From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:04:00 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

In article <1992Dec31.232748.9736@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
o> Jim Shirreffs (jpsb@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
o> :
o> : If I am correct that homosexual sex is wrong am I still am bigot?
o> 
o> Meaningless question since matters of ethics, morals, and philosophy are not 
o> provable as right or wrong.

	On the contrary, Mr. McAngus, I can safely point out that the
abolition of slavery was a good thing, especially since I'm a black male.
Only a political anarchist would dare declare that ethics and morals are
beyond judgment.  Please support this assertion of your's with a lucid and
obvious example or two, or better yet, prove my submission that slavery
is immoral false.

o> : If homosexual sex is not wrong then it should have the same moral
o> : standing as heterosexual sex,
o> 
o>Correct. Concentual sex between adults who are aware of their actions should 
o>not be censured by the laws or by society. If you disagree with certain forms 
o>of sexual expression, then don't engage in them.

	Tell me, Mike, do you believe that it is just as beneficial for
a child to have two sexually homogenous parents as it is for that child
to have two sexually heterogenous parents?

o> :                                then what?  Group sex,
o> 
o> Sure, if the group is composed of adults who are aware of their actions.

	Assuming that group sex imposes no ill effects upon society
(which it does, such as the devaluation of a relationship between two
and only two people, homosexual or not), the fact the someone is aware
of his or her morally acceptable actions is not the sole criterium by
which any action should be rated innocuous, beneficial, or harmful.  All
actions, good or bad, have consequences, good or bad, as Limbaugh states
at the start of _Ought_.  Actions generally accepted as harmless, or
even altruistic, can result in morally undesirable, even disastrous,
situations.  For example, it is unwise to abruptly free a long-caged pet
parakeet because such an animal has not the necessary experience with an
outdoor environment needed in order to survive.

o> :                                                       sex with animals
o> 
o>Nope. Animals are not adults (oh sure they may be "adult" in their particular 
o>species, but I'm talking about adult humans).

	Well, both the human and animal in question would certainly be
"aware of their actions," so why the inconsistency, Mike?

o> : sex with dead people, 
o> 
o> Nope.  The deceased are not concenting by definition.

	In an effort to save you from possible future embarassment,
minor though it may be, I will point out that the word is spelled
"consent."

o> :                       sex with children, etc.
o> 
o> Nope.  Children are not adults.

	But they are usually "aware of their actions," yes?

o> All these sexual practices are beside the point. There are not groups calling
o> for society to allow them to engage in these sexual practices (except NAMBLA,
o> but only adults are qualified to choose their own personal lifestyle).

	Well, Jim and I and others here are going to point out what
we perceive to be immoral inclinations whether they are respresented
by vociferous groups or not.

o> :                                                 If you are going to break
o> : a 2000 year old precident, you better have a very good reason. And you
o> : had better be prepared to demostrate the correctness of your view.
o> 
o> Southern slave-holders made a similar appeal to precident.

	So?  Whether one's views are right or wrong, it's still a
good idea to be prepared as Jim suggests.

o> : Simply calling me a bigot does nothing for your argument. Ive been called
o> : alot worse. Prove to me that butt fucking is a legitimate expression of
o> : love between two men. 
o> 
o>Define "legitimate". It is certainly a valid expression between to people who 
o>love each other, provided both people view the activity as such an expression.

	Jim, I must side with Mike here: legitimacy and morality are
not always subject to mutually synonymous definitions.  To cry out
in disgust using foul language is a legitimate display of anger, but
to do so before children is immoral.

o> :                       Prove to me that society will not be harmed by the
o> : further erosion of our J/C moral The issue here is not tolerance,
o> : homosexual have acheived a great deal of tolerance towards thier life
o> : style. Not satisfied with the tolerance society has towards gays, they
o> : now want thier deviant acts legitismized. Well your are simply asking
o> : to much of this old straight conservative. I will listen, but don't
o> : expect me to roll over.
o> 
o> I would like to address the concept of "proof" wrt social mores, but my wife 
o> (who is willing to let others engage in sodomy, though she refuses to 
o> participate) needs help with preparing dinner.
o> -- 
o> Mike McAngus

	No comment here until Mike actually responds to Jim's chal-
lenge, although, as a Christian, I certainly agree with Jim's point
of view.

						 _m d c_
			  Milo D. Cooper  '92   | 1992  |  mdc@crash.cts.com
						`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10536 alt.rush-limbaugh:12041