From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 07 Jan 93 19:20:20 PST

In article <1993Jan03.020137.27692@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
)Milo D. Cooper (mdc@crash.cts.com) wrote:
): In article <1992Dec31.232748.9736@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
)e 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 n
)ot
): 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.
)
)A) I said "provable", as in provable from universally accepted axioms.

	What do you mean by "universally"?  Everyone in existence?  Every-
one in the First World?  Everyone in America?  The majority of one of
these?  Please define.  In any case, axioms are not subject to deconstruc-
tionist interpretation or relativist moral theory.

)B) I obviously wasn't thinking very clearly because I did not consider all the
)impications of my statement.

	You're forgiven.

): 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 shoul
)d
): o>not be censured by the laws or by society. If you disagree with certain for
)ms
): 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?
)
)Yes, all other things being equal (family finances, family harmony, societal
)acceptance, etc.)

	Society is made up of two genders, male and female.  The best way
to interact with either of the two is to be exposed to their differences
and idiosyncrasies.  Surely you cannot believe that males and females are,
aside from physical characteristics, emotionally and intellectually indis-
tinguishable.  Given this, a child raised by heterogenous parents will ac-
quire a better understanding of any member of the two sexes.  Analogously,
a mulatto will very likely possess a clearer perception of both his black
parent's culture and his white parent's culture.  If you are a proponent
of the homosexual lifestyle, then you are probably all for diversity, that
is, "diversity" as defined by the liberal majority, which isn't diversity
at all, but regimented acceptance.  And if you support diversity, then
you must surely believe that heterogenous parents will better benefit a
child than homogenous ones.

): 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),
)
)What is sacrosanct about a relationship between two and only two people?

	Would you be more or less secure knowing that your wife had two
husbands?  Three husbands?  A harem's worth?

):                                          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.
)
)I am not arguing wrt "any action" but only sexual relations.

	Well, "any actions" certainly includes those that come about as
a result of sexual relations.  Homosexuality inevitably culminates in
actions, just as ethnocentricity and Christiantity and totalitarianism
and any other lifestyle or political movement.

):                                                                      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.
)
)How is this related to sexual relations?

	It is related to sexual relations in that the appearance that
homosexuality is harmless to society does not indubitably mean that
any threat to the well-being of the society at large will never be
based on such a lifestyle.  Why aren't gay people allowed to give blood?

): o> :                                                       sex with animals
): o>
): o>Nope. Animals are not adults (oh sure they may be "adult" in their particul
)ar
): 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?
)
)There is also the aspect of "consentual" relations.  How do you get the consent
)of an animal?

	Observe its reaction.

): 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."
):
)
)Thank you very much.  As I said above, I obviously wasn't thinking very
)clearly.
)
): o> :                       sex with children, etc.
): o>
): o> Nope.  Children are not adults.
):
):    But they are usually "aware of their actions," yes?
)
)Both adulthood and consent are required in the statement I mad above.
)
):
): o> All these sexual practices are beside the point. There are not groups call
)ing
): o> for society to allow them to engage in these sexual practices (except NAMB
)LA,
): 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.
)
)Ah, but since this argument is really, IMNSHO, about civil liberties then if no
)one is arguing for such "rights" I have little reason to seriously consider
)such questions.  The present day problem is that some people believe that 
)discrimination against homosexuals is warrented.  I strongly disagree with this
)position.

	The position with which _I_ disagree is that homosexuals should
have special rights.

): o> :                                                 If you are going to brea
)k
): 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.
)
)Ok.  Reason that homosexuals should be afforded the rights and privilages of
)the heterosexual community:  homosexual orientation and homosexual activity
)between consenting adults is not, IMNSHO, a detriment to society.
)-- 
)Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 

	And that is exactly what your opponents, myself included, are
contesting.  That you have a reason for your belief does not indicate
preparedness.

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