dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/03/84)
>[Scott Oaks] >The simple truth is that there are no ill consequences to society caused >by homosexuality. Historically, this was not always the case: when the >Bible was written, not to procreate was dangerous to the tribe, which needed >all the members it could get. Even until recently, simple economics dictated >that society produce as many offspring as possible. Yet this is no longer >the case; indeed, given the current exponential growth rates of consumption >of every important resource we possess, it may be convincingly argued that >homosexuality is now a better adaptive behaviour for the species than is >heterosexuality. At the very least, however, it requires no independent >justification: it is at least a neutral issue. Now, the first 1 1/2 sentences of the above excerpt (up to the colon) comprise either an evident paradox, or a contradiction. The majority of the evidence available with which to judge the effects of homosexuality on society lies in the past, i.e., is historical. How is it possible to assert that homosexuality has no ill consequences and also that the opposite is true? Anyway, the question which interests me is: "simple truth" aside, what is the relation between the incidence of homosexuality and the society in which it is manifested? I have read {heard, etc.} that every society which has allowed itself to embrace homosexuality has quickly fallen. Anyone have any information on this? Paul DuBois
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/03/84)
Paul, I'm sure you're aware of a longstanding prejudice against homosexuality; that in itself makes much of what constitutes "knowledge" of it dubious, to put it mildly. Think of what was believed, or believed to be known, about Blacks in the U.S. in say, 1915. Apart from a handful of whites including those who helped found the NAACP at this time, what most white Americans, whether intellectual or person-in-the-street, claimed to know about Blacks would be viewed today as incredible & often malicious fantasy, describing not Blacks but the mentality of whites on the subject of race. Now, it seems to me that at least some issues surrounding homosexuality are prima facie bogus or at least unproductive. These are pretty easy to identify by their fairly constant connec- tion with bigotry and discrimination in the past. Such issues include considering the existence of homosexuality problematic, asking if it's a physical or mental pathology, treating it as a moral issue, exploring whether it's a sign of cultural decadence. Apart from the fact all these questions are intimately associated with homophobia past and present, I'd think that the mere fact that these same questions have never seriously been directed toward heterosexuality is sufficient to doubt that they represent anything more than homophobia. I don't underestimate homophobia: it's still an integral part of the world-view of many otherwise decent, intelli- gent and well-informed people, and as such a CHERISHED bigotry that won't easily be given up. But the tenacity with which folklore about homosexuality is retained has nothing to do with logical rigor or intellectual conservatism but everything to do with the psycholo- gical dynamics of prejudice in a period of social change. For example: of course you can frame the question "Is homo- sexuality good or bad?" distinct from questions about its psychological, social, economic, etc. effects. That doesn't guarantee such a question has any substance. Keith Bostic's first posting "Re: Fundaphobia" illustrates how trivial the question can get. I'll even agree that such a question contains a moral issue, but one with about as much profundity, urgency, interest, or relevance as whether use of the left-hand is satanic. "Moral" and "morality" must be two of the most abused words in English. Those people who claim implicitly or explicitly that moral argument is important should especially take pains to ensure that they don't further trivialize or corrupt it. But that almost never happens on this net. Moral arguments seem to occur as the cheapest, easiest way to crank out a reply, have the last word in what the person who presents them probably suspects is a losing cause. (Gasp!) Ron Rizzo
sebb@pyuxss.UUCP (S Badian) (07/06/84)
History is recounted by historians, people who have there own prejudices and their own innate sense of "right." Therefore history is biased, extremely biased in some cases. For instance, many people probably still believe that the Romans got what they deserved. They were perverted folks who practiced homosexuality, and all sorts of terrible things. Just look at Tiberius and his penchant for young boys. He finally got what he deserved; he died of syphllis. Well, history, or more accurately, our interpretation of history changes. So it is no longer homosexuality and the breakdown of civilized behavior that caused the fall of Rome. It is now a plague(of typhoid) and the excessive size of the empire that is blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire. Quoting history is largely useless unless you go back to the primary documents. Otherwise the historian's bias can make you think whatever he/she wants you to think. sharon badian
peduto@pyuxv.UUCP (S A Peduto) (07/09/84)
Subject: Re: History and homosexuality References: <8442@brunix.UUCP>, <121@uwmacc.UUCP>, <356@pyuxss.UUCP> I would just like to reply a bit to the articles about homosexuality and social decline. As Gibbon makes clear, the Roman Empire fell after it had adopted Christianity as its official religion, and, incidentally, outlawed homosexual activity. This would seem to indicate that homophobia is the cause of the fall of states. Gibbon himself felt that Christianity caused the fall of the Empire. It should also be noted that ancient Greece had its greatest flowering during the period when homoerotic relationships were considered to be superior to hetero-erotic ones. When this aspect of Hellenic life passed, so did the "grandeur that was Greece." These historical facts should provide food for thought for those that blame Gayness or homo- eroticism for societial decline.
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/10/84)
From: sebb@pyuxss.UUCP: Well, history, or more accurately, our interpretation of history changes. So it is no longer homosexuality and the breakdown of civilized behavior that caused the fall of Rome. It is now a plague(of typhoid) and the excessive size of the empire that is blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire. --------- I thought it was the lead in their pipes.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/10/84)
Acutally, it may've been the lead in their drinks: archaeologists have found extensive traces of lead-caused disease in skeletons from the latter centuries of the empire. At some point (1st or entury AD?), Romans started regularly mixing lead in their wine and gradually poisoned themselves.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (07/12/84)
How about a Nice Simple Rule:
All practices divergent from the "norm" will be assumed OK until
*PROVEN* otherwise.
Absent any evidence that homosexuality rots the mind, curves the spine, or
loses the war for the Allies (Norman Podhoretz' theories nonwithstanding),
how about if everybody who thinks homosexuality may be a Bad Thing kept that
opinion to themselves? Statements about civilizations which accepted
homosexuality "falling" don't serve any useful purpose until it is shown
that accepting homosexuality contributed to the downfall of that civilization;
they merely serve to annoy people and to stigmatize people who've done nothing
to deserve that stigma.
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guydubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/12/84)
> [Guy Harris writes...] > How about a Nice Simple Rule: > > All practices divergent from the "norm" will be assumed OK until > *PROVEN* otherwise. > > Absent any evidence that homosexuality rots the mind, curves the spine, or > loses the war for the Allies (Norman Podhoretz' theories nonwithstanding), > how about if everybody who thinks homosexuality may be a Bad Thing kept that > opinion to themselves? Statements about civilizations which accepted > homosexuality "falling" don't serve any useful purpose until it is shown > that accepting homosexuality contributed to the downfall of that civilization; > they merely serve to annoy people and to stigmatize people who've done nothing > to deserve that stigma. Well. This is certainly news to me. Evidently, the allegations that homosexuality rots the mind, curves the spine, and lost the war for the Allies are to be attributed to my thinking. That attribution may easily be dismissed as irrelevant and imflammatory, as there is no support for it from what I have written. It may (or may not) be true, but I have expressed no opinion one way or the other. In addition, I have also apparently made the statement that civilizations fall as a result of accepting homosexuality: > Statements about civilizations which accepted homosexuality "falling" > don't serve any useful purpose until it is shown that accepting > homosexuality contributed to the downfall of that civilization; In point of fact, I asked a *question*, namely, >> what is the relation between the incidence of homosexuality >> and the society in which it is manifested? I have read >> {heard, etc.} that every society which has allowed itself >> to embrace homosexuality has quickly fallen. Anyone have >> any information on this? Perhaps my intent has been misinterpreted. I am, repeat, *asking a question*, with no particular conclusion in mind. I am looking for information, i.e., that which reduces uncertainty, concerning a relation which may (or may not) exist. Clearly the relation needs to be established before we can even begin to discuss whether causality may be construed. So far, no one has submitted evidence either to establish or refute such a relation. As for the "nice simple rule", I have already said, and have been given no reason to think otherwise, that >> It is perfectly reasonable to look upon divergent >> viewpoints and practices with skepticism, at least initially. >> (If anyone is inclined to doubt that, consider that you have >> then expressed skepticism towards my viewpoint and therefore >> have proven the thrust of my observation.) Conversely, it is >> unreasonable to uncritically accept all viewpoints without >> complaint, for adherence to certain viewpoints many times is >> inconsistent with adherence to certain others. If consistency >> is regarded favorably, some views must be rejected. > All practices divergent from the "norm" will be assumed OK until > *PROVEN* otherwise. Guy's objecting to my statement proves that he also thinks it is reasonable to question another's viewpoint. Hence he agrees with me. --- By the way, I do not know who Norman Podhoretz is, hence, I am unfamiliar with his writings. If there is something of his which applies to this discussion, someone please submit a reference and I will make an attempt to read it. Maybe I shouldn't say that. It might give the impression of open-mindedness. Such a characteristic obviously ought not be attributed to me, since I include a Scripture verse in my .signature file; I am clearly a homophobic fundamentalist bigot. Clearly. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
lisa@mit-vax.UUCP (Lisa Chabot) (07/16/84)
sharon badian = > > History is recounted by historians, people who have > there own prejudices and their own innate sense of "right." > Therefore history is biased, extremely biased in some cases. ... > Quoting history is largely useless unless you go back > to the primary documents. Otherwise the historian's bias can > make you think whatever he/she wants you to think. Good point, but even if one does go back to the primary documents, care must be taken to see the writers' biases there, too. Conscious and unconscious, and societal biases. "Sire, your kingdom is filled with roses!" L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/17/84)
S A Peduto,
Thank you for your reply to my question. I appreciate the information.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist...
Colossians 1:17dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/17/84)
<> > [Ron Rizzo writes...] > Paul Dubois, > Your writing style may have more elegance than Paul Dubuc's > but your articles don't seem to have any more substance. Why don't > you start your own mailing list? Folks on this one are well-acquainted > with the loquacious brand of bigotry as well as the succinct & vehe- > ment variety: both are tedious. > If you spent as much time doing some serious thinking as you > do vacuously manufacturing questions you might actually learn some- > thing, instead of filling up electronic mailboxes. > I hope no one else is tempted to waste time on this idiot. Ron says I write elegantly. Perhaps. Apparently I do not write very *clearly*, however, for my intent in contributing to this newsgroup has been stated twice and again, yet that intent has been repeatedly misconstrued. Here, again, is my question: ^^^^^^^^ > What is the relation between the incidence of homosexuality > and the society in which it is manifested? I have read > {heard, etc.} that every society which has allowed itself > to embrace homosexuality has quickly fallen. Anyone have > any information on this? Let me clarify. Saying "I have heard" does not necessarily mean "I think". The "I have heard" statement seems to have been interpreted as my personal position. This is unreasonable. Surely many of you have heard or read that statement? As have I. I am just wondering if there is any basis for it, and, as this is the newsgroup most closely connected with such a topic, it seems logical to ask the question here, of those who are most likely to have some information about it. Perhaps it has all been discussed before. Realize that I *am* a relatively new net reader, and so am unaware if it has. Those of you who are offended by my postings might ask yourselves the following questions. (i) What do I believe about homosexuality? How do you know (that is, what statement can you cite)? (ii) What do I believe about the societal effects of homosexuality? How do you know? If you go back and read my postings, you will discover that the answer to both of these questions is that you don't know what my position is. About *anything*. You don't even know for sure if I'm heterosexual or homosexual, *do you*? All you know is that I have questions, and that I am not particularly enamored of responses to my questions that amount to (a) shut up, or (b) you are an idiot. Or both. Neither response satisfies my curiosity. It seems to me that my question is really not so unreasonable as all that, and that it deserves to be answered, not shouted down. If you think I'm attacking *you*, I'm not. If you cannot distinguish my attacking *you* from my questioning your *arguments*, perhaps you should not advance any arguments. Then I won't question them. But I hope this will not be the case; we would be left at an impasse. It seems to me as well that few of you have considered the possibility that I ask questions because I am interested in the answers, as opposed to being interesting in baiting you. --- Miscellaneous replies: > [S A Peduto writes...] > By the way, what's this resistance to accepting an opinion > at least two hundred year's old, embodied in a book considered > a classic? Please pardon my ignorance. What book? > [Ron Rizzo writes...] > Paul Dubois, DuBois, not Dubois. But that is a small point. > I hope no one else is tempted to waste time on this idiot. I guess I have now been officially flamed ... It seems customary on this net to flame back. I do not wish to do so; would not the Master be displeased? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (07/19/84)
Paul, Though Ron Rizzo may have been a little harsh, I think you are being a bit disingenuous when you disallow any questioning of the reasons behind your question. To many (if not most) of the readers of this group, the linking of homosexuality with the fall of a civilization seems absurd. There is not a shred of evidence to support such a statement, and as earlier responses have stated, the linking of the falls of Greece and Rome with the practice of homosexuality is simply bad logic and worse history. Indeed, if one had an axe to grind against Christianity, it would make as much sense to ascribe causality to that. And, indeed, during the "fall" intolerance towards gay people was the rule: the Golden ages were marked by tolerance. There is as much nonsense as truth carried in the phrases "it has been said that..." It had been said that masturbation causes insanity, impotence and "neurasthenia." Are we to take such a statement seriously today? The "fall" of a civilization (whatever that entails--this is more an apocalyptic image that actual fact: Rome took almost a millenium to "fall") is due to a complex series of events, all interacting. Isolating homosexuality as a cause without any evidence that it contributed to the social problems which led to the societies' dissolution is bound to draw ridicule. This is better phrased in the form, "Did God cause the societies of Greece and Rome to fall because they practised homosexuality?" Here at least, is a more honest inquiry, totally outside scientific discussion, and completely unanswerable (except by God herself.) -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/24/84)
> [S A Peduto writes...] > Paul DuBois asks re my second posting "What book?" This indicates that > he didn't read the whole comment, or he is not a serious poster. > > I was discussing Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I mentioned > it directly twice. Well, gee. (i) I went back and re-read your postings, and it is indeed obvious (in hindsight) that you were referring to Gibbon, although I cannot for the life of me figure out how I missed it. Thank you for your patience. (ii) I did read the whole comment, more than once. (iii) I am a serious poster, contrary to (most) public opinion. > That the book is a classic is undeniable; that religious bigots have not > heard of it is not surprising. I've heard of it, so at least *one* "bigot" knows of its existence. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17