pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/28/84)
I have already submitted an article entitled "My last remarks". It was (and still is) my impression that discussions on the right or wrong of homosexuality are unwelcome in this newsgroup. Emotions run high and in both camps, but this *is* net.motss--a group where you probably would like to discuss things on a different basis. When I posted my original article, I had no intention of getting into a detailed debate, but Steve Dyer has been very reasonable with me and I hate to ignore someone who does that. This *will* be my last contribution to the discussion (Really. Honest.) due mainly to the fact that I am short on time, not because I've been ruffled by invectives. I'm over that. } }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. I'm sorry that I used my response to your article to also respond to the mail I received. I made a parenthetical remark that I was not just talking to you. I didn't quote any of the mail because it was apparently not posted. The fact remains that you, like the rest, did not take my article on face value. It's fine to assume that religious belief is part of my conviction, but it doesn't justify ignoring what I said and responding completely on the basis of that impression. Beside that, your article did stand out as being in good spirit. It was unfair of me to do my "bristling" in the context of your remarks. }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. Is introspection a *real* scientific tool? It's totally subjective. You're right that saying "I never felt any other way" does not prove much. That's one point I was trying to make. And it does't answer any moral questions. I don't think that feeling homosexual desires makes one a homosexual, just as having a desire to kill someone doesn't make you a murder. Homosexuals are those who not only have the desires, but consistently act upon them, even regarding the actions as normal and right. I think that there is an alternate explaination to the subjective claim of many that they "discovered" they were homosexual. Discovery implies the it was true all along when it may be that they only had feelings of attraction to the same sex. Those feelings to not in themselves make them homosexuals. At this point of "discovery", however, a psychological "filter" is in place. The individual then begins to view all subsequent experience from his/her suspected orientation. I have a filter that says that I am not sexually aroused by males. Consequently, any instances of attraction I might experience toward the same sex are subconsciously "written off". To a homosexual, however, such experiences only confirm and reinforce the perception that they *are* a homosexual while instances of attraction to the opposite sex (assuming such attraction is uninhibited by problems) may be written off. In this way no conscious choice takes place, but the individual is still becoming a homosexual while all along it seems to him as if what he *is* is only finding its natural expression. Again, this is not scientific proof in the true sense, only what appears to me to be a resonable explaination. It is also an explaintion that leaves room for the possiblity that one can (albeit with difficulty) change his sexual orientation. I think it is better than the alternative that makes post hoc assumptions that those who do renounce homosexuality were never real homosexuals in the first place. I admit that this can work both ways. It would be hard for me to become a homosexual, but I admit that it could happen. It invloves actively working against the "filters" of my experience. But the moral question is not answered by all this. It is left open to question, "Which is 'right'". Sexual behaviour is not amoral (morally neutral) in its impact. } }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. Of course the right to be a homosexual is analogous to the right to believe in any religion. They are both a matter of ideological freedom. But there are some restrictions to freedom of religion called the wall of separation. Will similar restrictions be inherent is the freedom of sexual preference. I think not. A public school teacher may believe any religion he likes, but may not promote them as being right. As far as I know churches are able to discriminate against atheists in hiring a pastor or a sunday school teacher. Will they be able to do the same with homosexuals? What about modes of dress that are considered by the homosexual to be a rightful espression of his lifestyle. A teacher praying in front of students or wearing plainly religious jewelry might have an objection sustained against him for the exemplary (teaching) effect it might have on children. There is also one big difference that I can think of. Freedom of religion does not involve freedom to do certian specific acts. If the inherent practice of a religion was human sacrifice or drug abuse I think we would not allow freedom of religion in those cases. Homosexuality involves sexual relationship between MOTSS, a specific practice which, if society considered it a social ill, could be opposed. The government will not allow be freedom of religion if I claim that my religion is to use heroin. I am saying this only to illustrate that there *are* limits imposed on certain specific practices, even those whose adherents claim are hurting no one. Religious freedom is a broad concept. Homosexuality is not. } }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. You have the fundamental right to work because you are human beings. To put specific protection on you based on the fact that you practice homosexuality is actually putting that specific practice above moral debate and endorsing it as right. }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. Which side it lies on *does* make a difference in how we think about it. } } >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. Moral questions are not based on empirical scientific data. I contest the charge of bigotry. In my objection to homosexuality I am against a specific practice. Your analogy is not accurate. All blacks are not lazy and if some are they are no so just because they are black. I think it fair to say, though, that all homosexuals do practice homosexual activity. There is nothing wrong with being against laziness itself is there? Blacks are not defined by what they do. They just *are*. You seem to assume again that sexual preference is inherent (like race). } }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. Why is it irrelevant? People's rights are usually limited (even defined) in this way. }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. Children *are* the future, not "only one part" of it. What percentage of gays are married? Of that group, how many raise children at all? How long does the average gay marriage with children stay together? I honestly don't know of any independant study on this, but I have been in some areas where there is a large gay population. (e.g. Provincetown, Mass.) I didn't see many childern and it has been my general impression that the gay relationship is grounded mainly in erotic or sexual love. I think relying on this type of love (whether homosexual or heterosexual) destabilizes the relationship. It only lasts as long as the feeling does. Since sex is such an intimate and personal expression of love, competition and infidelity are particularly destabilizing. The more pervasive such a reliance is in society, the more unstable the society. Where the raising of children are concerned, the heterosexual can always say that the children are the product of their love. In a homosexual family there is a disconnection between their lovemaking and children. It is said that a person achieves immortality through their children. Homosexuals must rely on heterosexual practice for their progeny. I think this is a substantial contradiction to the assertion that homosexual practice inherently contributes to the continuation of a stable society. It is my observation that the homosexual couple who marries, and raises children to maturity in a stable and secure environment is quite rare. Raising children is a exeptional desire among homosexuals. It is not intrinsic to their lifestyle or marital relationship. Please don't reduce all this to an argument agains the "naturalness" of the relationship between two homosexual individuals. Any problem on the individual level is specific to the individual. Yet individuals make up the building blocks of society. With the growth of homosexual practice comes and increasing problem for society. Practices that are detrimental to society will have little detrimental effect as a minority. That doesn't mean that there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice. And sexual practices are different from others (eating oysters) because of their impact on human relationships. I still have to reject your demand for empirical scientific support for my opinion here (lack of it supposedly makes me a bigot). Is the argument against it based on empirical data. Human social relationships are very complex. Social science is not mainly a matter of objective experiment. I outlined in my last article the experiment that would have to be performed to give my assertions a true scientific grounding or refutation. It's just not practical. As it is there are so many complex social factors that could be blamed for the results I would attribute to homosexual pervasion with no real empirical proof either way. It's more of a conflict in moral standards and ideology rather than scientific determination of the truth. Also, moral standards are not irrelavant to public policy. You said that removing this discussion from religious grounding (actually the morality inherent in religious belief) is "better". Why? If you think it is because that will make it relate to a broader spectrum of people, fine. If you think a moral standard is irrelevant just because it is inherent in a religion, I dissagree. Morals are morals. We have to deal with their content not exclude them because of their source. }And finally, the historical record clearly shows the }enormous contribution which gay individuals have provided to Western }society over the past 5000 years. Enormous contributions are made by exeptional people, what does their being gay have to do with it? How was their contribution linked to their practice of homosexuality? As usual, I am interested in reasoning responses to my stuff. Please mail them. Steve's last postings never made it here. Thanks for mailing them, Steve. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (07/03/84)
The difference between Dubuc's thinking and my own is that I firmly believe that opinions about the "morality" of an action or a condition are subject to rational scrutiny, and if the premises fall down, the argument cannot stand. In fact, this is a traditionally Thomist/Catholic view of faith and morality and reason has always been the tool for the exposition of such ideas (although, admittedly, official Church teaching hasn't yet come to the same conclusions that are expounded here, mainly because our premises differ.) It is not enough to say something is immoral, if that is precisely the issue being argued. Anyway, some comments on his last (really!) posting: >But there are some restrictions to freedom of religion called the >wall of separation. Will similar restrictions be inherent is the >freedom of sexual preference. I think not. A public school >teacher may believe any religion he likes, but may not promote >them as being right. As far as I know churches are able to >discriminate against atheists in hiring a pastor or a sunday >school teacher. Will they be able to do the same with >homosexuals? My own opinion is that the government has no role to play in the choice of clergy or of religious support people (such as Sunday school teachers.) Thus, religious organization should be free to choose pastoral leaders whose values reflect their own. This would encompass discriminating against openly gay people. This is not to say that I approve of this situation, or that one should not try to work and lobby through channels to see this changed, but I do agree that the force of law should be kept out of this arena. On the other hand, the secular aspects of religious organizations (legal, clerical, and other support positions) should be protected vigorously by the government. Just as any actions contrary to the Civil Rights acts would be challenged, regardless of where they appear, so too, I support the same challenge if a gay rights bill were passed. Perhaps then we would be able to eliminate situations such as the one in Boston where a secretary was fired from her clerical job at the Christian Science Monitor because she admitted her lesbianism once it was "leaked" by an anonymous tip. I am not in favor of anyone, gay or straight, coming up before a class and expousing their religion, homosexuality or heterosexuality as "right". >What about modes of dress that are considered by the homosexual >to be a rightful espression of his lifestyle. What, pray tell, would this be? A light salmon chiffon? Gay rights speak not at all to the necessity of proper behavior in public. I would expect that a gay person would be held to the same standards of presentability that anyone else would be. If