From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 20 Dec 92 06:16:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec20.011612.18713
 <1992Dec17.213330.18648@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Dec18.182123.8870@netcom.com> 
 <1992Dec18.023243.3435@netcom.com> <1992Dec18.111915.18664@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Dec18.185059.10564@netcom.com>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec18.182123.8870@netcom.com> 
robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.213330.18648@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>The hypothesis that the *moral* end of
>>human sexuality is reproduction, is confirmed by exhaustion of
>>alternatives, -- what else could it be?

RJ:
>From your standpoint (which as we know is disconnected from the
>social, physical, and legal world), probably nothing.  I can easily
>believe that you have chosen particular definitions of "moral",
>"sexuality", and "reproduction" that leave you unable to reach any
>other conclusion than the one you state above.  Especially since
>you've spent years gathering philosophical tidbits specifically to
>support this argument, scattering said tidbits at random under the
>impression we will be deceived into thinking there's actually a
>coherent structure of thought there somewhere.

Some remarks are in order.  You know nothing of my motives, and
second-guessing them is the precise moral equivalent of Clayton
Cramer's pronouncing on the impossibility of having reasoned discourse
with homosexuals.  Likewise, if you truly feel that my philosophical
premisses are specifically gerrymandered to lend deceptive support to
an irrational prejudice, it behooves you to point out specific
evidence supporting this claim, instead of casting blanket aspersions
bereft of actual content.  Though I have no interest in tooting my own
horn, I shall note that in the past two years, not a single one among
my opponents in this debate has managed to convict me of a logical
inconsistency.  On the other hand, any vague claims of self-evident
absurdity of my premisses will cut both ways.  Exactly what is it that
makes you so anxious to refute my disapproval of your lifestyle?

RJ:
>The first rule of debate is to define your terms.  You do so inter-
>minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
>your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
>reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
>the moral basis for sex of any kind.  These definitions do not match
>mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.

Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
theoretical debate.  In any case, if you sincerely believe that
popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
are utterly out of touch with social reality.

RJ:
>For me, sexual acts are good if they enhance the emotional, physical,
>and spiritual well-being of all the participants.  No doubt this
>assertion is far too vague--i.e. far too concrete and close to the
>real world--to be acceptable to you.  Fortunately, it doesn't matter
>whether it is acceptable to you.  I know I will not convince you of
>anything; I'm concerned about the real world, from which you are
>manifestly separating yourself.

Again, this claim cuts both ways, -- if my argument is correct, it is
your chosen mode of sexuality, which separates you from moral reality.
The best you can do in this case is cut your losses by agreeing to
disagree.  Incidentally, organized crime likewise can be said to
enhance the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of all the
participants.  Of course, everything depends on your definition of
well-being.  I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
drank himself to death.  Not that I wish to use this anecdotal
evidence in support of anything more contentious than the thesis that
your personal judgment of well-being has very little bearing on the
well-being of anyone else.

In article <1992Dec18.185059.10564@netcom.com> 
robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

>In article <1992Dec18.111915.18664@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec18.023243.3435@netcom.com> 
>>robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

RJ:
>>>There is room for you in your self-created mental niche, but I suspect
>>>the vast majority of people here are seeing ever more clearly exactly
>>>how suspect your "arguments" are.  And those of us who are concerned
>>>with the real world are very happy to see those people making up their
>>>own minds... perhaps they will help in trying to make the real world a
>>>safer place for people of all sexual orientations.

MZ:
>>Nothing here to rebut, except by noting that if you think that my
>>arguments are meant to prevent people from "making up their own
>>minds", or lessen the safety of "people of all sexual orientations",
>>you are suffering from paranoid delusions.

RJ:
>I made no such claims and have no such delusions.  Certainly I feel
>that this thread has helped me make up my own mind about you, and
>judging from the other replies, I am not alone.  I thank you for being
>as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
>your theory.  (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
>that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
>and your definitions.  I don't.)

Thank you for your reciprocal candor.  You will not be surprised to
learn that I regard my premisses as unimpeachable.  However, they are
open to immediate revision, should anyone succeed in showing them to
be in error.  You are always welcome to try.

RJ:
>I made the comment about "making the world a safer place..." because
>I feel that people are more likely to accept those with alternate
>sexualities if they learn that said alternate sexuality is as healthy,
>as uplifting for the participants, and as beneficial to society as
>their own.  That is, people who know the facts about gay sex in the
>real world are more likely to accept that gays have love lives that
>are every bit as valid (morally, emotionally, and in every other way)
>as straights; and people who come to feel this way are much more
>likely to fully support gay rights.

I beg to differ.  If you have any information that bears on the moral
validity of homosexual intercourse, I would very much like to hear
about it.  But regardless of whether such information would be
forthcoming, I see no reason to suspend or taylor civil rights in
accordance with sexual preference.

RJ:
>Clearly there are people such as yourself who support civil rights for
>all humans while spending many hours (years, in your case) detailing
>why gays are nonetheless morally inferior.  I am glad you support
>equal rights; however, I believe that your views in no way contribute
>to the honest portrayal of gay sexuality, and that you yourself are
>personally bigoted against homosexuals.  This is certainly your right,
>but I feel that bigots (be their hatred only internal and wrapped in
>layers of philosophical self-justification) make the world less safe
>for the targets of their disdain.  I hope that over time such
>irrational hatred will diminish, through wider participation in
>dialogue such as this; _that_ is what I mean by "making the world a
>safer place".

If you wish to convict me of bigotry, it is incumbent upon you to
produce a proof of irrationality of my beliefs.  I assure you that you
will never succeed in this undertaking, if only because I would
immediately abjure my beliefs, should they ever be proven wrong.

>-- 
>Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
>robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
>robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
>uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2996 rec.arts.books:22585 alt.politics.homosexuality:8060