From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:11:22 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

[wrt homosexuality]

>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.

    I say it isn't.  You say it is.  I say mind your own business.

>	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.

>	3.  I can't think of a *single* moral stand, that--given
>		the two assertions above are true--says people should

    But they're not.

>		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.

>	Nevertheless, heterosexuality is clearly not deviant.  Thus,

    As clearly that homosexuality *is*, I assume.

>	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.

>	You would simply need to replace the sexual target with
>	something else.   Shoes, for instance.  Or sheep.  Or something
>	else.   Or, rechannel the sex drive--eating, sports, violence,
>	excercise.  

    This is another one of those "points too dumb to respond to".  Just so
you know.  I'm glad you post this type of thing, though...it explains a lot
about the way you think.

>>  I may not agree, but your life is up to you as
>>long as it doesn't affect me negatively.  Get it?
>
>	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.  

>	SEXUALITY IS BEHAVIORAL.  It doesn't matter one wit that it 
>	can be "expressed" or not.  All aspects of sexuality are 
>	_behavioral_.  In fact, the sex drive *itself* is behavioral--
>	it is defined by behavioral properties and nothing else.  It
>	is not _biological_.  The operation of the sex organs is "biological"--
>	sexual orientation is _behavioral_.
>
>	It shows very shallow thinking that you are unable to grasp this
>	simple conclusion even after having it pointed out.  Thins
>	are either biological or behavioral.  Sexuality is behavioral.

    Sounds like a semantic issue to me.  I consider the behavioral aspect
to be what you do because of the drive.  If you consider the drive itself
to be behavioral, then there is no argument except wrt terms.

>>    What are celibate priests - asexual?
>
>	The nice thing about being human beings is that we are able to
>	look (however shallowly) at our own drives.  These priests
>	are either heterosexual or homosexual (a suprising number of the
>	2nd), and this is determined by what they _want_ to do (wanting,
>	is, after all--part of human behavior).  The only asexual
>	would be someone with no drives whatsoever.  Clearly, 
>	celibate priests do not fit into this category.

    This paragraph supports my point about a semantic difference.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush