NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/11312

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 4.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11312 alt.rush-limbaugh:12852 talk.politics.misc:66086
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!jpsb
From: [e-mail] (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- [phone]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:02:41 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <1993Jan01.180401.23989@crash> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 97

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Milo D. Cooper ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mik
>e A. McAngus) writes:
>: o> Jim Shirreffs ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: o> :
>: o> : If I am correct that homosexual sex is wrong am I still am bigot?
>: o>
>: o> Meaningless question since matters of ethics, morals, and philosophy are n
>ot
>: o> provable as right or wrong.
>:
>:    On the contrary, Mr. McAngus, I can safely point out that the
>: abolition of slavery was a good thing, especially since I'm a black male.
>: Only a political anarchist would dare declare that ethics and morals are
>: beyond judgment.  Please support this assertion of your's with a lucid and
>: obvious example or two, or better yet, prove my submission that slavery
>: is immoral false.
>
>A) I said "provable", as in provable from universally accepted axioms.
>B) I obviously wasn't thinking very clearly because I did not consider all the
>impications of my statement.
>
There are two general means
of deriving one ethical behavioral standards. One is religious, the other
secular. Since liberals and libertarians have a *fit* at the meer
mention of the Bible I'll confine my remarks to "secular morality".

Webster's New World Dictionary 1990
moral adj.
1 dealing with, or capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
2 of, teaching, or in accordance with the principles of right and wrong
3 good in *conduct* or character: specif., *sexually virtuous*
4 skip 5 skip 6 skip
n. 1 a moral lesson taught by a fable, event, etc.   (AIDS anyone?)
2 [pl] principles or standards with respect to right or wrong in *conduct*

law n
1 a) all the rules of *conduct* established by the authority or custom
     of a nation, etc. b) any one of such rules.
2 obedience to such rules.
3-6 skip
7 any rule expected to be observed

lawabiding adj obeying the law

lawless adj 1 not regulated by the authority of the law
2 not in conformity with law; illegal
3 not obeying the law; unruly


Secular morality is obeying the laws (criminal) that govern our
society. These laws where legislated by *our* representatives. If a group
feels this laws infringe on their rights then an appeal to the counts
is an effective recourse. Organizing into special interest groups so
as to effect change at legislator level is also popular.  The bottom
line is that secular morality is defined in criminal law statues, and
represents the will of society. The contractual agreement
between the people and government represents the collective wisdom
of many generations. Breaking this contract
(the law) is preaching the trust between an individual and society
and is of course punishable. Secular reasoning has been that sodomy
(butt f*****g) is immoral, that is why there are laws
against it.

People take quite seriously the secular immorality of homosexual
sex. Even Washington D.C. has laws against sodomy. The reason these laws are
not enforced is that people take an individuals right to privacy more
seriously. Try engaging in sodomy at the town park and see what happens.
Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of society feel that
engaging in homosexual sex is criminal make it secularly immoral? You bet
is does, by definition. Will sodomy always be criminal (immoral) in our
society? Who knows, but until laws against sodomy are repealed, sodomy is
secularly immoral, period.

There is not a law against being a homosexual, hence being a homosexual is
not secuarly immoral. There is no law that singles out homosexuals. It is
particular sexual *conduct* that is criminal, secularly immoral.

Yes heterosexual sodomy is also immoral.

Now before the liberals and libertarians go balistic, I want to state
that I am not in favor of enforcing the sodomy laws. But I do think
that they are useful in defining immoral sexual conduct. Also my
*personal* definition of sodomy is the afore memtioned activity.

Now I ask once again,

If I am right that homosexual sex is wrong, am I still a bigot?

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself

Rush will be back monday!