Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:31:46 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>
>Jimbo
>
>As I have previously stated vis a vis homosexuality, I think it is fine
>for people to do their own thing in private.

As you also previously stated, you believe that homosexuality is
morally wrong. Would you please tell us why?

> I frankly do not want to
>know details of ANYONE's sexuality, and think we'd all be better off if
>everyone kept it on the QT.

I think that's quite unlikely, myself. I doubt very much that we'd ALL
be better off if "everyone kept it on the QT."

> I certainly think they should be allowed
>to do whatever they want to as long as they do not try to proselytyze
>to young children about its virtues.

See, this is why you really owe us an explanation of why you think
homosexuality is wrong.

Suppose I said, I think priests should be allowed to do whatever they
want as long as they do not try to proselytize to young children
about Jesus. That is, priests are fine, but Catholic schools, no way.

>After all, in
>some sense we are all on the earth for procreation, and everything we
>do in life is in someway related to making the world more livable now
>and in the future for our kids.

I deny this claim. In no sense are we all on the earth for procreation.
(Doc Pizz has already disavowed Magic Book theory, remember.)

> Homosexuals cannot have kids.

That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
to think about it will see that it is false.

On the other hand, my (pretend) view about priests is gaining a lot
of steam, isn't it?

>It seems rather unnatural, therefore to have such sex drives, since the
>evolutionary purpose of sex drives is to further the procreation of the
>species.  Clearly such sex drives do not have this effect, and are thus
>biologically counterproductive, and in my opinion somewhat abnormal.

I have no problem with any of that. I have no view about whether
such sex drives are abnormal, and I agree with you about the
evolutionary purpose of sex drives.

I didn't realize we were talking about evolution. Now I understand
Pizz's point. Let me share some views of mine that are quite
similar to Pizz's views.

I have a theory about the evolutionary purpose of hair. It may
interest you to know that according to my theory, it is very
unnatural to shave one's head.

I also have a theory about the evolutionary purpose of breasts.
According to my theory, it is very unnatural to feed one's children
from a bottle instead of from the mother's breasts. It is
biologically counterproductive, too. So I would not like to see
anyone publically advocating bottle-feeding, though what they
do in private is their own business. Breast feeding, though,
may be done in public; indeed, it's a good idea, it's
evolutionarily commendable.

I have another theory, too. This theory actually favors Catholics,
so I don't want to be accused of anti-Popism. My theory is that
birth control and abstinence are both counterproductive, evolutionarily
speaking. I think that we are violating an evolutionary imperative
if we leave behind fewer than, say ten children when we die. Of course
I don't mind if Pizz or anyone else prefers to have fewer children
or no children, but I certainly don't want them advocating such
counterevolutionary behavior to impressionable school girls.

I hope Pizz will join me in my new-found zeal.

Jamie

(I demand a prize from Kerry for my exciting new theories. I have lots more.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU