Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:10:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

>From: Sappho was an right-on woman!! <CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>My rules of life are basically live and let live.

Hmm.  Why does this not surprise me?  I've always thought that hedonism would
get pretty empty after a while, but I doubt I can change your mind on that.

        and why does *this* not surprise me?  jasonz, if you don't
        mind, could you PLEASE explain how you justify denouncing a
        "live and let live" philosophy, and even moreso, how you
        interpreted said philosophy to mean hedonism?

>>In the case of gays, I don't think the "prejudice" qualification applies.
>>First, I'm assuming that you don't consider a condemnation of homosexuality on
>>religious grounds to be the same as "I don't like gays because they're
>>different" or some other non-sensical argument.  Of course, even if you grant
>>that piety does not equal bigotry, that doesn't inherently justify all the
>>differences with which the law treats homosexuals, but it does justify some.

>Well, if it walks like a duck....If the net effect is discrimination, then
>I do consider them to be the same. Religion has been a tool for discrimination
>for centuries. The same argument used to justify discrimination against gays
>has been used against Blacks, women, & Jews.

Of course, the Bible does explictly condemn homosexuality, whereas it does
nothing of the kind with being black or female or even Jewish, as long as you
eventually convert.

        good of it, don't you think?  i always thought that a perfectly
        and infinitely benevolent and merciful god would never condemn
        anyone, even if they were women and didn't convert.

>>Take gays adopting children, for instance.  One could argue that since the
>>state has an interest in keeping its wards emotionally and morally healthy,
>>that the state therefore has the power to stop gays from adopting children,

>One could argue that if there was a basis for the argument. There is none.

I'm not so sure.  I do remember reading that children of homosexual parents are
more likely to suffer from emotional disorders, although it's unclear how much
of this stems from society's pressure and how much comes from being in a
dysfunctional family.

        i think that you'd best look to the actual relationships in
        said family before you proclaim it dysfunctional.  just because
        something doesn't fit danny-boys image  of a family does't
        mean its dysfunctional, but there are a lot of families that
        do fit quayle's standards that are.

Regardless, it seems self-evident that children growing up in such an
environment would find their moral health jeopardized.  And since most
Americans agree that homosexuality IS immoral, then that definition of morality
has to be used when the state protects the moral well-being of its wards.

        why does the state have to protect the MORAL well-being of its
        wards?  don't you think that they should be allowed the freedom
        of choice to pick a lifestyle they deem appropriate for themselves?

Unless, of course, you don't think the state should do that.  In which case I
assume you would also be perfectly comfortable putting a 6 year old kid in a
house with a chronic alcoholic or prostitute.  Do you?

        putting a child in a house with an alcoholic is subjecting that
        child to danger of neglect, alcohol-induced rages or sexual
        assault.  this should not be done.  i don't see how someone's
        sexual orientation or occupation has any bearing on their
        parenting capabilities.

>You believe there are absolutes. I do not believe there are absolutes. Who is
>right? Who knows? There is no absolute way of judging the truth of these
>statements.

Probably.  However, when the state attempts to protect the moral well-being of
its wards, we have to use the absolutes or lack thereof of the majority, which
means not allowing gays to adopt children.

        nonsense.

>>        If homosexuality is fine, is incest, bestiality or pedophilia?  We

>Can we cut this nonsense. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of
>these things. The only relationship is the ones created by moralists.

No, there is a relationship.  You yourself said that you just "live and let
live."  Does that mean that you have no moral objection to bestiality?  I think
the point Robert was making is that is that homosexuality is a morally deviant
lifestyle similar to that lived by the beastiality-lover.  I see no differece
between the two in a moral sense, but maybe you do.  If so, I'd appreciate your
reasoning.

        an animal really can't make a reasoned, adult decision to have
        or not to have sex.  a person can, no matter what their sex is,
        or their orientation.

>Actually, I plan on having a kid soon. Well, my partner is the one who
>will be carrying the load. I look forward to the blessed event knowing that
>my sexual orientation will not have a negative impact on my parenting skills.

Out of curiosity, how do you know that being gay won't impact upon your
parenting skills?  The argument that I've heard from many gays is that
homosexuality is caused by a lack of testosterone during a critical period of
brain development.  While I disagree with this for admittedly semantic reasons,
why could this chemical difference not reduce your parenting abilities?  It
seems to me that if genetics can determine your sexual behavior, it can
determine many other aspects of your behavior.

        so a lack of testosterone makes one a worse mother?
        ?

BTW, I wish you luck as a parent.  I sincerely hope that you realize that moral
error of your "lifestyle" soon for your child's sake, if not for your own.
At least let your child make up his/her own mind about moral issues; don't force
your hedonism upon him/her.


>>The definitions of "morality" that have obtained on this list do not
>>define morality, but only individual and corporate selfishness.

>Whereas yours defines the imposition of your set of moral beliefs on a
>pluralistic society.

I must have missed the "impostition" part.  So far, I don't remember anyone
arguing that homosexuality should be *illegal*, just that it is immoral.  For
the record, I think it should be legal, even though it is every bit as immoral
as prostitution and adultery.

Yup, I can vouch for this. It's been nearly 2.5 years since mine. I still
hear complements on how beautiful the ceremony was. It was performed at
the Unitarian church.

Why doesn't this surprise me?  "Unitarian church" is really an oxymoron.

        here we have the "if they don't agree with my interpretation, then
        they aren't really believers" thing.

>>While I also agree that a homosexual marriage is wrong morally and Biblically,
>>they are performed, and are not restricted.  I have even heard the term
>>'partnership' instead of the word 'marriage' applied to homosexual unions.
>>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>>are performing them anyway?

>Well, I can't have Angela on my health insurance, even though opposite sex
>couples can. I can't be certain that if she were injured that I would be
>allowed to visit her. I can't legally adopt her child nor declare she or
>the child on my taxes even though I will probably be the primary breadwinner.
>Just those basic things heterosexual people take for granted. The fact that
>these ceremonies exist without the legal benefits is a testament to the love
>that these individuals share.

None of the things you mentioned are "rights" the deprivation of which would
constitue illegal discrimination.

        haven't you been reading jamie's posts on this?

>That's a huge if, Robert, that many people don't agree with. I don't believe
>in God, or at least your version of it. I don't abide by your morals.

I got that impression.

        i get the impression that you don't abide by hers.

>Those
>should be my basic choices without interference from you or the state.

Once again, I don't think anyone is arguing that the state should stop you from
having sex with another woman.  Since I think homosexuality is immoral, it is
my right to live according to that belief.  That does not mean I can go around
assaulting gays.  It does mean that the state has no right to force me to enter
into a contract with you (namely an employment or insurance contract) if I
choose not to do so.

>There
>is no legitimate, non-religious reasons for the gov't to discriminate against
>gays.

Of course this is true.  But by excluding religion, you've arbitrarily cut off
the anti-homosexuality arguments.  That's kind of like saying that there's no
non-political reason to have a democratic governement.  Technically that may be
true, but its kind of pointless, or at least a shady debating tactic.

        no. not at all shady.  in order for the gov't to interfere, there
        must be legitimate, non-religious, non-bigoted reasons for doing
        so.

>--CAROLYN M. ROBINSON

>        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM
>        CAROLYNR@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU

Jason
        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU