Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4129 alt.romance:5724 soc.men:24251 soc.singles:74814
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!uceng!minerva!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <6917@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 10 Dec 90 15:18:52 GMT
References: <6195@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@uceng.UC.EDU
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: University of Cincinnati, Cin'ti., OH
Lines: 108

In article <6195@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:
>     Well, for one thing, Dan, I've never known a gay who felt it was their
>responsibility to make the rest of the world act the same way they do.  And,

Gay organizations are involved in politics. What is politics, Bob?
Politics is a bunch of people competing to see who will change the
others' behavior in *some* way. I understand that gays generally do
not try to change other people's sexual orientation (let's restrict
the discussion to life outside of prisons), but is this because of
noble motives, or the realization that such is futile? 

I am not saying that gays should avoid politics. Obviously, gays are
oppressed now, and the political process may allow them to reduce
that oppression. But it seems clear to me that gays want to change the
way the mainstream treats them and *thinks about them*. This to me
seems like another form of proselyting, albeit a less blatant
one. 

Call me cynical if you like, but I wonder what things would be like if
90% of the world was gay and 10% was straight. Would gays cheerfully
tolerate straights and treat them with respect equal to that which
they treated each other? 

We will never know, but consider the example set by the Christians.
In their early history, they were a violently oppressed minority.
The Romans fed them to the lions for public entertainment. Then, after
Christians became the majority, they established huge, corrupt
bureaucracies, instituted progroms and crusades and inquisitions,
etc. I suspect that anytime one particular group gets too much
power relative to other groups, it will be controlled by bastards,
regardless of its putative charter, lofty aims and claims, etc.

>BTW, if you could offer me an example of how fundamentalists are "interfered
>with", I'd like to hear it.

One has to strain to locate examples of such in the USA, but in some 
other countries examples are a little more obvious. Religious
oppression is alive and well in many parts of the world today. Being
a fundamentalist christian is a rather dangerous occupation in many
parts of the world. Of course, so is being a member of any locally
unpopular religion.

The quickest cure for religious oppression is to convert your
oppressors to your particular belief system. Fundamentalist christians
try to do this, and so do gay rights advocates. I don't see anything
wrong with this, it's exactly why we have constitutional protection
for free speech. We don't protect free speech so people can enjoy
listening to themselves, but to give them a chance to CHANGE OTHER
PEOPLE'S MINDS.

> Personally I could care less what someone's
>religious beliefs are, as long as they offer me the same respect. 

Then you do care what their religious beliefs are. Period.

>Unfortunately, try telling a bible-thumper you're a Methodist Zen-Taoist who
>still believes himself to be a Christian, and see what sort of reaction you
>get.

You could get a more violent reaction in many areas of the world torn
by sectarian strife (need some examples?). Religious intolerance is 
not unique to bible-thumpers by any means. Religious intolerance seems 
to be a natural consequence of organized religion. We might be able to
generalize this to: Intolerance is a natural consequence of 
organization, or maybe of human nature.

>     I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the
>press.

What press are you reading? In intellectual circles, fundamentalists
are a laughingstock.

> What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to
>"protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who
>thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies.

I was not aware that the constitution had anything to say about a person's
right to drive while intoxicated. I was not aware, even, that the
constitution granted any right to drive.

>     Maybe because they come looking for arguments.  I'll agree that it's an
>unfortunate stereotype.

Any time you want to change a person's mind about something, you "come
looking for arguments". Who does not do this? You are doing it even now.

> I'm sure there's lots of Christians reading this
>conference who have no desire to convert anyone.  Unfortunately, all we see
>are those who do want to make everyone believe the same way they do.  Another
>example of being damned by association.

Consider how the above passage would read if reworded to condescend to
gays instead of christians:

"I'm sure there's lots of gays reading this conference who have no 
desire to infect anyone with AIDS. Unfortunately, all we see are those 
well-publicized cases of gays who knowingly infected thousands of others
with the disease. Another example of being damned by association."

Bob, if anyone is being "damned by association", it is because "all we
see" is whatever we want to see.


--
Dan Mocsny				Snail:
Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu	Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171
	  dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu		University of Cincinnati
513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab)	Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171