From: nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.183652.14903@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.184650.5524@midway.uchicago.edu>
>nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>>It's not a blanket right, it's the result of political and cultural   
>>negotiation. 
>
>A lot of it (this being a good example) is not negotiation, but might
>makes right.  There are problems with this, which I will get to.
>
>>Americans are tolerant.  They simply do not accept the proposition that there
>>is no moral difference between gay and straight behavior.
>
>You mean some don't.  Less all the time, by the way.
>

Perhaps.  This is precisely the point.  Change may or may not occur,
but you cannot expect people to refrain from defending their cultural vision.

>One trouble with your reasoning is as much prudential as moral.  To what
>extent can a society afford to go to war on its members?  Consider the
>position of a Jew, Gypsy, or gay man in Nazi Germany.  What duty did
>such a person owe the state?  Plainly, none at all.  The state has attacked
>them, and that means they could claim a right to counterattack by any
>means which seems expedient.  If that meant shooting an SS officer or
>blowing up the local Gestapo headquarters, so be it.
>

So far, no _responsible_ person on either side of this argument has mentioned 
going to war.  If this is intended as a sly threat, give it your best shot.
You'll be amazed at the backlash against your cause.

>Now you want to discourage homosexuality, on the specious grounds that
>it will make society happier.  These grounds are manifestly specious,
>and therefore you are manifestly a bigot, because it is obvious that
>it will make homosexuals less happy, and equally obvious that it makes
>no real difference in the happiness of bigots (the only ones who could
>*logically* be made more happy.)  However, specious or not, you want
>to do it.  

Making drugs illegal makes a trememdous number of drugs users unhappy.
Making polygamy illegal makes a large number of Mormans unhappy.
Making prostitution illegal...etc.
This does not mean that those who oppose drug use or polygamy or prostitution
are bigots.

>How far does this extend?  If you want to put homosexuals
>in jail, you want to use force.  

Did anyone in this conversation ever mention puting homosexuals in jail?!?

>That means homosexuals are morally
>justified in using force back again--for instance, shooting you or
>burning down your house.  

More threats?  First you set up a straw man to represent me, then you
make these threats.  It's uncalled for.

>This is not a good position to but such a
>large minority group in.  Society has enough troubles from real
>criminals without creating a class of artificial criminals who owe
>society nothing.
>
>So this may be too extreme for you.  But what *do*d you want to do?
>Whatever it is, you've made enemies (for no reason) who have a
>reasonable moral claim to counterattack in kind.  This is no way to
>keep the civil in civil society.  The only answer is to butt the hell
>out, and mind your own damned business.  Why that should be so hard I
>really can't figure.

I will continue to speak my mind, of course, and the direction we take
as a society will continue to be as much my business as it is yours.

Roger Shouse
University of Chicago

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality