From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 14:33:04 GMT

In article <Some.Folks.Don't.Get.It.10892.515am@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- dJ/dT) writes:
>What: <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu>
>Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
>
>>>   = Jay T Stein
>>>>  = Yamanari
>
>[Yamanari: "Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant..."]
>[H. Black: Only those who seek help or are a danger.  Gays are neither.]
>[Yamanari: "Not true (to the first part)."]
>
>>>So you're saying that some gays do seek help.  No big surprise, considering
>>>that they live in a society that basically hates them.  20/20 did a segment
>>>about "curing" gays last year, and despite the fact that this was a totally
>>>self-selected group of men who didn't like the fact that they were gay, the
>>>"cure" rate was still ZERO - *all* of them admitted to continuing to feel
>>>attracted to men.
>>
>>	I'd hardly consider 20/20 a good source. 
>
>Doesn't change the fact that the men (1)hated their orientation, (2)wanted
>to be "cured" and (3)were NOT, in fact, "cured."  The sample *was* self-
>selected.


	Perhaps true, perhaps not.  I'd like to see more than one 
	help-group being investigated, not just one that is full
	of failures.

	Not that I buy--*myself*--for one second that anything of this
	sort works.  IMHO, these groups are no better than the other
	various groups run by Xtianity.  They let bored folks pretend to
	be helping-angels while grabbing money for the church and
	putting others down.


>>>>       For the second, if homosexuality
>>>>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).
>>>
>>>Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.
>>
>>	I don't need to.  You haven't shown that it isn't.
>
>The impetus is on you to show that it *is* learned, particularly if you
>are going to make moral judgements based on that conclusion, or attach
>it to the "IF" clause of a conditional.  IF you are going to do that, THEN
>you will have to demonstrate validity of said clause.


	Nope.  I need do no such thing.  If it is a possibility 
	(and it is) that the behavior is learned or reactionary (to
	abusive treatment, say) it is more than enough of an argument to
	keep it out of schools. 

	This doesn't license discrimination in other areas, though.  
	Hell, if I had to focus on things I want kept out of schools,
	I have a looooong list.  Homosexuality, if I had to put it on
	there, would come at the bottom.  In *my* opinion, the threat isn't
	valid.  However, there are others--MANY others (more than the people
	on my side by an order or magnitude)--that feel differently--that
	it is a *prime* threat.

	I have no right to even begin to expose their children to 
	something they don't like.  We *pay* for the schooling in this
	country.  If the schooling is falling under the political 
	control of a minority, there is something *very* wrong.


>>>Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that
>>>it is a danger to children.
>>
>>	If there is a *chance* that children can learn it, then they 
>>	should not be placed in a situation where they do so and become social
>>	outcasts.
>
>This is rich.  Anybody who could become a social outcast should be
>"protected" eh?  This is sick, and has nothing to do with morality besides.
>Except to the extent that it is a morally bankrupt statement.


	Oh please.  How is it wrong to prevent people from becoming
	social outcasts?  Are you nuts?  Or just unable to come up with
	a real argument?



>>	An ounce of prevention and all of that.  Better safe than sorry.
>
>Sure, and better remove all those fat and retarded people from society too.
>No doubt *they* would be social outcasts too.


	Are you against teaching health and nutrition in schools? 


>[Yamanari:  That homosexuals are deviant is "unarguable."]
>[H. Black:  "Sure it is.  It's an opinion, to which you're entitled."]
>[Yamanari:  "It is not an opinion. {...}  Deviant:  deviating from the NORM]
>
>>>And thus we see a common logical and intellectual fallacy - changing
>>>definitions midstream.
>>>There are at least three definitions of normal:  (1) that which is
>>>morally acceptable, (2) that which is statistically expected, and
>>>(3) 90-degrees to (a math definition).
>>
>>	Obviously, only 1 and 2 apply to human beings.  Really, only the
>>	first.  The second is relavent (human beings constantly make
>>	statistical observations, but they do it non mathematically).
>
>Since you so sadly and totally misssed my point, I'll try again:  Assuming
>10% (or even 5% or 2%) of the population is homosexual, the average person
>would be *statistically expected* to be heterosexual.  Get it?  


	Great.  You've just rehashed something we've all known since
	grade school.  What's your point?


>This is
>what I meant by a statistical definition of normal.  When you say that
>homosexuality is not "normal," the only unarguable interpretation is that
>homosexuality is not statistically expected.  This is exactly what I
>stated before:


	This is the only valid meaning of normal on a wide scale.  Oh,
	sure, if you want to be stupid about it you could define normal
	for eachand every individual in society ("Oh, sure I'm normal--
	I've always been like this.  Just because biting the heads off of
	live chickens isn't normal for you doesn't mean it's not normal
	for me!").  But this pretty much makes the meaning of normal
	meaningless, and is not how human beings think.


>>>Homosexuality deviates from the STATISTICAL norm only.  You have not
>>>shown that it deviates from a "moral" norm, as the word "deviant"
>>>imples.  
>>
>>	Of COURSE it deviates from themoral norm.  Here's a way to test
>>	it:  go around and ask peopleif homosexuality is morally right
>>	or wrong.  Unless you pack your audience, you'll get an 
>>	overwhelming number of "wrong" answers.
>
>Morality by majority rule?  This is an interesting concept.  


	And the only valid one.  What's the alternative?  Facist
	moral rule by a small minority--or even an individual?  That's
	pretty sick, IMHO, because it means that you consider some peoples
	opinions to be somehow more important than someone elses without
	any evidence to back up your claim.


>People once
>thought overwhelmingly that the Earth was flat and that it was the center
>of the solar system.  I suppose proof by majority belief works better
>for morals than for science, mm?


	Certainly.  Can you cite me any PROOF that my real opinion 
	about homosexuality (i.e., biological but not genetic, pointless
	to bother controlling) is any more or less valid than the majority
	view (homosexuality is a perversion, all homosexuals learned or
	chose to be homosexuals)? 

	No?  Good.  Now pipe down about how evil "majority rule" is.
	Majority rule is the only moral and fair path for a society to
	take.


>While I'm on the subject, what do you thinky of a time in the not too distant
>past when blacks were popularly considered amoral?  Was "mob ethics" valid
>then too?


	No, because it was known pretty clearly by most people that there
	was nothing inherently inferior about blacks, and there was no 
	moral justification (i.e., nothing in the bible--which is where
	mostmoral justification comes from, whether you and I like it or
	not).  Slavery was inconsistent with xtian morals, as was segregation.
	

	Keeping with this, there were examples of blacks as successful
	human beings.  They had families, raised children, taught them
	(even when they, themselves, were illiterate), and tried to get
	them into schools where they could get a decent education.  Anyone
	looking at this from the outside could not help but admire the
	behavior.

	The current bias against homosexuality bears NO resemblance
	to the situation for blacks, past or present.  Attempts to
	draw pathetic parallels are intellectually dishonest.


>>> As Howard Black has stated, that homosexuality is morally
>                                                  ^^
>>>deviant is your opinion only, and though you are entitled to it, it
>>>is not fact.
>>
>>	No, that homosexuality is considered a shameful thing by most
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>	people in this country and elsewhere is a fact.
>
>So you're countering my contention that it is opinion that homosexuality
>IS immoral by saying that it is fact that a lot of people *consider* it
>immoral.  


	I have never claimed that it is anything OTHER than opinion.
	What I have said is, that's fine--you're right.  But there are
	a lot more opinions of that slant than there are on the other
	side.  If you accept, like me, that no one persons opinion is
	more important than any others, you MUST accept morality by
	majority.  There is no other consistent philosophy.

	How else do we determine immorality?  

	Ok.  I think wife beating is fine.  In fact, I decide to
	routinely beat the hell out of my wife because it makes me
	feel better.  Are you saying that "just because a lot of 
	people consider it immoral, that doesn't make it so"?  Then
	why on earth can I go to jail for it?  

>Is that it?  More of this might-makes-right mob rule stuff?
>All I can say is I'm appalled.


	All I can say is, unless you can come up with something
	more valid, take a hike.  Or are you one of those people
	who prefers the thought of moral facism controlled by some
	self-selected elite?


>>       My opinion that
>>	this is based on moronic religious conventions is irrelavent--the
>>	opinion that I hold outweighs no one elses--but a LOT more
>>	people hold the opposite (homosexuality==sick, vile, disgusting) 
>>	opinion.  And they have a right to it.
>
>Do they have the right to force homosexuals to undergo "treatment?"  


	Nope, but they have the right to exert social pressure.


>You've
>yet to demonstrate that they are a danger to anyone.  


	I don't need to.  I need only show that the possibility exists.


>Forcing treatment
>on someone who isn't a danger and doesn't think s/he is sick is unethical,
>at least IMO.  Do you believe differently?


	Not at all.  I have never advocated compulsory treatment.  
	In fact, the only point I've been trying to make in this thread
	is that OPINIONS are just OPINIONS.  No one persons opinion is
	any more valid than any others unless they have some proof behind it.
	As it stands, there is no _proof_ on any side of the homosexuality
	debate.  


>You are truly a sick individual.  But don't worry - I won't take
>a poll on a.p.h and arrange to have your sickness treated.


	Uh-huh.  Let's see.  I'm advocating equal rights for all,
	and you're advocating moral control by a self-selected, small
	group with opinions that oppose that held by most people.

	Who's the sick one?  

>[Yamanari: "heterosexuality could be cured.  Probably pretty easily."]
>[H. Black: "Probably not.  Just like being gay."]
>[Yamanari: "Back it up."]
>
>>>Sure - just look at the 20/20 segment.  Pretty pathetic, not being able
>>>to "cure" a group of gay men who WANTED TO BE CURED in the first place.
>>
>>	20/20 isn't a good source, but even if we take it into account--they
>>	may not be cured of the attraction, but they control it.
>
>So you're saying that homosexuals should deny their sexuality and remain
>celibate.  


	Nope.  I've never said that.  I said that the men in 
	question ARE able to keep their homosexual nature
	under control(celibacy).  Frankly, I think the history
	of celibate priests (pederasty) does a pretty good job
	of showing that people who are not naturally inclined
	toward celibacy shouldn't do more than keep their sexual
	bahavior responsible. 

	
>Why don't you try a little experiment - why not see how many
>years *you* can deny your sexuality before something gives.


	No need to.  *I* agree with you.  Most people don't.  You still
	havent explained to me how it is that YOUR opinion or MY 
	opinion is any more valid than someone elses.


>[animal sacrifice analogy deleted - at least we both agree it's dumb]
>
>>	I asked for moral arguments --CONSISTENT ones-- that took the
>>	devout xtian point of view (help the sinner) in mind and still
>>	didn't license harassing homosexuals.
>
>The post I responded to made no mention of the "xtian" point of view.
>Rather, the post I responded to claimed that (1) homosexuals are
>"unarguably" deviant and used this "unarguable" fact to justify
>society's attempt to "cure" them.  You have failed to do this.


	Nope.  Homosexuals *are* unarguably deviant.  Do you need
	me to send you a dictionary, too?  Your only counter argument 
	has been "Well, they're deviant for the statistical norm, sure, 
	but they're not deviant for homosexuals (or, themselves)."
  
	Further, people in society DO seek to cure that which they find
	abnormal.  They either do it directly (i.e., schitzophrenics),
	through law (laws against drunk driving, intoxication in public)
	or through social pressures (rude treatment, insulting remarks,
	discrimination under the guise of something else).  

	Someone cited men with long hair as an example of deviance that
	isn't under pressure to be cured.  Sure it is.  Social pressures
	are constantly applied to long haired men.  


>>	they tried pathetic flames and pretending that deviant means
>>	something other than it does.
>
>You're invoking the fact that gays differ from a statistical norm and
>pretending it means that they differ from the moral norm.  


	Perhaps you can explain again how it is that homosexuals do 
	not differ from the moral norm?  If they don't, why is there 
	any complaint of discrimination?  

	Of course they do.  Pretending that the moral norm only applies
	to individuals removes the meaning of norm.  The moral norm in
	this country is a lot of things, but homosexuality isn't one of 
	them.



>Look in the
>mirror and see who the above comment *should* have been directed to.
>You *still* have not shown that homosexuality is morally deviant.


	I have shown *repeatedly* that homosexuality is morally
	deviant.  Morality is a useful concept only on a wide
	(read: non-individual) scale.  Those who are homosexual,
	and those who are not but consider it fine, are in a tiny
	minority.  

	You have not shown me that there is any valid way to
	discuss morality except on a wide basis.  there are groups
	that believe that having sex swith children is OK.  Can you 
	show me a consistent morality--following your own rules--	
	that rules out this behavior but licenses homosexuality as
	moral?  


>>	Again--I ask for a moral argument based on the following conventions:
>>
>>	1.  It is morally right to help someone who has a problem,
>>	whether they see it or not (drug addicts, drunks).
>
>This premise presupposes that said person is a danger to him/herself or
>to others.  You have not shown that it is.


	This is stupid.  I asked if that was a moral view held by 
	most people.  


>>	2.  Homosexuality is wrong.
>
>You have not demonstrated this either.


	Is your reading level truly this low?  I DO NOT NEED TO SHOW THESE
	THINGS.  They are *established axioms in American society.  

	Arguing whether homosexuality is right or wrong is irrelavent.  
	Most people feel that it is, and no amount of counter arguing
	is going to prove to them that it isn't.

	What I am asking for is an argument, based on the views that
	people already hold, that legitimizes the homosecual plea to be left
	alone.  Are you unable to do so?  

>>	I want an argument
>>	that says "Yes, that's true, but...
>
>Why, when it isn't even true in the first place?


	It is true.  As true as true can get until some hard core evidence
	comes along, and you haven't shown any.  

	Back to wife beating.  Can you show that wife beating is wrong?
	"It violates another persons rights".  No.  I feel that women
	have no rights.  You cannot argue these two assumptions because
	they are unarguable--you cannot present PROOF that dispells them. 
	
	What homosexuals need to do is come up with an argument that
	prevents--BY THEIR OWN MORAL RULES--Christians from interfering
	(with)/attacking/legislating (against) homosexual lives.
	 
>>	Arguing #2 is pointless--
>
>Yeah, yeah, that's what you keep saying, and your only defense is, "Well,
>that's what *most* people think, so it *must* be right."  Uh-huh.


	What other possible stand is there?  That's what I think so it must
	be right?


>>	you can fight about it till you're blue in the face, but it wont
>>	change their views.  
>
>Won't make their views valid, either.  Not unless they can express some
>logical consistency in those views.  I don't see that from you.


	Their views are quite consistent.  You simply refuse to accept it.

	Their VIEWS are:  1.  Homosexuality is freakish
			  2.  Help the sinner

	These are their views.  I do not need to prove them.  Their
	behavior (pressuring homosexuals to not be homosexuals) is 
	100% consistent with their views.


>>>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>>>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>>>one another.
>>
>>	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?
>
>Some people think S&M is "perversion."  Some people think masturbation is
>perversion.  They can think whatever they like for themselves.

>In other words, Yamanari, *you* don't get to make the call if you're not
>one of the consenting adults in question.

	
	Wrong wrong wrong.  Are you this dense?

	Your own views are inconsistent.  Tell me, given your assertion
	(morality is an inherently and strictly private thing)--how do you
	morally oppose NAMBLA or rape?  Don't get into "consent," either,
	since you have argued that if I feel that consent is given, that's
	plenty.  (i.e. if I morally feel that women or children have no 
	rights and consent by default, my view is as important as 
	*all of society's* view)



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.