From: fellers@utkvx4.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Jeff Dauber's Flawed Arguments
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:36:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: utkvx4.9APR199215363112
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9204061351.AA03354@Compuserve.Com>, 70750.2052@Compuserve.Com ("Ronnie Jr.") writes...
>The local militant "FWA", dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> 
>>You are stretching here.  Let's look at the following example of a
>>couple.
>>
>>[four descriptions of couple sans sexual orientations deleted]
>>
>>Now Daniel, can you tell me which of these couples is "normal"
>>and which is not?  Give it a try, if you guess correctly, I will
>>be impressed.
>>
>This is absolutely ridiculous.  If any of the four couples above were
>gay, THAT is what makes them abnormal.  Not any of the stuff you posted.


	Oh?  How so?


>>The point of this is fairly simple.  You cannot tell a homosexual
>>couple from a heterosexual couple if, in my descriptions, I do not
>>tell you the gender of the partners involved.  Can you tell, by my
>>descriptions, which couples should have children, and which should
>>not?
>>
>OK, Jeff.  Here is a quiz to show you the BLATANT fallacy in your argument:


	This otta be good.


>Here are three people, tell me which should or should not be allowed
>to adopt a child:
> 
>1)  32 yr. old female, Lawyer.
>2)  35 yr. old male, Engineer.
>3)  27 yr. old male, Doctor.
> 
>You can't tell me, can you? 

	Nope.  Sure can't.  Point?


>>I bet you cannot.

>>However, as soon as I tell you the 
>>sexuality of these couples, you seem to have an opinion, with no
>>extra information.
>>
>However, as soon as I tell you that the woman listed as #1 has been
>convicted twice on child molestation charges, you would develop an
>opinion, with no extra information.
> 
>>This is bigotry, plain and simple.
>>
>Is it?  Or do you say that she is not suitable to adopt because it is
>not a HEALTHY environment for the child?  Same goes for my argument
>against homos adopting children.


	Ohhh.  You seem to be making a HUGE assumption here?  Child molestation
is, by definition, the sexual ABUSE of a child.  Look it up.  It has been
scientifically shown that child molestation creates problems later in life for
its victims.  However, homosexuality is not, by definition, harmful to a child. 
Homosexuality in the parents simply refers to THEIR sexual preferences.  No
where has it been proven that children in homosexual households develope
abnormal characteristics.  That's what you're trying to assert with your
argument.  It's like trying to define a word using the word.  (e.g.  Say you
don't know the word cornucopea.  If the dictionary read "cornucopea (n.) =
cornucopea" you wouldn't know what the fuck it meant even after reading the
definition.)


>Read that quiz again, Jeff.  It's an EXACT analog to yours.  See the
>flaws in your reasoning?


	Do you see the flaws in your's?


>>FWA
>>
>Well, Jeff, do you take your "hubby" to the Silicon Graphics Christmas
>Party or not? 


	I fail to see the relevence of this question.


>Ronnie Jr.
>"Doing my best to de-bunk all this pro-homosexual propaganda."

	And failing miserable, I might add.

					Michael Fellers
					fellers@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality