pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/26/84)
A response to Steve Dyer (et. al.) } }I am going to address only one point in Paul Dubuc's article right now, }though there are many points which deserve a response. But it seems to me }that this one is the crux of the matter, and the stumbling block for many }people who label themselves Christian. I am taking up this response, }not because I feel the need to justify myself before anyone, but because }I really am trying to understand what is at the basis of what I view as }extremely irrational, unfounded behavior. } } >The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue. } }I really do not understand this. Really not. In fact it sounds just a bit }bizarre to me. Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue." }Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is }so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them }to being singled out for moral notice? "Eating oysters" is not grounded in the moral arena. The only thing that singles out homosexuality for moral notice here is the fact that this is net.motss. Human sexual relationships have an inherently moral fiber. }... It seems to me that there is only }one reason for this attitude, namely, the misinterpretation of the Genesis }and Levitical texts and some of the Pauline letters adopted over the last }700 years by the Christian Church. At least one knows where such people }are coming from: it's just a variant of "the Bible says so, so it's true." }Now, such people don't cotton well to being told about the subtleties of }the texts, and the contexts in which they appear, nor do they bother to }carry forth other Scriptural proscriptions against certain behaviors. I }always liked the one about it being easier for a camel to pass through an }eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh--you }mean that wasn't REALLY what was being said. You mean I need to understand }the CONTEXT of Christ's teachings. Uh-huh. It's amazing how offering a dissenting opinion on homosexuality and quoting a favorite Bible reference in your .signature file gets you labeled as a fundamentalist and a bigot. (I am not just addressing Steve's article here, but also some of the nice mail I received from people containing an equal amount of the ad hominem with a little peronsal vituperation thrown in.) No where in my article did I support my opinion with biblical references. Yet the all opposing response I have seen argues against such supposed reliance on biblical doctrine. I suppose you don't view this as being "irrational and unfounded" behaviour? I thought I would be sorry in posting my opinion here (even trying to be reasonable in doing so) and I haven't been suprised. I have been trying to discuss the issue apart from religious doctrine (which I don't assume to be irrelevant, however, even in a secular society) but it seems that many find it easier to stuff me into that category anyway and deal with that "straw man" instead of considering the argument on face value. No Steve, you haven't hit on the crux of my article at all. You have inferred one of your own. My article dealt with the supposed "science" behind the assertion that sexual preference is an inherent trait rather than having a significant learned moral element. My main contention was against the intent of the Gay Rights movement to put the sexual prefernce thing in the same category with Women's and Black's rights. There is no question of morality behind being a woman or being black, they just *are*. From what I percieve of Gay Rights, it trys to get us to view homosexuality in the same way. My contention was that this position has no empirical, scientific support. I don't care how many psychologists you get to vote on it. Apart from my religious convictions, I feel sexual preference to be a moral issue because: 1) The contention that homosexuals "just are" does not carry the weight of empirical fact (as the fact that women or blacks "just are" that way). 2) Sexual behaviour involves intimate human relationship (not like eating oysters) and therefore has a moral impact on individuals and society. I believe that the moral impact is generally detrimental to individuals and society. I think that homosexuality ( like other things considered morally "wrong" ) contributes, to the extent of its pervasiveness in society, to the instability of human relationships in society. I view homosexual relationships as generally unstable and insecure. Therefore I do not have any confidence in the ability of homosexual relationships to accomplish things important to the continuance of a healthy and stable society. (i.e. raising children well). Of course, this belief will fall apart "upon scrutiny". That is because it is based on my general observations and involve an assessment of complex social interaction, not empirical scientific data. That is what social "science" is and, in that respect, it is not science at all. To prove my convictions in any real scientific way would require an impossible experiment. e.g. to raise the level of homosexual practice in society (or some microcosm of it) to a strongly influencial level while trying to remove other "detrimental" factors that could be blamed for the society's demise, and see what happens over a few generations. Even if I could conduct such an experiment and it supported my view it would be no real consolation. Proving I'm right in this way involves bringing about the results I want to avoid. Anyway, that is the real crux of my argument. The conclusion that gay is OK has no scientific support or disproof. The conclusion is based on moral conviction. As I see it, the object of the Gay Rights Movement is to place the sexual preference question in the realm of emperical fact, above debate, only having to do with "what is" and nothing related to questions of "what should be". With that done there is good justification for imposing a "gay is right" mentality on the public through leglislation. The views of groups that actively promote Chauvanism or Racism are actively suppressed and opposed because women and racial minorities "just are". There is no question of the rightness or wrongness of gender or race. But is sexual preference really in the same category? I think not. And if Gays want to put it there they need to demonstrate empirically that sexual preference is a matter of genetic makup. That would even make it possible to predict the sexual preference of an individual. But, as I see it, the "scientific" conclusions psychologist make about "intrinsic" sexual preference is based largely on post hoc assumption. } }Anyway, I want to know whether those Christians who feel, as Paul Dubuc does, }that homosexuality is a "moral" issue, feel that the moral argument lies }entirely upon what you perceive Scripture to be saying. That is, because }you read the Bible as condemning such actions, homosexuality there, and }there alone, takes upon itself a moral dimension. In that case, how do }you deal with a pluralistic, secular society which is not Bible-based? }What right do you have to enforce your conceptions of morality upon those }members of society who do not share your reading of Scripture? I want to stress here that you have read Scripture into this argument, not me. This discussion is beside the point of my original article, and perhaps belongs in net.religion, but I do have a few comments to make on the basis of Scripture. Your comments here imply either that the Bible does not *really* proscribe homosexuality (i.e. that those who think it does read it wrong) or that the Bible saying is irrelevant to moral issues in secular society. Contesting the first implication would require a Bible based discussion, such as I have *not* been trying to invoke here. My own position is that the Bible plainly proscribes homosexuality, however. I have examined some of the biblical interpretation for the justification of homosexuality and think it to be stretched to a desired conclusion. I responded to an article by Robert Wahl in net.religion some months back that was apparently based on Boswell's interpretation of the difficult passages regarding homosexuality. Maybe he didn't see it. The second implication seems to take it for granted that the Bible is wrong, that in a "secular society" only secular values are right. Blindly accepting the Bible as an unquestionable authority may be foolish, but is doing the same for a different authority (secular values), or rejecting Scripture prima facie as untrue, any less foolish? Enough said. It is apparent to me that submitting a dissenting view to this group is only inviting trouble, no matter how reasonable you try to be. I don't wish to be viewed as an enemy, or hater, of homosexuals but it seems hard to avoid here. I have already been told by one letter writer that my views should not even be heard. I recognise the right of anyone to reject any moral standard or adhere to any one they want to. I do not advocate forced imposition of my standard on anyone. I do, however, claim the right to believe it, teach it to my children without interference, reccomend it to others willing to consider it, and to be able to do so on an equal basis with others who do the same with their moral beliefs. But since that bothers so many here I'm going to go away. Again, though, if you want to better insure that I will see any response to this, please mail it as well as post it. If you only want to vent your spleen at your own additions to my argument don't bother mailing it. Thanks. Pardon my .signature file. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/27/84)
I have one correction to make to my last posting. I stated
there that, in the mail I had received from my first article,
someone was of the opinion that my views should not be heard.
After reading over all the mail again (before throwing it out)
I realised that that was not what the person was saying. There
were a lot of ad hominem and vitriolic remarks, but no one
actually went as far as to say that I had no right to speak.
I apologise for the misinformation. I have a tendancy not
to read such letters carefully the first time.
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/27/84)
From Paul Dubuc: >A response to Steve Dyer (et. al.) >} >} >} >The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue. >} >}I really do not understand this. Really not. In fact it sounds just a bit >}bizarre to me. Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue." >}Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is >}so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them >}to being singled out for moral notice? > >"Eating oysters" is not grounded in the moral arena. The only thing that >singles out homosexuality for moral notice here is the fact that this is >net.motss. Human sexual relationships have an inherently moral fiber. I am not arguing for the sake of argument here, but I completely disgree with Paul Dubuc. As a matter of fact I think that eating oysters is MORE a moral issue than sexual relationships are. In the first place I do not understand why sexual relationships are a moral issue (like Steve) and nothing that was said in Paul's answer justified his claim. he just stated over and over that sexuality is a moral issue. I could very well admit that sexuality might be a moral issue in our society because our society has decided to make it one, but I cannot see why there is anything inherent in any sexual act that could turn it into a moral issue. Coming back to oysters now. To eat oysters one has to kill them first (actually if they are already dead before you try to kill them, then they're no good) so you are dealing with the issue of whether or not killing for pleasure (nobody NEEDS oysters for survival) is moral. This issue can be debated on and on. So, I happen to think that killing animals is a moral issue, so what? Paul Dubuc doesn't seem to think it is even though he thinks sexuality is. How can I defend my claim against his? to be honest, I can't, but neither can he defend his! So it seems to me that morality is in the mind of the beholder; I just wish people would be honest enough to admit it. PS: I am not joking when I say that I view eating oysters as a moral dilemna. I sincerely do, along with many other people, most of whom resolve this dilemna by becoming vegetarians. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/28/84)
I don't know why Paul Dubuc and others feel they have such devastating reasons to oppose the eliminate of official discirmination against gay people. A little bit of logic demolishes their appeals to either "social science", Christianity, or "morality". "Social science" provides no support for believing heterosexuals are OK. Neither does biology: reproduction and sexual orientation have virtually nothing in common. In fact, most of the homosexual popu- lation is still married and has offspring. As for Christianity, there's Boswell's book. Not even history (the bad "good old days" when people shunned all that was "unnatural") provides support, but merely a record of bigotry that is monolithic only when you look at particular periods and places. As for "morality", that ancient whore who tirelessly services the lusts of the religious (& nonreligious) zealot, invocations of it by the right wing have about as much integrity and moral force as a rabble-rouser haranguing a lynch mob. Ron Rizzo
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/28/84)
Paul, it is amazing how easy it is to get your hair bristling, since my article in response to yours was calm, reasoned and offered in a true spirit of "let's hear what you have to say." Yet you take my comments as an attack on Christianity and beliefs. That's not so. I was a bit unclear, in that you inferred that I was somehow reading Christianity into the discussion when in fact you hadn't mentioned it. I am guilty of only one thing here, namely, responding to you in the fullness of the impression you leave on the net, and not only in this last submission to net.motss. It's pretty clear from the articles in net.religion and net.origins that you are a practising Christian, and I took that as one aspect of your opinion. I most certainly did not label you as a bigot in my previous posting. If you wish to leave religious arguments out of this, all the better. Now, let's get down to business... >My article dealt with the supposed "science" behind the assertion >that sexual preference is an inherent trait rather than having a >significant learned moral element. My main contention was >against the intent of the Gay Rights movement to put the sexual >prefernce thing in the same category with Women's and Black's >rights. There is no question of morality behind being a woman or >being black, they just *are*. From what I percieve of Gay >Rights, it trys to get us to view homosexuality in the same way. >My contention was that this position has no empirical, scientific >support. I don't care how many psychologists you get to vote on it. First, with regard to "inherent traits", especially concerning behaviors, our only real scientific tool is introspection. Thus, we hear from many homosexuals and heterosexuals who say "I've never felt any other way." On the other hand, there are some people who find themselves attracted to both sexes who say the same, and then there are those who make a concerted effort to be what they're not. What does this all prove? Not much. I think you will find most gay people would say that "choice" played no part in their sexual orientation. But my point is that this discussion is truly a dead-end, and irrelevant for any discussion of human rights. Dubuc and many other people seem to think, at least in this post-60's era, that lack of "choice" is the key to determining what should be protected in society. Yet, there is ample precedent for the protection of the rights of people who CHOOSE their behavior, even if that behavior is radically out of step with the mainstream of society. The best example of this in modern American society is one's religion. Not only is "freedom of religion" guaranteed in the Constitution, but laws explicitly disallowing discrimination based on one's religious beliefs and practices have been passed by the Federal and State legislatures, and clauses by most employers now incorporate religion as one of the items which will not be taken into account in hiring, firing and promotions. Note, Mr. Dubuc, that this holds true regardless of whether the person is a Christian, atheist, Thelemist, or devil worshiper. Society has stated that: "We may or may not LIKE your religion, but we won't deny you any of the fundamental rights which all members of society hold--the right to work, the right to associate, the right to make a life for yourself free of harassment." This is all that the Gay Rights movement seeks. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I make this analogy to religion only to explode the myth of chosen versus innate behaviors. Protection of rights under the law cannot (and has never been) limited to only innate conditions. I refuse to guess on which side sexual orientation lies. >I think that homosexuality ( like other things considered morally >"wrong" ) contributes, to the extent of its pervasiveness in >society, to the instability of human relationships in society. I >view homosexual relationships as generally unstable and insecure. >Therefore I do not have any confidence in the ability of >homosexual relationships to accomplish things important to the >continuance of a healthy and stable society. (i.e. raising >children well). This is the kind of statement which I was trying to get you to examine more closely. I am amazed that you feel justified in making this statement at all, unless it is in fact based on "empirical scientific data." At best, it is akin to the working-class Joe complaining about the laziness of blacks and their uncontrolled reproductive habits. I invite you to back this up somehow, else rightly face a charge of bigotry. Would this be "unfair" to you? Less unfair than your own irresponsible comment. To proceed, whether someone "accomplishes things important to the continuance of a healthy and stable society" or not is irrelevant to the protection of that person's rights. What is more, "raising children well" is only one part of the "continuance of a healthy and stable society", though it should be mentioned that many gay married people DO raise children well. And finally, the historical record clearly shows the enormous contribution which gay individuals have provided to Western society over the past 5000 years. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (06/28/84)
Ron, I don't get it. > "Social science" provides no support for believing heterosexuals are OK. Okay, what does that have to do with homosexuality being OK or not OK? > Neither does biology: reproduction and sexual orientation have > virtually nothing in common. In fact, most of the homosexual popu- > lation is still married and has offspring. I'd like to see some documentation on the above; quite frankly, I don't believe it. Are there any non-gay groups that have done statistical studies on the above? Incidentally, gay friends of mine (male) have told me that they are actually physically unable to respond to women; is that true for the gay population as a whole? If it's true for even part of it, a definite link is established. > Not even history (the bad "good old days" when people shunned all that > was "unnatural") provides support, but merely a record of bigotry that > is monolithic only when you look at particular periods and places. Again, what does homosexuality not being shunned in most instances have to do with it being OK or not OK? > As for "morality", that ancient whore who tirelessly services the lusts > of the religious (& nonreligious) zealot, invocations of it by the right > wing have about as much integrity and moral force as a rabble-rouser > haranguing a lynch mob. Is that the fault of "morality"? Asking the really dumb questions, Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith p.s. Please note: to keep my mailbox small, the phrase "OK or not OK" was used in an *extremely* general sense. Thank you, and good night.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/02/84)
> What has that got to do with homosexuality being OK or not OK?
About as much as Paul Dubuc's article does, which was my point.
I wouldn't read nongay studies of gay topics (they're biased,
you know). Should we seek out bisexual researchers? Or asexual
ones? Maybe we'll just have to wait for extraterrestrials to
do the surveys.
If you don't consider "Is homosexuality OK?" either badly posed,
or futile, or meaningless, I sure hope you're not in a position
to decide what research hypotheses get funded in any field.
Since I'm partly responsible for net.motss filling up with postings
debating (groan!) justifications [sic.] for homosexuality, which
runs counter to the express purpose of this newsgroup, I hereby
promise to do my part to bring up worthwhile topics, or at least
refrain from answering "OK/ not OK" mail. I'll also use my "n"
key to minimize temptation.
"Please, I don't give interviews."
Ron Rizzodubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/13/84)
> [Ron Rizzo writes...] > I wouldn't read nongay studies of gay topics (they're biased, > you know). Should we seek out bisexual researchers? Or asexual > ones? Maybe we'll just have to wait for extraterrestrials to > do the surveys. Wouldn't? At all? Is there a missing ":-)"? Non-homosexual researchers may have an axe to grind, but are you saying that *all* of them are anti-homosexual? Or that all homosexual researchers are unbiased? ??? Please elaborate. P.S. Sorry, Ron, for the junk (i.e., empty) mail. Hit the wrong key. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/13/84)
Announcement: this is a flame (it's a followup: I couldn't warn you all in advance). 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. "Why, my ancestors fed people like you to big kitties!" Ron Rizzo