From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:15:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.182912.14426@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.154816.1446@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>	This is a matter of contention.  Being black--it is not even
>>	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
>>	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 
>
>    Right, but if it's leanred, it's learned so early in life so as to have
>the result be indistinguishable from being inborn.  Neither scenario
>legitimizes bigotry.

	
	Never said it did.  However, consider:

	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
		anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
		thieves.
	3.  I can't think of a *single* moral stand, that--given
		the two assertions above are true--says people should
		just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to 
		argue the two assertions above, try the second one, 
		becausethe first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")

	However (see next point)

>>	(with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")
>
>    What, exactly, needs to be cured?  


	Deviance.


>Can you be cured from being het (I'm
>assuming you are)?  


	Please do not make assumptions.  It makes an ass of you and me.

	Nevertheless, heterosexuality is clearly not deviant.  Thus,
	it is not going to draw attention as needing to be cured.  I
	suppose that if we needed an answer for this question that yes,
	heterosexuality could be cured.  Probably pretty easily.

	You would simply need to replace the sexual target with
	something else.   Shoes, for instance.  Or sheep.  Or something
	else.   Or, rechannel the sex drive--eating, sports, violence,
	excercise.  

	The human mind is pretty pliable.  I'm sure that with good 
	application of various technologies (drugs, electro shock, good,
	old fashioned torture, modern emotional manipulation ["therapy"]
	 and so on) you could do just about anything you wanted to the
	human mind.

	Whether this would be called "curing" is a different question.
	Something that is normal is not naturally "cured" if it is
	changed--i.e. we couldn't "cure" sleep, we would eliminate 
	the need.  Likewise, we couldn't "cure" death, rather, 
	eliminate or put a stop to.  Nor "cure" sex--only replace,
	alter or eliminate.


>I suspect you'll agree that being het is natural for
>you and that you never chose this orientation.  


	Assuming that I am, no, I do not recall "choosing"--
	but I don't recall "choosing" to like computers, either.
	Nor do I recall "choosing" to like physics or chemistry,
	even though I'm not very good at either.  I also don't 
	remember "choosing" to like Japanese, Chinese, writing
	systems or language.  

	Being unable to remember does not say to me that the
	choice was never made--everyone in my family is a democrat,
	while I am a republican.  Is this genetic?  If not, what
	ould have caused it?  I have no idea.  All of my friends are
	generally quite religious--I am a hard-core athiest.  why?

	The answers to these questions are lost and forgotten.  For the
	most part, the "causes" are mostly irrelavent.  I am naturally
	very lazy, but I acknowledge that for my health (if not for
	my social life) that it's best to keep in shape--and I avoid
	my natural inclination to sit around and slurp down ramen soup.


>In that case, it's
>illogical to state that being gay is a choice - very few gays remember
>making a choice to be gay.


	The choice issue was part of the message you were responding 
	to, not what I said.

	I never said it is a choice.  I said that it's either learned
	or inborn (what else could it be), that the latter was unlikely, and
	said that the real question is--"can it be cured?"   The "choie"
	issue meaningless next to that one.  And both pale next 
	to, "if it can be cured, should it be?"--which is _not_ an 
	easy answer--no or yes.  (see first point, way beginning of 
	message).

	Of ourse, it depends on how you define "choice" (apologies
	for "c" dropouts and " " dropouts--my keyboard is breaking,
	slowly).  If you define it such that the body <including
	the "subconcious"> can make a decision without consulting
	the concious mind, then yes, it was at some level a "choice",
	but that's not how I define it.



>>	Pretty fluid with those facts, huh.  Claiming that "gay is not
>>	a choice" is like me claiming "god is a huge cow with two heads"
>>	because there's a *chance* that it's possible, no proof against
>>	it, and it happens to be my opinion.  
>
>    And you're welcome to that opinion, including not being denied basic
>rights on account of it.  I may not agree, but your life is up to you as
>long as it doesn't affect me negatively.  Get it?


	Ahh, then--suppose that I believe it is my duty to the great and
	mighty two headed cow god to sacrifice a number of cuddly 
	animals every day in front of my children--is it still my
	opinion, and am I still entitled to act on it?


>>	"Orientation"?  Sexual orientation is *behavioral*.  It doesn't
>>	matter if it's inborn or learned or the result of being kidnapped
>>	by martians.  _Sexuality_ is behavioral.  It certainly isn't
>		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    The expression of sexuality is behavioral.  There is a difference.  To
>make the above statement shows very shallow thinking.

	SEXUALITY IS BEHAVIORAL.  It doesn't matter one wit that it 
	can be "expressed" or not.  All aspects of sexuality are 
	_behavioral_.  In fact, the sex drive *itself* is behavioral--
	it is defined by behavioral properties and nothing else.  It
	is not _biological_.  The operation of the sex organs is "biological"--
	sexual orientation is _behavioral_.

	It shows very shallow thinking that you are unable to grasp this
	simple conclusion even after having it pointed out.  Thins
	are either biological or behavioral.  Sexuality is behavioral.


 
>    What are celibate priests - asexual?


	The nice thing about being human beings is that we are able to
	look (however shallowly) at our own drives.  These priests
	are either heterosexual or homosexual (a suprising number of the
	2nd), and this is determined by what they _want_ to do (wanting,
	is, after all--part of human behavior).  The only asexual
	would be someone with no drives whatsoever.  Clearly, 
	celibate priests do not fit into this category.


>>	anything else (i.e. "grwoing hair" is not behavioral).
>			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    I'll agree with that, although its relevence is lost on me.


	I was hoping it would clue you in.  Guess not.


-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush