From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- dJ/dT)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedrock Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:17:11 GMT

What: <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu>
Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)

>>   = Jay T Stein
>>>  = Yamanari

[Yamanari: "Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant..."]
[H. Black: Only those who seek help or are a danger.  Gays are neither.]
[Yamanari: "Not true (to the first part)."]

>>So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
>>that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
>>about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
>>self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
>>"cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
>>attracted to men.
>
>	I'd hardly consider 20/20 a good source. 

Doesn't change the fact that the men (1)hated their orientation, (2)wanted
to be "cured" and (3)were NOT, in fact, "cured."  The sample *was* self-
selected.

>>>       For the second, if homosexuality
>>>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).
>>
>>Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.
>
>	I don't need to.  You haven't shown that it isn't.

The impetus is on you to show that it *is* learned, particularly if you
are going to make moral judgements based on that conclusion, or attach
it to the "IF" clause of a conditional.  IF you are going to do that, THEN
you will have to demonstrate validity of said clause.

>>Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that
>>it is a danger to children.
>
>	If there is a *chance* that children can learn it, then they 
>	should not be placed in a situation where they do so and become social
>	outcasts.

This is rich.  Anybody who could become a social outcast should be
"protected" eh?  This is sick, and has nothing to do with morality besides.
Except to the extent that it is a morally bankrupt statement.

>	An ounce of prevention and all of that.  Better safe than sorry.

Sure, and better remove all those fat and retarded people from society too.
No doubt *they* would be social outcasts too.

[Yamanari:  That homosexuals are deviant is "unarguable."]
[H. Black:  "Sure it is.  It's an opinion, to which you're entitled."]
[Yamanari:  "It is not an opinion. {...}  Deviant:  deviating from the NORM]

>>And thus we see a common logical and intellectual fallacy - changing
>>definitions midstream.
>>There are at least three definitions of normal:  (1) that which is
>>morally acceptable, (2) that which is statistically expected, and
>>(3) 90-degrees to (a math definition).
>
>	Obviously, only 1 and 2 apply to human beings.  Really, only the
>	first.  The second is relavent (human beings constantly make
>	statistical observations, but they do it non mathematically).

Since you so sadly and totally misssed my point, I'll try again:  Assuming
10% (or even 5% or 2%) of the population is homosexual, the average person
would be *statistically expected* to be heterosexual.  Get it?  This is
what I meant by a statistical definition of normal.  When you say that
homosexuality is not "normal," the only unarguable interpretation is that
homosexuality is not statistically expected.  This is exactly what I
stated before:

>>Homosexuality deviates from the STATISTICAL norm only.  You have not
>>shown that it deviates from a "moral" norm, as the word "deviant"
>>imples.  
>
>	Of COURSE it deviates from themoral norm.  Here's a way to test
>	it:  go around and ask peopleif homosexuality is morally right
>	or wrong.  Unless you pack your audience, you'll get an 
>	overwhelming number of "wrong" answers.

Morality by majority rule?  This is an interesting concept.  People once
thought overwhelmingly that the Earth was flat and that it was the center
of the solar system.  I suppose proof by majority belief works better
for morals than for science, mm?

While I'm on the subject, what do you thinky of a time in the not too distant
past when blacks were popularly considered amoral?  Was "mob ethics" valid
then too?

>> As Howard Black has stated, that homosexuality is morally
                                                  ^^
>>deviant is your opinion only, and though you are entitled to it, it
>>is not fact.
>
>	No, that homosexuality is considered a shameful thing by most
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
>	people in this country and elsewhere is a fact.

So you're countering my contention that it is opinion that homosexuality
IS immoral by saying that it is fact that a lot of people *consider* it
immoral.  Is that it?  More of this might-makes-right mob rule stuff?
All I can say is I'm appalled.

>       My opinion that
>	this is based on moronic religious conventions is irrelavent--the
>	opinion that I hold outweighs no one elses--but a LOT more
>	people hold the opposite (homosexuality==sick, vile, disgusting) 
>	opinion.  And they have a right to it.

Do they have the right to force homosexuals to undergo "treatment?"  You've
yet to demonstrate that they are a danger to anyone.  Forcing treatment
on someone who isn't a danger and doesn't think s/he is sick is unethical,
at least IMO.  Do you believe differently?

You are truly a sick individual.  But don't worry - I won't take
a poll on a.p.h and arrange to have your sickness treated.

[Yamanari: "heterosexuality could be cured.  Probably pretty easily."]
[H. Black: "Probably not.  Just like being gay."]
[Yamanari: "Back it up."]

>>Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
>>to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.
>
>	20/20 isn't a good source, but even if we take it into account--they
>	may not be cured of the attraction, but they control it.

So you're saying that homosexuals should deny their sexuality and remain
celibate.  Why don't you try a little experiment - why not see how many
years *you* can deny your sexuality before something gives.

[animal sacrifice analogy deleted - at least we both agree it's dumb]

>	I asked for moral arguments --CONSISTENT ones-- that took the
>	devout xtian point of view (help the sinner) in mind and still
>	didn't license harassing homosexuals.

The post I responded to made no mention of the "xtian" point of view.
Rather, the post I responded to claimed that (1) homosexuals are
"unarguably" deviant and used this "unarguable" fact to justify
society's attempt to "cure" them.  You have failed to do this.

>	they tried pathetic flames and pretending that deviant means
>	something other than it does.

You're invoking the fact that gays differ from a statistical norm and
pretending it means that they differ from the moral norm.  Look in the
mirror and see who the above comment *should* have been directed to.
You *still* have not shown that homosexuality is morally deviant.

>	Again--I ask for a moral argument based on the following conventions:
>
>	1.  It is morally right to help someone who has a problem,
>	whether they see it or not (drug addicts, drunks).

This premise presupposes that said person is a danger to him/herself or
to others.  You have not shown that it is.

>	2.  Homosexuality is wrong.

You have not demonstrated this either.

>	I want an argument
>	that says "Yes, that's true, but...

Why, when it isn't even true in the first place?

>	Arguing #2 is pointless--

Yeah, yeah, that's what you keep saying, and your only defense is, "Well,
that's what *most* people think, so it *must* be right."  Uh-huh.

>	you can fight about it till you're blue in the face, but it wont
>	change their views.  

Won't make their views valid, either.  Not unless they can express some
logical consistency in those views.  I don't see that from you.

>>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>>one another.
>
>	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?

Some people think S&M is "perversion."  Some people think masturbation is
perversion.  They can think whatever they like for themselves.

In other words, Yamanari, *you* don't get to make the call if you're not
one of the consenting adults in question.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality