arndt@smurf.DEC (06/21/84)
Well hell. You're a hard guy to talk to Dyer. I can't say kiss my . . . I'm not knocken' queers. (Yet) All I'm asking is how do you justify to yourselves and others your behavior. Once you say ANYTHING is right or wrong you ARE into morals. You say not to disparage queers as a class. Ok. Why? The idea (your statement) that the expression of an individual's opinion about homosexuality (see I didn't say queer) is morally neutral is crap, plain and simple! I have my keyboard set for silent running, by the way. With my dog and black hunch back I'm fishing for what you might be against so that I can ask you why. Where to start defining what is ok behavior. Is Hitler ok? No. Why? See. Most people think queers are not ok. See. You're trying to answer them I think. It should be very important to you alll right now. The tennor of the country is to put you all right back in your collective closet. Don't be fooled by all your marches, etc. There is a growing backlash. All you have to do is look to see it. And by the way it has nothing to do with our current President. He's only riding the swing to the right. Laws can be changed. All it takes is another vote, another decision. That happens when the political winds blow for change as they are now. I think you are your own worse enemy. You scare the daylights out of the straights and get them angry. The blacks could appeal to an inate sense of right and fair play. The moral tradition of the Western World (despite the writing of that practical joker from Yale) has been against queers. The reason, the appeal that changed the lives of blacks in the last hundred years or so was a MORAL one. Homosexuals have no such moral leg to stand on. Not with the broad mass despite the radical fringes in the churches. I think you are caught up in an incestuous grouping with those who agree with you and fail to see the strength and power of those who find you in the wrong. You are now being perceived as a threat to society now, I believe, because of your growing (strike a now) voice in society. YOUR REPLY HAS TO BE COUCHED IN A MORAL ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE. That's what I'm asking for. Not your experience or "I feel" but something to match the moral tradition of the West. I think Boop de doop from Yale saw that but did a poor job. Gotta go. Write if you get ideas. Regards, Ken Arndt
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (06/21/84)
OK, Ken, I see your point, though I don't exactly agree with it. That is, I really see speaking from morals as at a finer level of granularity than is really needed here. That is, I see the situation of gays as pretty much the same situation as blacks in the 60's, where most of the problem stems from ignorance rather than moral outrage. Thus, when you asked gays to speak from moral causes, I thought it was not necessary, since the corresponding argument for straight people (hey, why should you be allowed to live) never comes up, and of course it's evident to all of us arguing one side! But, perhaps I'm off base here. Couching your arguments in the politics of pragmatics is a bit more persuasive. I don't see any problem with formulating a statement based from morals--a "Summa Homosexualica", if you will, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's necessary. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/22/84)
Yoe are right about the Christian movement placing a bad rap on the
morals of the gay community. And it has indeed been true that the
Christian Church has had a strong hand in the formation of the
'so-called morals' of the "western world". Also, I will admit that
the evangelical movement of the "Christian right" seems to be making
some headway in the direction of reversing the advances made in the
last decade in the area of human rights.
That, unfortunately, does not make the "church" any more right for
denying us (and women, handicapped, blacks, children, Catholics,
Hindis) our rights to be human, sheltered, fed, employed, etc.
The real answer is that the habit some people have of attempting to
enforce their "moral" beliefs on other people must be stopped. This
is not to say that murder, theft, etc. can suddenly be allowed, but
instead to say that depriving any person of the right to decide what
may be done to themselves and their property is wrong... whether
that deprevation occurs by murdering them or by depriving them of
the right to work or live under shelter or take the first empty seat
in the bus.
It is not is not the morals of gays that should be questioned, it is
the morals of those who oppose our right to work, to live where we
wish, to love whom we wish, and who call for different treatment of
people based on their gender or sex or colour that must be called
into question.
Richard Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!browerlkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/22/84)
From: arndt@smurf.DEC: All I'm asking is how do you justify to yourselves and others your behavior. ----- Why do gay people have to justify their behavior? My moral code says, (to a first approximation), that what you do is okay by default, and only if it effects me, or society in general in an adverse manner, do I have the right to demand justification. Since I see no way in which gay liberation is having a negative effect on society (given no a priori bias against gay lifestyles), I cannot see why its anyones business to demand a justification. BTW: AIDS is not a negative effect of gay liberation, it is a negative effect of promiscuity, as is any venereal disease (I'm sure syphilis and ghonnorea (sp?) have killed many more thru the ages).
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/22/84)
> I'm not knocken' queers. (Yet) All I'm asking is how do you justify to > yourselves and others your behavior. Once you say ANYTHING is right or > wrong you ARE into morals. You say not to disparage queers as a class. > Ok. Why? The idea (your statement) that the expression of an individual's > opinion about homosexuality (see I didn't say queer) is morally neutral > is crap, plain and simple! We should give Ken a biscuit for not saying "queer". (Yes, I'm convinced that Ken's relationship with his mythical dog is auto-erotic :-) > Where to start defining what is ok behavior. Is Hitler ok? No. Why? See. A technique used here repeatedly has been "Is that so? No. Why? What about X? See." Note that the answers to the question, and the reasoning processes behind them, are ASSUMED to have been made (i.e., in the same way that the assumer did). Is Hitler OK? No. Why? (and now: substance) Because (see..) Hitler advocated a systematic ideology proposing interference in the rights of other people to live their lives. One person's rights end where they interfere with another person's rights to live his/her lif as he/she chooses. See how simple morals can be if they're based on logic and consideration for others. > Most people think queers are not ok. See. Most people think Ken Arndt is not OK. See? By Ken's own "moral" system (quotes very important there), we should prevent him from existing. Fortunately for him (and perhaps unfortunately for us) we have a more elegant moral system. > I think you are your own worse enemy. You scare the daylights out of the > straights and get them angry. The blacks could appeal to an inate sense > of right and fair play. The moral tradition of the Western World (despite > the writing of that practical joker from Yale) has been against queers. > The reason, the appeal that changed the lives of blacks in the last hundred > years or so was a MORAL one. Homosexuals have no such moral leg to stand on. > You are now being perceived as a threat to society now, I believe, because of > your growing (strike a now) voice in society. YOUR REPLY HAS TO BE COUCHED > IN A MORAL ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE. That's what I'm asking for. Not your > experience or "I feel" but something to match the moral tradition of the > West. I think Boop de doop from Yale saw that but did a poor job. For Ken, as with many Christians and other Western moral thinkers (Ken, a thinker? :-) , the tradition of Western morality is more important than providing for the needs of all the individuals in a society. (Who is this joker you refer to? Do you think everybody knows who you're talking about, and holds the same opinions besides?) What does it mean to "scare the daylights out of the straights"? If "the straights" are scared by misinformation, just provide the right information. (Difficult to do when bigotry is a part of one's morality.) -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/23/84)
> I'm not knocken' queers. (Yet) All I'm asking is how do you justify to > yourselves and others your behavior. The world would be in a very sorry state if the entire world had to justify our behavior to someone like Ken Arndt. Some behaviors are personal choices and don't need legitimizing or justifying. Others, like public insult and inflammatory postings without actual content, probably should have some sort of justification. Offhand, I can't think of any... -- "I take your opinions and multiply them by -1." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/23/84)
>I'm not knocken' queers. (Yet) All I'm asking is how do you justify to >yourselves and others your behavior. Once you say ANYTHING is right or >wrong you ARE into morals. You say not to disparage queers as a class. >Ok. Why? The idea (your statement) that the expression of an individual's >opinion about homosexuality (see I didn't say queer) is morally neutral >is crap, plain and simple! > >Most people think queers are not ok. See. You're trying to answer them >I think. It should be very important to you alll right now. OK Arndt, I would like you to justify your behaviour. Why do you think you are ok? Most people think you aren't. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley