rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/13/84)
> To advance your cause you appropriate > moral language of the Western tradition and stand it on it's head. > There is however, a public forum in which you had better be prepared with > more than slogans and calls for keeping it all very polite. You do yourselves > no favors by merely asserting the line that you can't help being homosexual > because the vast majority, I believe, do not buy that and will not buy that > without some kind of data or cogent argument to back it up. How does one alter a biased "morality" by using existing morality as a reference? Does one need to? Does it matter? Is morality just a popular consensus? Frankly, I'd be ashamed to have to use "western moral tradition" as the basis for any of my beliefs. This is the same morality that gave us the Spanish Inquisition, the witch trials, the pogroms, virulent anti-Semitism and anti- ANYTHINGism where that ANYTHING didn't fit in to its mold, and two bloody world wars. If *I* was asked to defend *my* beliefs based on western moral tradition, I'd simply laugh and win the argument by forfeit. As I mentioned in an earlier article, it would seem that the only way one would be allowed to propose a change in the moral structure (vacuous as it may be) is to 1) show that what you're proposing is already part of the moral tradition, and 2) secure an eleven tenths majority of the voting body that determines ultimate morality, be it popular consensus or secret conclave. On "justifying" sexuality based on biological factors/personal choice: > So where do we stand gang? Is there any responsibity for sexual behavior? > Heterosexual? Homosexual? Again, does it matter. Why is such a big deal made over this? Do people have to "justify" their sexuality? Their personal beliefs? Their tastes in music? Food? To whom? Why??????? -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/15/84)
< ... Quoting ... > >From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP Mon Aug 13 10:00:39 1984 >Frankly, I'd be ashamed to have to use "western moral tradition" as the basis >for any of my beliefs. This is the same morality that gave us the Spanish >Inquisition, the witch trials, the pogroms, virulent anti-Semitism and anti- >ANYTHINGism where that ANYTHING didn't fit in to its mold, and two bloody >world wars. If *I* was asked to defend *my* beliefs based on western moral >tradition, I'd simply laugh and win the argument by forfeit. I just wanted to interject a quick comment on this "western moral tradition," a phrase which has been of such comfort to the political right as a banner to carry and to the left as a convenient target to lob catchphrases at. There is, in fact, no single "western moral tradition." There is a collection of (often violently) competing traditions. We have the "Christian" system descended from the antisexual authoritarian teachings of St. Paul (the person; no flames from Minnesota, please), some weak fragments of pre-Paul Christian beliefs (Quakers probably come fairly close, here), the Judaic tradition (incredibly influential in this civilization despite the small number of Jews and the incredible persecution they have faced), the Hellenic tradition (which John Stuart Mill says is alone responsible for the notion that the government has an obligation to promote the public wellbeing, for instance), and so on. In fact, the very existence of inquisitions, world wars, persecutions, and the like makes it obvious that strongly held and widely differing viewpoints have often coexisted in this "western tradition." The current crusade of the Christian right against secular humanism is a direct descendant of the traditional disagreement between near-Eastern mysticism and Greek rationalist thought. Finally, while I have no great desire to hold forth European civilisation as a beacon of perfection, it is worth noting that ours is the only major (note that qualification) civilization to treat women on a much higher level than draft animals, to support the notion of democracy and human rights, to provide a signficant amount of food and other aid to other cultures, and so on. This does not make up for colonialism, racism, or FORTRAN, but it suggests our antecedents have not uniformly been monsters. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (08/16/84)
Western moral tradition, anyone? I'll stand by it any time. Witch Organization: UBC Vision, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 25 trials and other monstrosities are certainly a part of our tradition, but so too is an increasing understanding of the humanity of all people. Slavery is a reprehensible part of our heritage, but the abolition of slavery is also a part of our tradition. By "W.M.T.", anti-gay people generally mean a few random passages taken out of context. Far too often, people throw out the babies and keep the bathwater. I'm suspicious of arguments based on "inherent sexuality". They lead to all kinds of problems. For example, the United Church of Canada recently rejected a proposal to permit the ordination of open gays and lesbians. One argument that was advanced was that the proposers had not done enough to prove that conversion (aka cure) was impossible. Now, if one is really going to accept various forms of sexuality on an equal plane, it makes little sense to say that same sex sexuality is ok because gays/lesbians can't be "cured". We as a society have to learn to get past labelling. Neither homo- nor heterosexuality is intrinsically good or bad; the value judgements should be attached to the ways in which we deal with sexuality. I have yet to see any logically sensible argument which really proves the inherent superiority of heterosexuality. To find even "enlightened" people operating on this sort of unspoken, unquestioned assumption is discouraging.