NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12809

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 5.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12809 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11240 alt.politics.clinton:19466 alt.politics.bush:15363 alt.politics.homosexuality:8811
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kellmeye
From: [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:23:44 GMT
Lines: 100

[e-mail] (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>

>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>Yet I believe that schools should teach that Christians, meat-eaters,
>and monogamists are peple who may hold different views from the
>student, but who should not be persecuted because of this.

>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>live their life without persecution.

Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?

Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:

Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
right to divorce their parents.  If this is true, why is everyone so
upset about the young girls left alone in Chicago?  Perhaps the parents
merely found secular reasons for believing the 9-year old was mature
enough to care for the 4-year old.

Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
child has been ruled an adult by the courts?

Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
parties agree, where's the harm?

Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
since they never create children.  At most, men supply only raw material -
it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.  If a woman can decide
to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons, and
there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out
of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic
future.

  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
brother's sperm.  Currently, anonymous sperm donors can NEVER be legally
held for child support - what difference does knowing the sperm donor's
name make?  It's not like he gets any more choice, or makes a child.
Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
record as supporting this reasoning.

What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to
condemn another culture's practices.  As long as their society finds
it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
inhibitions on a functioning society?

That's what secular reasoning gets you.  Sorry, but I don't see how
secular reasoning is superior to religiously based reasoning.

You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.  How many people have
gone to jail for having the flu while driving?  What if they vomited
and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while
influenzaed)?  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)?
Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.  So, Evelyn, when
are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
individuals?  How about ANYONE with VD?  Follow your thrice-blessed
secular logic.

>Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]
>--
>"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
>"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr


Steve Kellmeyer
--

Steve Kellmeyer
[e-mail]