From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:45:34 GMT

In article <01GOL4CZILNK00098H@WABASH.BITNET> ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
>I think I missed something.  Do the pro-gay people out there not believe that
>the Bible is a "reasonable" guide to morality?  

O.k.  Let's try this one step at a time.

First, I don't think that I could be reasonably classified as 'pro-gay'.
I am not gay, and (frankly) I can't even begin to comprehend how someone
could be gay.  The idea means almost nothing to me.  Further, I think
that a large number of homosexual people *are* immoral.  But I'll say
more about that further down...

Second, I do not think that the Bible is a reasonable guide to morality.
In fact, I think that the Bible is extremely unreasonable.  Perhaps I'm
wrong, but I think that most Christians would agree with me that the
Bible is supposed to pick up where human reason leaves off!

>Or are you expecting us to make
>attempt to show that homosexuality is immoral without reference to
> Christianity or any other religion?

Yes.  I expect precisely that... I don't think that the task is
completely impossible, either.  

I think that many homosexual people are immoral, for a couple of reasons.
First, many homosexuals endanger their health by doing things which are
unsafe (in particular, I am thinking of promiscuity).  Second, I think
that many homosexuals (though not necessarily ALL) have psychological
problems which are only made worse by their lifestyle.

But I think that we don't know anywhere NEAR enough about the causes
and consequences of homosexuality to make any kind of blanket statement
on the topic.

>My moral code is certainly no worse than yours just because mine is 
>based in religion.  In fact, mine is infinitely
>better, since it is based upon eternal truths as opposed to mere human whims.

Be careful how you casually toss around the word 'whims'.  My moral code
is based on a careful application of thought to reality.  Hardly the same
thing as a 'whim'!

>Quit hiding behind your atheism and
>grant that not everyone shares your peculiar view of morality.  If you want to
>seriously debate this topic, you have to grant enough to arive at SOME common
>ground.

I'm not hiding behind my atheism.  I am an atheist.  I do not believe
in the Christian God or any other.  I don't think that any reasoned
argument has ever been given (or could ever be given) for either.
I further think that the Christian moral code is evil.

I do certainly grant those not everyone shares my peculiar view of morality.
As evidence, just look around on this list.  See the Christians who are
so ready to throw people in jail for damn near anything?  See the Christians
who proudly advocate shooting to kill?  I certainly and proudly grant that
they do not share my view of morality.

And finally, you are right... if we wish to seriously debate politics
at all, we MUST seek some common ground.  And I think that our common
ground MIGHT be found in the area of rights.  If we grant to each other
certain legal rights... so that we define a sphere of action for each of
us to decide certain things for ourselves... then we can live together
in peace.

Funny thing about this list.  It used to be that Jamie and I were
sworn enemies... we used to debate endlessly about what particular
rights people ought to have.  Lately, it seems that we are on the
SAME SIDE (incredible, ain't it?) in just arguing that there IS some
moral sphere in which we each ought to have the right to act on
our own.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU