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: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:42:59 GMT


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:
>>
>>>-the rights of gay people to adopt children
>>>-the rights of gay people to equal treatment under the law
>>>-the right of equal access to housing, employment, and justice
>>>-the right to walk down the street without being jeered, belittled,
>>>spat upon, or beaten.
>>
>>    You're on really solid ground on those first 3 items...
>
>I must jump in here.  There is no solid ground when it comes to homosexuals
>adopting children.  It is  hard enough for single heterosexual to adopt, and
>this is for reasons brought into light by the Woody Allen deal.  Only a few
>states will allow it.  I believe only CA now, but soon to be NY as well. 
>Don't bet on it going any further.
>

I don't recall saying anything about SINGLE homosexual persons adopting
children, but since you raise the issue, why not?
Why should homosexual parents be denied the right to parenthood just because 
they choose not to breed?  I'm not sure it is better for a child to grow
up in a series of institutional foster homes than to grow up in a home
with a loving, legal parent, are you?  Sexual orentation not withstanding,
the Woody Allen fiasco is not representitive of the entire system (by the
way, I suspect that in time we'll learn that the entire Woody Allen thing
is nothing but an enormous publicity stunt to premote his new film.)


>Homsexual marriage?  Same as above.  There won't be more than a few states
>that will allow it.  But I would like to get to a more philosophical issue,
>that of thinking homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
>
>Everything depends upon one's metaphysical perspective.  If I hold there to
>be (1) certain moral structures that come from an eternal mind or form, then there
>will be certain types of behavoir that are morally right and wrong, although
>not always as easily discernable as some would like.
>
>I would not want to be simplistic and deny that moral behavoir exists apart
>from the above metaphysical perspective, for one could be established based
>only on (2) rational principles of conduct, such as Kant suggested.
>
>But consider (1).  One believes that God exists as the most  perfect  being
>and that a witness to part of God's revelation to the world can be found in
>the Hebrew bible and N.T.  Also, it is thought that the many references to
>the wrongness of homosexuality are not merely cultural impositions, but
>truly desires and apsects of the divine reality.  Such a belief could be
>grounded in a coherent, rational manner.
>
>Hence, a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong grounded on the
>metaphysical persptive (1) would leave one in a position of having certain
>beliefs about homosexuality becuase of one's metaphysics, not because of
>one's latent hatred or bigotted attitudes toward homosexuals.

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.

>  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?


>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.  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."

>
>Now, admittedly, there is a difference between holding a philosophical
>position and thinking that it is contitutional (U.S.) to integrate scuh a
>postion into the American law.  This is very complicated, becuase
>legislators impose their morality all the time on law that are made.  There
>is a connection between natural law and contitutional and legislative law.
>This is why manny believe they have the right to "impose" their
>understanding of what is right and wrong on the country via legislation.  It
>is done all the time, and there is no nuetral position that can be
>advocated.

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?

  The question is whose morality will be the dominant one. 
>Pluralism can only be maintained to a certain degree.  For homosexuality,
>many think that our pluralistic committment can only be maintained to the
>extent that homosexual behavior is allowed in the privacy of one's own home. 
>One will find that this perspective is held by most American citizens,

One will also find that most americans feel this way about "heterosexual
behavior, too (Or are heterosexuals now copulating in the streets?)

The issue here is not behavior, the issue is human rights.

 which
>does not mean that it is right, just that on a political note, homosexual
>rights as the activists advocate are destined for failure.

I suspect you will be disapointed sometime in the next ten years or so...

>
>I have a few more points, but I am sure others will push me into a more
>specific response.
>
>======================================================
> 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.****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh