Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:08:42 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: pot and the kettle

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 17:17

 >>Greetings:  To Robert
 >>
 >>1)  Homosexuality - willfully participating in sex acts with one(s)
 >>    of the same gender.
 >>
 >>        Note: I believe that Robert meant to define homosexuality in
 >>        terms of WILLFUL participation in such activity--a person who
 >>        was subject to homosexual rape would not be considered a homo-
 >>        sexual according to Robert.
 >>
 >>2)  Perversion    - deviation from what is right.
 >>
 >>        Note: If this definition is accepted, then the claim that all
 >>        perversions are wrong becomes a meaningless tautoloty; for it
 >>        must necessarily be the case that all deviations from what is
 >>        right are wrong.  So, I will drop all discussion of "perversion"
 >>        from this set and simply talk about what is right and wrong.
 >>
 >>3)  Anything which is contradictory to God's word is wrong.
 >>4)  Homosexuality is contrary to God's word.
 >>5)  Homosexuality is wrong. (This follows from (3) and (4)).
 >>6)  Whoever engages in a wrongful activity should be prohibited from
 >>    adopting children.
 >>7)  Therefore, homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.
 >>
 >>        Robert rejects (6)--correctly, I might add.  His new argument for
 >>prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children is:
 >>
 >>6') Anybody who willfully engages in wrongful behavior should be prohibited
 >>    from adopting children.
 >>7') Homosexuals should be prohibited from adopting children.  This follows
 >>    from (1), (5), and (6').

 >>First, I believe that an argument can be raised that (6') is still too
 >>strong.  Not only is it true of virtually all people (not to be confused
 >>with all virtual people) that they engage in wrongful activity, but
 >>virtually all people willfully engage in activities they know are wrong--
 >>from time to time.  In particular, I believe that dishonesty in one
 >>form or another is much more common than, say, sodomy.  Consequently,
 >>we would still end up with vurtually nobody who is qualified to adopt
 >>children under this standard.  Do you believe that it is false that will-
 >>ful wrongdoing is common?

 I will *perhaps* submit to one further qualifier for #6.  The target I have in
 mind for those under #6, are those that are defensive of their wrongful
 activity.  They may be openly militant in their rejection of the notion that
 they are doing something wrong or simply be unwilling to admit that their
 conduct is unacceptable.

 >>Second, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic
 >>church, all of the followings are contrary to the will of God...

 >>a)      Masturbation.

 At least as for males - "it's better to sew the seed of life in a harlot..."

 b)      The use of artificial birth control.
 c)      Surgical sterilization (e.g. castration)

 I see b and c as the same.  It could be argued that these are an attempt to
 circumvent the will of "G"od.  I don't know.  I'm open to suggestions from
 those with a better understanding of scripture. (not the pope)

 >>d)      In vitro fertilization (as well as other artificial reproductive
 >>        technologies).

 Again, this could be seen as a method of circumvention.  I believe it is
 against "G"od's will because of its abortive nature.  More than one egg
 is generally fertilized but only one is used.  The rest are used as lab
 experiments by those that believe themselves to be "g"ods or they are
 murdered.

 >>e)      Marriage for a person who is divorced.  (Note: the catholic church
 >>        does not prohibit divorce itself--though it is strongly dis-
 >>        couraged.)

 As I expressed in a recent post to KAT, divorce is allowed for only one
 reason.  What the Catholic church believes is of no consequence.  In cases
 of remarriage after a legitimate divorce, there is no conflict with
 scripture.

 >>In addition, I have sought a clarification of the premises leading (5) by
 >>asking the following:

 >> Is homosexuality wrong BECAUSE it is contrary to God's word, or does God
 >> prohibit homosexuality BECAUSE it is wrong?

 >Robert's response:
 > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
 >  was God". - John 1:1
 >
 > The answer to your question is *yes*.

 >>        I am afraid that I do not understand this response.  Am I inter-
 >>preting you correctly in saying that both of the claims are true?  In
 >>other words: do you believe that either of the following two propositions
 >>are false?

 >>3')  If 'H' is wrong this is because God prohibits us from doing 'H.'
 >>3")  If God prohibits us from doing 'H,' this is because H is wrong.

 >>Or, again I appeal to the logic czar for a ruling on this...

 This realm of reasoning is beyond the logic czar.

 The answer to your question is still *yes*.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU