Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:07:58 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      homosexuality

 *** Resending note of 09/04/92 16:54


 >> On the surface, I would say that idealistically most would
 >> like to be able to agree with your basic premise, *no discrim-
 >> ination against anyone for anything*.  I'm afraid that just
 >> isn't possible, never has been and never will.

 >        Actually, it is not even a good idea.  People commonly
 >equivocate between two senses of the term 'discrimination;' a
 >value-neutral sense which is nearly synonamous with 'distin-
 >guish,' and a value-laden sense which refers to inappropriate
 >ways of distinguishing among people.  To eliminate discrimin-
 >ation of the first type is not only impossible, it's foolish.
 >To call for an end to discrimination of the second type is to
 >utter a meaningless tautology.  A person who calls for an
 >end of discrimination based on sexual orientation because it
 >is discrimination is begging the question.
 >
 >        However, the burden of proof for determining whether
 >some group of individuals is to be denied certain liberties
 >granted to others is on the person who seeks to deny those
 >liberties.  We may presume that discrimination based on sex-
 >ual orientation counts as discrimination (sense 2) unless
 >reason is provided to the contrary.
 >
 >        This debate has actually tended to be question-begging
 >on both sides.  Discrimination against homosexuals should only
 >be ended if it is wrongful discrimination.  And it should not
 >be ended if it is justified, but is it justified?

 >> You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.

 >        I refuse to acknowledge the existence of absolutes val-
 >ues.  Values are relational properties--relating objects of
 >evaluation to desires.

 >> There ARE such things as right and wrong.

 >       True.  And your condemnation of homosexuality does
 >not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with it.


 >> For us, as a society, to defend and/or accept wrong as right
 >> is surely to place our country on a path of self destruction.

 >        Is it any better to accept what's right as wrong?  Any-
 >thing which blurs the true distinction between right and wrong
 >is going to cause problems.  Those who (mistakenly) take homo-
 >sexuality to be wrong, and thus condemn people that are not
 >worthy of condemnation, deny liberties to people for whom the
 >deprivation of liberties is unjustified, are themselves accept-
 >ing wrong as right--and are starting us down whatever road that
 >this places us upon.

 >> If homosexuality is fine, is incest . . .

 >        When voluntarily participated in by two consenting
 >adults--sure.

 >> . . . bestiality . . .

 >        When the animal is not harmed, sure.

 >> . . . pedophilia?

 >        If it did not cause harm to the child, sure.

 >> We cannot assume that we are able to determine at will the
 >> values by which we should live.

 >        No, what we need to do is to determine by means of reason
 >applied to the available evidence.  This is hard work.  It is
 >much easier for an individual to simply decide according to
 >how he feels about something in making value judgments.  "Does
 >the thought of X upset me?  Then it must be wrong."


 Your entire discourse leaves me somewhat speechless.  I am surprised to
 find such a total void of morality *even on this list*.  Your comments
 are a perfect representation of what's wrong with America.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU