Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Observations on net.motss - homosexuality is a sin
Message-ID: <6271@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 13:42:03 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6271
Posted: Fri Nov 18 13:42:03 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 23:39:28 EST
References: ssc-vax.612, <6209@unc.UUCP> ssc-vax.620
Lines: 69

Dave Norris is correct in that my argument about the naturality or
unnaturality of homosexuality and other behaviors is incorrect.  However,
the way it is incorrect is not what Dave suggests.  It is incorrect because
I got sucked into the discussion without backing off and examining the
definitions.  I'll now rectify that flaw.

Nothing that is perceivable by human beings is unnatural.  Nature is the
universe; we live in the universe, therefore all our actions and perceptions
are natural, whether they be feeding a waif or nuking a continent.  The
whole "natural vs. unnatural" worldview implies a purposiveness to nature
separate from the purposes of humans, and says that they can be in conflict;
but nature has no purpose -- it simply exists.  Nothing is unnatural because
everything is in nature; we couldn't do anything unnatural if we tried.

Given this, the whole argument about the naturality and unnaturality of
various events is absurd, and I will not continue it, except to point out
that by Dave's standards, contraception is unnatural, as are all forms of
foreplay.

The question remains of homosexuality's moral legitimacy.  If Dave wants to
talk about this, fine.  However, I refuse to accept any action as moral
which restricts the liberty of a person who does not cause hurt or harm to
any other person, but simply does not follow a certain standard.  In other
words, there is no such thing as a "victimless crime" in my morality -- if
it is victimless, it is not a crime; however, restricting the
"perpetrator's" liberty because of the action IS a crime.  Homosexuality
therefore carries no moral stigma.

Here is an astounding statement from Dave:

	I think I stated the unnatural aspect of homosexuality as an
	opinion;  I didn't think I would draw this much flak.

Right.  You deliberately spread hatred and prejudice, and expect that the
fact that it is your opinion lets you off the hook.  Suppose someone posted
an article saying that they thought it was unnatural for blacks to be
anything but slaves, that is, that free blacks are unnatural.  I'd come down
just as hard on them as you, and the fact that it was their opinion would
not deter me in the least.  If you spread hatred and prejudice, you deserve
to be publicly castigated, and that's what I'm doing, and will continue to
do if you do not stop.

Here's another winner from the same source:

	...you proceed on the assumption that I am prejudiced toward
	homosexuals.  This may or may not be true (and would be
	difficult to prove/disprove anyway), but what has that got to
	do with starting a logical argument?

You stated no basic principles from which your beliefs are drawn, but if I
am to carry on logical discussion, I must know what those principles are.
My assertion was a challenge to you to provide some basic principles behind
your arguments, since otherwise I would have no alternative but to believe
that they are rooted in prejudice.  You have said nothing to contradict this
latter possibility, and therefore I will continue to believe it.

More than that, though, I asked you to admit this because in so doing you
would come closer to understanding that any argument that comes after its
conclusions are formulated is immediately suspect.  I hardly think I need to
support this statement; if a million examples of false arguments that turned
out to be rationalizations do not spring to your mind when I say this, you
have not had sufficient contact with logical discussion to be able to carry
on such a discussion.  In other words, admit that you began by disliking
homosexuality, and then came up with your "unnaturality" argument; you may
then come to realize that the argument is a rationalization, and therefore
highly suspect.
________________________________________________________
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)