NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/3054

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 9.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3054 alt.politics.homosexuality:8270 rec.arts.books:22920
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
From: [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:53:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec21.065346.18751
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Lines: 226
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

RJ:
>Some people have asked if this could be moved out of rec.arts.books.

Really?  I haven't noticed any "people" asking.

RJ:
>I'm directing followups accordingly, and we will see if Mr. Zeleny
>persists in returning them here.

Indeed I persist.  Not only do I get to meet a better class of "people"
here, I also get to contribute towards determining what this group
*should* be.

>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.

MZ:
>>Your suspicion are moot, as is any appeal to popular consensus in a
>>theoretical debate.

RJ:
>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.

I have no interest in discussing your notion of theoretical purity,
beyond establishing whether you assent to my dismissal of popular
consensus, which is a necessary condition for making any meaningful
progress in this conversation.

MZ:
>>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.

RJ:
>Oh, I'm under no such illusions.

I am gratified to hear this.  Shall we then dismiss popular consensus
as irrelevant, because irrational?

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

RJ:
>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.

There is no need to be touchy.  I alluded to your chosen mode of
sexuality, as a result of recalling your earlier discussion thereof on
alt.sex.something-or-other.  Also, I am not using "behavior" to mean
"being homosexual"; on the contrary, I maintain that the only morally
relevant sense of "being homosexual" is "participating in freely
chosen homosexual behavior".

RJ:
>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.)

I do not recall having established that sexual orientation is "an innate
part of the person's genotype."  In any event, if the agent's particular
dispositions or inclinations are to be taken into consideration in
deciding whether acting by the means of their realization can be wished
on everyone, then there is nothing wrong with theft or murder, either,
-- after all, not everyone is going to want to kill or steal.

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

RJ:
>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.

To reiterate some of my assumptions, I take it that rational discourse,
in particular rational moral discourse, is both possible and desirable,
and so take human freedom of choice and rationality as its logical
prerequisites.  I take it that absolute moral principles bind all
rational agents in accordance with their fundamental nature, and
regardless of their particular goals or circumstances.  I take it that
rationality, sexuality, and mortality belong to the fundamental nature
of human beings, and accordingly are possessed of a moral dimension.
The rest is commentary.

Regarding your distinction of victimhood, I maintain that it begs the
question.  A sincere Christian thief may be compelled to rob a rich man,
in order to increase his patient's chances of entering heaven; should
you wish to grant the status of a victim to the latter, you would have
to dismiss the validity of the religious claims of the former.  Again,
if one takes Proudhon seriously by entertaining the notion that all
property might be the moral equivalent of theft, the neutral groung for
deciding victimhood in any proprietary claims becomes ever so shaky.  On
my own view, borne out by my argument that homosexual sex is a grave
transgression against the moral nature of man, all participants therein
are victims of their akrastic inability to control their passions.  To
prove me wrong on this matter, you would have to prove me wrong on
everything that entails it.

MZ:
>>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.

RJ:
>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".

You are utterly full of shit, if you think you can tell me something
about the pitiful situation of my best friend, without bothering to
inquire about his circumstances.

>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>[e-mail] (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

RJ:
>>>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.)

MZ:
>>Thank you for your reciprocal candor.

RJ:
>You're welcome.

MZ:
>>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.

RJ:
>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.

See above.

MZ:
>>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.

RJ:
>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.

Can you entertain the thought that this impasse may be due to the fact
that my opponents have a hard time accepting that I am right?

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

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

I see no reason to not read alt.politics.homosexuality, since I reject
the notion of separatist politics.  If my articles appear in your group,
it is because I got tired of redirecting the follow-up from my
interlocutors' cross-posting.

MZ:
>>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.

RJ:
>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.

Not quite.  You will never convict me of bigotry, since should you ever
prove that my beliefs are irrational, I would immediately abandon them.
Surely a commitment to revise irrational beliefs is a necessary
condition of rationality, just as irrationality is a necessary condition
of bigotry.

>--
>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_

cordially,
mikhail [e-mail]
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."