
>>	Deviant:  deviating from the NORM
>
>And thus we see a common logical and intellectual fallacy - changing
>definitions midstream.


	I have never changed the definition of deviant.  Try again.


>There are at least three definitions of normal:  (1) that which is
>morally acceptable, (2) that which is statistically expected, and
>(3) 90-degrees to (a math definition).


	Obviously, only 1 and 2 apply to human beings.  Really, only the
	first.  The second is relavent (human beings constantly make
	statistical observations, but they do it non mathematically).


>Homosexuality deviates from the STATISTICAL norm only.  You have not
>shown that it deviates from a "moral" norm, as the word "deviant"
>imples.  

	Of COURSE it deviates from themoral norm.  Here's a way to test
	it:  go around and ask peopleif homosexuality is morally right
	or wrong.  Unless you pack your audience, you'll get an 
	overwhelming number of "wrong" answers.



> As Howard Black has stated, that homosexuality is morally
>deviant is your opinion only, and though you are entitled to it, it
>is not fact.


	No, that homosexuality is considered a shameful thing by most
	people in this country and elsewhere is a fact.  My opinion that
	this is based on moronic religious conventions is irrelavent--the
	opinion that I hold outweighs no one elses--but a LOT more
	people hold the opposite (homosexuality==sick, vile, disgusting) 
	opinion.  And they have a right to it.


>>>>	it is not going to draw attention as needing to be cured.  I
>>>>	suppose that if we needed an answer for this question that yes,
>>>>	heterosexuality could be cured.  Probably pretty easily.
>>>
>>>    Probably not.  Just like being gay.
>>
>>	Back it up.
>
>Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
>to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.


	20/20 isn't a good source, but even if we take it into account--they
	may not be cured of the attraction, but they control it.  I've read
	that pedophiles are very rarely cured--they simply learn to 
	control their behavior.

	(as is morally right, IMHO)


>>>>	Ahh, then--suppose that I believe it is my duty to the great and
>>>>	mighty two headed cow god to sacrifice a number of cuddly 
>>>>	animals every day in front of my children--is it still my
>>>>	opinion, and am I still entitled to act on it?
>>>
>>>    Yes, no.  You are harming both the animals and children.  
>>
>>	It is my belief that they consent.
>
>This is an interesting twist.  If you could demonstrate that animals
>consent as easily as I could demonstrate that two adults consent, then
>you might have something.  


	I don't need to.  Animals consent to *anything* by default.
	Do you think they would consent to being slaughtered and eaten?


> I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.
>This is hardly an analogy to homosexuality.


	No, it's not, which is whyI was treating it in such a silly way.
	I asked for moral arguments --CONSISTENT ones-- that took the
	devout xtian point of view (help the sinner) in mind and still
	didn't license harassing homosexuals.  No one was able.  Rather,
	they tried pathetic flames and pretending that deviant means
	something other than it does.  People try to cure deviance 
	either directly (hospitalization) or indirectly (peer pressure,
	slights, insults).

	Again--I ask for a moral argument based on the following conventions:

	1.  It is morally right to help someone who has a problem,
	whether they see it or not (drug addicts, drunks).
	2.  Homosexuality is wrong.

	Both of these are values that most people carry.  I want an argument
	that says "Yes, that's true, but...(reason not to bother homosexuals
	that isn't contradictory with #1)".  Arguing #2 is pointless--
	you can fight about it till you're blue in the face, but it wont
	change their views.  



>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>one another.


	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?

	I certainly hope that you become as indignant as I do when
	I see a man who is obviously engaging in inappropriate "love"
	behavior with a child.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc