From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:02:47 GMT


In a previous article, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) says:

>In article <1992Aug26.164259.29368@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) says:
>>
>>>In article <nate.504@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> Is this [gay marriage] an idea you support?
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, Mr. Porter, this is an idea I support.  Other ideas I support:
>>>>
>Kelley writes:
>
>>Nonsense.  Many theists have presented such arguements before, but in the
>>final analysis, they are in truth hiding behinfd their metephysical beliefs,
>>claiming they feel homosexuality is wrong because their god has said it is,
>>instead of admitting that they are opposed to homosexuality because they
>>find it personally distasteful.
>
>The above remarks are not an argument.  They serve only to deny my thesis by
>implicating motivations of the argument giver.  For example, let's say you
>argue that bannanas prevent muscle cramps.
>
>	You:	banannas prevent muscle cramps
>		Muscle cramps hurt
>		Hence, if you want to avoid pain from muscle cramps, eat bannas.
>
>	Me:	You are just oppesed to muscle cramps and want people to eat
>		bannans.
>
>You see, my argument does not counter yours at all.  The logic of your
>argument is still intact.  Whether I, or anyone else for that matter, find
>homosexuality to be "personally distatasteful" has nothing to do with the
>logic of my argument.  	
>

But you do not disagree that my arguement is the truth as well...

>
>>>  There would
>>>wisely be a difference made between the homosexual activity and the person
>>>who engages in such activity.
>>>
>>And what of the people who are homosexual, yet practice abstenance?
>
>What of them?  The would be cared for, loved, and counseling would be
>offered so that heterosexual tendencies could be drawn out and amplified.
>

Oh come now.  There is no doubt that I am exclusively homosexual.  Yet
I practice abstenance.  The reason:I have not met anyone whom I have
the type of feelings that would lead to a sexual relationship.
I was in a long term relationship for many years, and my SO died.  That
was 9 years ago.

Your explanation of being cared for, loved, and counciled sounds suspiciously
like brainwashing to me.

>>
>>>Hence, if (1) were true, homosexuals would not be denied fundamental rights
>>>(in terms of natural law) if they were not permitted to marry, for allowing
>>>such marriages would be contrary to the fundamental nature of reality.
>>
>>Again, nonsense.  If a group is denied the rights another group in the same
>>society is intitled to strictly on metaphysical basis, it is wrong. 
>
>Not possible if a certain view of reality is the right view.  If the God
>Abraham exists, or if you follow the ways Zen,
>then a majority of followers of this God or of Zen who have formed a
>nation have all the right in the realm of democratic logic to vote for the
>denial of homosexual marriages.

I disagree.  Perhaps in a country which holds an official religion, this 
would be true, but no such institution exists in the United States.

  Not only would homosexuality not be
> a Natural right, for homosexuality would not conform to the fundamental
> nature of reality, hence it would not be a natural right to have. 

You keep citing this "Fundamental nature of reality".  WHAT is this?
If you are to cite natural law, do you ignor the incidence of homosexuality
in nature?  


> 
>> I don't
>>know where you derive this idea of "Natural Law", but I suspect what you are
>>citing is "Natural Law according to the devinely inspired scripture of the
>>judeo-christian bible."
>
>Many people do derive natural rights from the Jewish and Christian
>scriptures, but that is no argument that there are no natural rights or that
>the ones that these people are suggesting are not true.

I'm sorry, I don't see this as an explanation.  What do you define as a 
"natural right"? 

>>
>>I think there is a fundemental difference between emposition of morality
>>and creeation of law for the common good.  Could you explain to me how a
>>ban on homosexual rights could be classified as law for the common good?
>
>One could argue from Kant that a law could be enacted on the basis of the
>categorical imperative. In effect, If a homosexual behavior was willed as a
>universal maxim, the human race cease to exist after one generation,
>provided that women would also refuse to be given sperm by artificial means
>and that science could not completely produce and embryo in a petri and
>raise it to term.

Perhaps, but there has been no suggestion that homosexuality be willed a 
universal maxim.  All through history there have been heterosexuals and
homosexuals.  Granting homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals have 
taken for granted for ever would not change that.

>  Here, I am not being funny. If homosexuality was willed
>as a universal maxim, humans would die off completely.  If you disagree with
>Kant's categorical imperative, please give an argument (valid and sound)
>against the imperative.
>
>About the failure of homosexual rights to gain full status in most states,
>it is suggested by Kelley that:
>
>>I suspect you will be disapointed sometime in the next ten years or so...
>
>So in 10 or 15 years we will see the majority of states give marriage rights
>to homosexuals.  Please take my address and send me a note when this
>happens. I presume you are basing this prediction on the false assumption
>that 15-20% of the population is homosexual?  The correct percentage is
>closer to 5%.  
>
It doesn't matter what the percentage is.  The fact is that our legislatures
are becoming more and more tolerant of homosexual rights.  In most states,
and on a federal level, marriages of transsexual persons are recognized as
legal.  That's not equating homosexuality and transexuality, but with that
as precident, it's only a matter of time before a foreword-thinking congress
expands those rights to same-sex marriages.  
You can find this laughable if you like, but remember that the hallmark of
a society is one that changes.  If one becomes stagnant, it eventually
dies.  Extention of basic rights is not only necessary, it is logical.

>>-- 
>>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
>>*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
>>*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
>>****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
>
>In closing, I find your signature to be lacking, espcially this blatant
>hatred for Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

You make an unfair accusation here.  I hate no one, and my signature is not
meant to be an insult.  The statements made there are statements of personal
truth.

One is a universal constant on the danger of blind loyality, the other is an
expression of one of the many benefits of not believing in a personal god.


>  I don't think your bad taste in
>signatures comports with your true person, however.
>

What some consider in bad taste others consider art....

>Cordially
>
>======================================================
> Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
>   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
>     Inst.of Higher Education               
>=====================================================                                                                          
>	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
>				        (Goya, Caprichos)
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************