someone dressed improperly for the position he finds himself in, then that is grounds for warning or firing. I don't think that a chief financial officer who is also gay has any inherent "right" to wear an earring, regardless of the ear it's in. It is also silly to even have to state this baldly obvious fact. >You have the fundamental right to work because you are human beings. To >put specific protection on you based on the fact that you practice >homosexuality is actually putting that specific practice above moral >debate and endorsing it as right. Not so. I will vigorously fight any attempt to remove my "fundamental right to work" because I am gay. Unfortunately, many people, not nearly as open minded as Mr. Dubuc, feel free to do just that. Laws prohibiting acts of discrimination speak NOT AT ALL to moral issues--they are there to ensure the protection of basic rights. >Which side it lies on *does* make a difference in how we think >about it. And I am saying you do not know where it lies, nor do I. Nor do I think we will ever have an answer soon. Your quaint theory of "filters" is an appealing construct to jam reality into something consonant with your preconceptions. >Moral questions are not based on empirical scientific data. I >contest the charge of bigotry. In my objection to homosexuality >I am against a specific practice. Your analogy is not accurate. >All blacks are not lazy and if some are they are no so just >because they are black. I think it fair to say, though, that all >homosexuals do practice homosexual activity. There is nothing >wrong with being against laziness itself is there? Blacks are >not defined by what they do. They just *are*. You seem to >assume again that sexual preference is inherent (like race). Dubuc is ignoring the issue here. He made the claim that "homosexual relationships are generally unstable and insecure." I asked for "empirical scientific evidence" to that effect. This is not a question of morality, despite the number of times that Dubuc repeats that. It fills me with fury to hear someone so obviously ignorant of the facts so self-assuredly dismiss gay relationships (which includes my own, a relationship which has prospered for over five years.) Let me parrot Dubuc's own words: all gay relationships are not unstable and insecure, and if some are they are not so just because they are between people who are gay. >>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. >Why is it irrelevant? People's rights are usually limited (even defined) >in this way. Surely, you had a lapse in judgement during your long response. Are you telling me that only "productive people" (whatever that phrase means) have inalienable rights? I wish to affirm that the bag lady down the street who minds her own business, and doesn't cause a scene has as much right to continue doing what she does, regardless of what you might think about it. Rich Rosen is right in underscoring the issue of individual rights as primary, subordinated only when necessary for the common good. I will freely call any contrary opinion FASCIST, despite the objection of people like T.C. Wheeler. >Children *are* the future, not "only one part" of it. What percentage of >gays are married? Of that group, how many raise children at all? How long >does the average gay marriage with children stay together? I honestly >don't know of any independant study on this, but I have been in some areas >where there is a large gay population. (e.g. Provincetown, Mass.) >I didn't see many childern and it has been my general impression >that the gay relationship is grounded mainly in erotic or sexual love. >I think relying on this type of love (whether homosexual or >heterosexual) destabilizes the relationship. It only lasts as long >as the feeling does. Since sex is such an intimate and personal >expression of love, competition and infidelity are particularly >destabilizing. The more pervasive such a reliance is in society, >the more unstable the society. Provincetown! Har har! Using Provincetown as a measure of gay relationships is about as reliable as going to a singles bar, or maybe Club Med, and saying the same things about straight relationships. Do you see the invidious bias here? Do you see how clearly Dubuc fits data to his model and presents it as fact? Provincetown is a resort town, as well as a kind of gay "free zone" so one can expect to see behaviors where people loosen up, and express the sexual aspects of their nature. But it's a fantasyland, not at all representative of the gay population in general. Myself, I find I can take only one day on Commercial Street, and it's off to the beach for me. Long-term gay relationships are no more grounded only on erotic and sexual love than straight relationships. If ANY relationship is to last, one needs to establish bonds of caring, friendship and trust. >Where the raising of children are concerned, the heterosexual can >always say that the children are the product of their love. In a >homosexual family there is a disconnection between their lovemaking >and children. It is said that a person achieves immortality through >their children. Homosexuals must rely on heterosexual practice >for their progeny. I think this is a substantial contradiction to >the assertion that homosexual practice inherently contributes to >the continuation of a stable society. Piffle. And the same goes, I suppose, for those poor people who are sterile and must adopt children. Rather "disconnected" with their lovemaking, I'd say. And let's not forget those who choose to be celibate. They clearly aren't holding their end up, either. I'd prefer to achieve "immortality" through my works and the people whose lives I touch. I have no fetish for seeing my genes in print through my children, and Dubuc would be the first to admit that "immortality" is the WORST reason for having children. Dubuc has a remarkably limited (and inflexible) view of what it means to "contribute" to society. Not all people are called to procreation. And there is no stigma attached to this. People contribute to a better society in innumerable ways, and only one of these is the act of procreation. Is it really necessary to enumerate all these for his benefit? In fact, his description of the role of "straight" people is downright demeaning: people are more than simply vehicles for more people. I have grown weary of this argument, so unless someone has some unusually incisive points to make, I'd prefer to let it die. I have been unimpressed by any of Dubuc's postings, and I fear they are going nowhere. The two of us can continue this off-line with whatever enthusiasm we can muster. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA