From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Text of CO2 and OR9
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:48:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan8.174848.19122
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <C0GxKr.CwC@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> 
msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:

>                                      Wednesday, the 6th of January, 1993
>
>Evelyn C. Leeper has posted the texts of CO2 and OR9. I thank you muchly
>for that, Evelyn.
>
>I think that my immediate judgment would be to vote *for* CO2 and
>*against* OR9.
>
>Evelyn focusses on ``claim of discrimination'' in CO2 as a violation
>violation of the right to equal protection. But I see
>absolutely no problem with this at all (though I am willing to
>be disabused). Are we talking about jobs here, or people being
>beat up? My guess is jobs, and the question becomes: Are there
>*any* special bases for claiming discrimination? In other words,
>would the enactment of this amendment mean that in legal cases
>people could claim discrimination based on anything *except*
>sexual orientation? Is there such a thing as claiming discrimination
>because of obesity? Because of coiffure? Because one wears glasses?
>To me, *that* would be equal protection for claims of discrimination.
>Or is the exclusion of basing claims of discrimination on sexual
>orientation only an exclusion from a small list of minority groups?
>With regard to people being beat up, I think that there's nothing
>in this measure to say that beating a gay person up is any less
>punishable than beating anyone up. The only thing the measure
>guards against is the possibility of there being a stiffer penalty
>*because* of the gayness of the victim. This seems to me to be as it
>should be. My problem is that I can only think that human beings have
>a right to equal protection under the law _qua_ their humanity, and not
>_qua_ their inclusion or exclusion in any minority group.

I disagree.  I would have voted for the statute, had it been aimed
against claims of discrimination because of *any* sexual orientation,
instead of singling out a specific one, as it does in its present form.

>I would vote against OR9 because I strongly disagree that anyone
>should ``assist in setting a standard...that recognizes homosexuality...
>as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse...''. Setting such
>a standard would be morally wrong, I think. But, that was another
>discussion thread...

I agree, but for a different reason.  I would have voted for the
statute, had it merely stipulated that the principles of sexual ethics
be taught in secondary schools, leaving the specific content of the
courses open to determination by qualified authorities.  (Of course, it
is my own conviction, that no rational moral standard of human sexuality
will fail to condemn homosexual behavior.)  Democracy is not a good
determinant of truth.

As for your moral assertion, I take it to be the height of moral
irresponsibility on your part, to repeat it after having failed to
convict me, or, for that matter, Plato and Kant, of promulgating bad
moral philosophy.

>                       Mike Morris
>              (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books