david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/21/83)
> Nothing that is perceivable by human beings is unnatural. Nature is the > universe; we live in the universe, therefore all our actions and perceptions > are natural, whether they be feeding a waif or nuking a continent. The > whole "natural vs. unnatural" worldview implies a purposiveness to nature > separate from the purposes of humans, and says that they can be in conflict; > but nature has no purpose -- it simply exists. Nothing is unnatural because > everything is in nature; we couldn't do anything unnatural if we tried. We have become wrapped up in a definition tangle here. If your way of wrapping up the natural-unnatural debate is to "undefine" the word unnatural so that it no longer has any meaning, we will have to drop this portion of the debate, since we no longer have any common ground to reason with. > The question remains of homosexuality's moral legitimacy. If Dave wants to > talk about this, fine. However, I refuse to accept any action as moral > which restricts the liberty of a person who does not cause hurt or harm to > any other person, but simply does not follow a certain standard. In other > words, there is no such thing as a "victimless crime" in my morality -- if > it is victimless, it is not a crime; however, restricting the > "perpetrator's" liberty because of the action IS a crime. Homosexuality > therefore carries no moral stigma. We have entered the realm of human morality in general, which is the root of my belief that homosexuality is wrong. The logical flow of the discussion now leads us to debate about the different kinds of human morality. It would appear that you believe in some sort of moral or ethical code, but only as it exists in relationships with other people. In order to firmly establish a basis for discussion, I must know why you do not believe in a moral standard that individuals should follow. I have many logical arguments for such a belief, and will be willing to debate them. > Suppose someone posted > an article saying that they thought it was unnatural for blacks to be > anything but slaves, that is, that free blacks are unnatural. I'd come down > just as hard on them as you, and the fact that it was their opinion would > not deter me in the least. If you spread hatred and prejudice, you deserve > to be publicly castigated, and that's what I'm doing, and will continue to > do if you do not stop. The net is fortunate to have such a champion of liberty. In all seriousness, let's try to keep the discussion at a logical level. The above argument has no real place in these discussions, and have no merit in themselves. The statement that I am spreading hatred is rather harsh; I honestly do not hate gays, nor any group of humans which commits sinful acts (back to morals again). This includes every human that ever existed on this Earth (save one), including myself. See next rebuttal. > You stated no basic principles from which your beliefs are drawn, but if I > am to carry on logical discussion, I must know what those principles are. > My assertion was a challenge to you to provide some basic principles behind > your arguments, since otherwise I would have no alternative but to believe > that they are rooted in prejudice. You have said nothing to contradict this > latter possibility, and therefore I will continue to believe it. If you are trying to carry on a logical discussion, why are you proceeding on a totally unproven and unsubstantiated belief? By the way, a differing opinion on a moral matter is NOT substantiation for prejudice. Very well. Here is the basis of my belief; I trust you will have a similar exposition in your next article for my knowledge. I am a "mere Christian"; that is to say, I am not a Baptist, Mormon, etc. but believe in Jesus as my supreme Lord and personal Friend. NO FLAMES, please; I am NOT condemning any faith; it is certainly possible to be both a Christian and a Catholic, but as I heard someone say once "going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car." The basis of my belief that homosexuality is wrong is rooted in a belief in human morality, and, as I mentioned earlier, would be willing to discuss with you. And please, no "aha I told you so" sort of arguments; If you procede on the assumption that I am prejudiced, no matter how many logical arguments I give, then our debate will not be of any use to anyone. By the way, what would I have to do to demonstrate that I am not prejudiced? If you actually can believe that, then there is hope for our debate. If there is doubt in your mind, perhaps you had best consider the possibility that you yourself are prejudiced against anyone who doesn't agree with you (there is a term for such an individual). > More than that, though, I asked you to admit this because in so doing you > would come closer to understanding that any argument that comes after its > conclusions are formulated is immediately suspect. I hardly think I need to > support this statement; if a million examples of false arguments that turned > out to be rationalizations do not spring to your mind when I say this, you > have not had sufficient contact with logical discussion to be able to carry > on such a discussion. In other words, admit that you began by disliking > homosexuality, and then came up with your "unnaturality" argument; you may > then come to realize that the argument is a rationalization, and therefore > highly suspect. Pardon me while I take all of these words out of my mouth. -- Dave Norris
bch@unc.UUCP (11/22/83)
I have to side with Tim Maroney in this debate. The term 'natural' is historically a convenience word. At one point in this country's history it was not considered 'natural' for blacks to be anything but slaves. At the same time (and others) it was not considered 'natural' for women to be anything but subservient to men. These are not cheap shots, just illustrative of the fact that natural tends to mean anything I find OK and unnatural tends to mean anything I find morally repellent or not in *my* natural order of things. No two people will agree down the line on what is 'natural' or 'unnatural' as it often serves as a substitution in the context of these sorts of debates for 'moral' or 'immoral.' I think that Tim's morality has been fairly straightforwardly expressed. It is not a list of rules or prohibitions but a simple guide that any- thing one person does which interferes with anothers freedom of thought and action is immoral. Things done which do hurt nobody (do not inter- fere with anyone elses freedom) are moral. In this sense being gay is not immoral. In this vein what I find to be immoral is the stigmatization of gays as degenerates or some kind of social pariahs. This is as much an inter- ference with another's freedom as it is to say that blacks should be slaves or women should not be educated. It indirectly restricts another's opportunity to make what they can of themselves for no reason other than you don't like what they do in the privacy of their own lives. I, personally, consider voting for Jesse Helms an 'unnatural' act, but I'm certainly not about to try to interfere directly or indirectly in those people's lives. That you may find the concept of homosexuality dis- tasteful is one thing. That is a personal opinion and I don't think anyone is trying to deprive you of it, but let's keep it at that level -- as an expression of personal belief only without a recommendation for concomitant action. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch