NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/3051

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 6.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3051 rec.arts.books:22914 alt.politics.homosexuality:8265
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!robj
From: [e-mail] (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:47:09 GMT
Lines: 120

Some people have asked if this could be moved out of rec.arts.books.
I'm directing followups accordingly, and we will see if Mr. Zeleny
persists in returning them here.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>RJ:
>>The first rule of debate is to define your terms.  You do so inter-
>>minably, and have already established that your definitions assume
>>your uniquely abstracted standpoint, from which possible
>>reproductiveness (in some not-too-far-from-this-universe universe) is
>>the moral basis for sex of any kind.  These definitions do not match
>>mine, nor those of most of our audience, I suspect.
>
>Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
>theoretical debate.

This debate is not purely theoretical.  If it were, I would not be
reading it and participating in it from alt.politics.homosexuality.
I happen to be interested in disseminating accurate information about
homosexuality to as wide an audience as possible.  This conversation
with you is part of that.

>In any case, if you sincerely believe that
>popular consensus regards homosexual sex as morally unimpeachable, you
>are utterly out of touch with social reality.

Oh, I'm under no such illusions.

>Again, this claim cuts both ways, -- if my argument is correct, it is
>your chosen mode of sexuality, which separates you from moral reality.

Why would being homosexual (which I may or may not be; it's
irrelevant) separate me from moral reality?  In another post, you made
some claim that the reason was "homosexuals participate in a behavior
they could not wish on all of humanity."  You seemed to be using
"behavior" to mean "being homosexual".  By this you seemed to mean
that if everyone were gay the species would die, therefore being gay
is morally wrong.

However, as I see it, homosexuals participate in the behavior "act
according to your sexual orientation"--which as we have well
established is in most cases an innate part of the person's genotype.
This behavior _can_ be wished on everyone, especially as it does not
matter--the development of sexual orientation is in most cases not
affected by environment.  (Gay parents have as many straight kids as
straight parents.)

>Incidentally, organized crime likewise can be said to
>enhance the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of all the
>participants.

The victims are participants too.  Where are the victims of
homosexuality?  I am almost sure you have been over this ground
before, but lacking a good enough news system able to find the old
articles, I'll need to hear your claims again.

>Of course, everything depends on your definition of
>well-being.  I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
>loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
>drank himself to death.

You are utterly out of touch with social reality if you think this had
nothing to do with the amount of bigotry directed against those with
his "lifestyle".

>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
>>I thank you for being
>>as forthcoming as you have been in describing the origin and basis of
>>your theory.  (And indeed there is nothing here to rebut--I now see
>>that your theory is self-consistent, assuming one shares your terms
>>and your definitions.  I don't.)
>
>Thank you for your reciprocal candor.

You're welcome.

>You will not be surprised to
>learn that I regard my premisses as unimpeachable.  However, they are
>open to immediate revision, should anyone succeed in showing them to
>be in error.  You are always welcome to try.

One cannot necessarily show premisses to be in error, since they are
initial assumptions.  If you would simply and plainly state your
premises, we might be able to discuss things more easily.

>RJ:
>I beg to differ.  If you have any information that bears on the moral
>validity of homosexual intercourse, I would very much like to hear
>about it.

Here we are at the crux.  This thread has been going on for months
now, yet you act as though no one has said anything of any relevance.
You are not going to be convinced of anything, regardless of what we
say; it simply rolls off your back.  This is why I am more concerned
with the audience than with this debate; the debate will never make
any progress towards changing your mind.

>But regardless of whether such information would be
>forthcoming, I see no reason to suspend or taylor civil rights in
>accordance with sexual preference.

Nor does the Zekester, who's pestering alt.politics.homosexuality right
now.  I'm not surprised you seem to share similar views on this.

>If you wish to convict me of bigotry, it is incumbent upon you to
>produce a proof of irrationality of my beliefs.  I assure you that you
>will never succeed in this undertaking, if only because I would
>immediately abjure my beliefs, should they ever be proven wrong.

Um, so let me get this straight.  I will never prove your beliefs are
irrational, because if I did you would immediately abandon them?  This
is supposed to strengthen your claim that your beliefs are rational?
Hmmm.

--
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad
[e-mail]    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
[e-mail]    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_