From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 02:52:18 GMT

Jim Shirreffs (jpsb@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan03.020137.27692@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
ke A. McAngus) writes:
: >Milo D. Cooper (mdc@crash.cts.com) wrote:
: >: In article <1992Dec31.232748.9736@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (
Mik
: >e A. McAngus) writes:
: >: o> Jim Shirreffs (jpsb@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: >: o> :
: >: o> : If I am correct that homosexual sex is wrong am I still am bigot?
: >: o>
: >: o> Meaningless question since matters of ethics, morals, and philosophy ar
e n
: >ot
: >: o> provable as right or wrong.
: >:
: >:    On the contrary, Mr. McAngus, I can safely point out that the
: >: abolition of slavery was a good thing, especially since I'm a black male.
: >: Only a political anarchist would dare declare that ethics and morals are
: >: beyond judgment.  Please support this assertion of your's with a lucid and
: >: obvious example or two, or better yet, prove my submission that slavery
: >: is immoral false.
: >
: >A) I said "provable", as in provable from universally accepted axioms.
: >B) I obviously wasn't thinking very clearly because I did not consider all t
he
: >impications of my statement.
: >
: There are two general means
: of deriving one ethical behavioral standards. One is religious, the other
: secular. Since liberals and libertarians have a *fit* at the meer
: mention of the Bible I'll confine my remarks to "secular morality".
:
: Webster's New World Dictionary 1990
: moral adj.
: 1 dealing with, or capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
: 2 of, teaching, or in accordance with the principles of right and wrong
: 3 good in *conduct* or character: specif., *sexually virtuous*
: 4 skip 5 skip 6 skip
: n. 1 a moral lesson taught by a fable, event, etc.   (AIDS anyone?)
: 2 [pl] principles or standards with respect to right or wrong in *conduct*
:
: law n
: 1 a) all the rules of *conduct* established by the authority or custom
:      of a nation, etc. b) any one of such rules.
: 2 obedience to such rules.
: 3-6 skip
: 7 any rule expected to be observed
[this definition continues "as, the laws of health, a law of grammer"]
:
: lawabiding adj obeying the law
:
: lawless adj 1 not regulated by the authority of the law
: 2 not in conformity with law; illegal
: 3 not obeying the law; unruly
:
:
: Secular morality is obeying the laws (criminal) that govern our
: society. These laws where legislated by *our* representatives. If a group
: feels this laws infringe on their rights then an appeal to the counts
: is an effective recourse. Organizing into special interest groups so
: as to effect change at legislator level is also popular.  The bottom
: line is that secular morality is defined in criminal law statues, and
: represents the will of society. The contractual agreement
: between the people and government represents the collective wisdom
: of many generations. Breaking this contract
: (the law) is preaching the trust between an individual and society
: and is of course punishable. Secular reasoning has been that sodomy
: (butt f*****g) is immoral, that is why there are laws
: against it.

I disagree.  Many laws in the U.S. have been enacted because of religious, esp.
Xian, beliefs and not because of secular reasoning.  I have been trying to 
obtain a list of states with anti-sodomy and anti-oral-copulation laws.  I 
expect that these laws were enacted in the "good ol' days" when the church held
sway in the U.S.

:
: People take quite seriously the secular immorality of homosexual
: sex. Even Washington D.C. has laws against sodomy. The reason these laws are
: not enforced is that people take an individuals right to privacy more
: seriously. Try engaging in sodomy at the town park and see what happens.

Try engaging in intercourse at the town park and see what happens.

: Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of society feel that
: engaging in homosexual sex is criminal make it secularly immoral? You bet
: is does, by definition. Will sodomy always be criminal (immoral) in our
: society? Who knows, but until laws against sodomy are repealed, sodomy is
: secularly immoral, period.

If by "secularly immoral" you mean "illegal" then you have stated a tautology.

:
: There is not a law against being a homosexual, hence being a homosexual is
: not secuarly immoral. There is no law that singles out homosexuals. It is
: particular sexual *conduct* that is criminal, secularly immoral.

Tell that to homosexuals who were ejected from the military for orientation.

:
: Yes heterosexual sodomy is also immoral.
:
: Now before the liberals and libertarians go balistic, I want to state
: that I am not in favor of enforcing the sodomy laws. But I do think
: that they are useful in defining immoral sexual conduct. Also my
: *personal* definition of sodomy is the afore memtioned activity.

My own definition is: immoral acts are those acts that one person engages in 
which deprives another person of hir rights, property, life or liberty without 
just compensation.  Obviously, society has the right to restrain people who 
engage in immoral acts by imposing one or more of the above deprivations.

:
: Now I ask once again,
:
: If I am right that homosexual sex is wrong, am I still a bigot?

If you were correct that homosexual sex is wrong, then no you would not be a 
bigot.  However, you are not correct.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh