Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Will he *ever* go away? :-)
Message-ID: <3147@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Jun-84 14:22:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3147
Posted: Thu Jun 28 14:22:57 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 04:20:00 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 264


I have already submitted an article entitled "My last remarks".
It was (and still is) my impression that discussions on the right
or wrong of homosexuality are unwelcome in this newsgroup.  Emotions
run high and in both camps, but this *is* net.motss--a group where
you probably would like to discuss things on a different basis.  
When I posted my original article, I had no intention of getting into
a detailed debate, but Steve Dyer has been very reasonable with me
and I hate to ignore someone who does that.  This *will* be my
last contribution to the discussion (Really. Honest.) due mainly to
the fact that I am short on time, not because I've been ruffled
by invectives.  I'm over that.

}
}Paul, it is amazing how easy it is to get your hair bristling, since my
}article in response to yours was calm, reasoned and offered in a true
}spirit of "let's hear what you have to say."  Yet you take my comments
}as an attack on Christianity and beliefs.  

I'm sorry that I used my response to your article to also respond to
the mail I received.  I made a parenthetical remark that I was not
just talking to you.  I didn't quote any of the mail because it was
apparently not posted.  The fact remains that you, like the rest, did
not take my article on face value.  It's fine to assume that religious
belief is part of my conviction, but it doesn't justify ignoring what
I said and responding completely on the basis of that impression.
Beside that, your article did stand out as being in good spirit.  It
was unfair of me to do my "bristling" in the context of your remarks.

}Now, let's get down to business...
}
}	>My article dealt with the supposed "science" behind the assertion
}        >that sexual preference is an inherent trait rather than having a
}	>significant learned moral element.  My main contention was
}	>against the intent of the Gay Rights movement to put the sexual
}	>prefernce thing in the same category with Women's and Black's
}	>rights.  There is no question of morality behind being a woman or
}	>being black, they just *are*.  From what I percieve of Gay
}	>Rights, it trys to get us to view homosexuality in the same way.
}	>My contention was that this position has no empirical, scientific
}	>support.  I don't care how many psychologists you get to vote on it.
}
}First, with regard to "inherent traits", especially concerning behaviors,
}our only real scientific tool is introspection.  Thus, we hear from many
}homosexuals and heterosexuals who say "I've never felt any other way."  On
}the other hand, there are some people who find themselves attracted to both
}sexes who say the same, and then there are those who make a concerted
}effort to be what they're not.  What does this all prove?  Not much.  I
}think you will find most gay people would say that "choice" played no
}part in their sexual orientation.  But my point is that this discussion
}is truly a dead-end, and irrelevant for any discussion of human rights.

Is introspection a *real* scientific tool?  It's totally subjective.
You're right that saying "I never felt any other way" does not prove
much.  That's one point I was trying to make.  And it does't answer
any moral questions.  I don't think that feeling homosexual desires
makes one a homosexual, just as having a desire to kill someone doesn't
make you a murder.  Homosexuals are those who not only have the desires,
but consistently act upon them, even regarding the actions as normal and
right.

I think that there is an alternate explaination to the subjective claim
of many that they "discovered" they were homosexual.  Discovery implies
the it was true all along when it may be that they only had feelings
of attraction to the same sex.  Those feelings to not in themselves make
them homosexuals.  At this point of "discovery", however, a psychological
"filter" is in place.  The individual then begins to view all subsequent
experience from his/her suspected orientation.  I have a filter that
says that I am not sexually aroused by males.  Consequently, any instances
of attraction I might experience toward the same sex are subconsciously
"written off".  To a homosexual, however, such experiences only confirm
and reinforce the perception that they *are* a homosexual while instances
of attraction to the opposite sex (assuming such attraction is uninhibited
by problems) may be written off.  In this way no conscious choice takes
place, but the individual is still becoming a homosexual while all along
it seems to him as if what he *is* is only finding its natural expression.

Again, this is not scientific proof in the true sense, only what appears
to me to be a resonable explaination.  It is also an explaintion that
leaves room for the possiblity that one can (albeit with difficulty)
change his sexual orientation.  I think it is better than the alternative
that makes post hoc assumptions that those who do renounce homosexuality
were never real homosexuals in the first place.  I admit that this can
work both ways.  It would be hard for me to become a homosexual, but
I admit that it could happen.  It invloves actively working against
the "filters" of my experience.  But the moral question is not answered
by all this.  It is left open to question, "Which is 'right'".  Sexual
behaviour is not amoral (morally neutral) in its impact.

}
}Dubuc and many other people seem to think, at least in this post-60's
}era, that lack of "choice" is the key to determining what should be protected
}in society.  Yet, there is ample precedent for the protection of the rights
}of people who CHOOSE their behavior, even if that behavior is radically
}out of step with the mainstream of society.
}
}The best example of this in modern American society is one's religion.  Not
}only is "freedom of religion" guaranteed in the Constitution, but laws
}explicitly disallowing discrimination based on one's religious beliefs and
}practices have been passed by the Federal and State legislatures, and 
}clauses by most employers now incorporate religion as one of the items which
}will not be taken into account in hiring, firing and promotions.

Of course the right to be a homosexual is analogous to the right to
believe in any religion.  They are both a matter of ideological freedom.
But there are some restrictions to freedom of religion called the wall
of separation.  Will similar restrictions be inherent is the freedom
of sexual preference.  I think not.  A public school teacher may believe
any religion he likes, but may not promote them as being right.  As far
as I know churches are able to discriminate against atheists in hiring
a pastor or a sunday school teacher.  Will they be able to do the same
with homosexuals?  What about modes of dress that are considered by
the homosexual to be a rightful espression of his lifestyle.  A teacher
praying in front of students or wearing plainly religious jewelry might
have an objection sustained against him for the exemplary (teaching)
effect it might have on children.

There is also one big difference that I can think of.  Freedom of
religion does not involve freedom to do certian specific acts.  If the
inherent practice of a religion was human sacrifice or drug abuse I think
we would not allow freedom of religion in those cases.  Homosexuality
involves sexual relationship between MOTSS, a specific practice which,
if society considered it a social ill, could be opposed.  The government
will not allow be freedom of religion if I claim that my religion is
to use heroin.  I am saying this only to illustrate that there *are*
limits imposed on certain specific practices, even those whose adherents
claim are hurting no one.  Religious freedom is a broad concept.
Homosexuality is not.

}
}Note, Mr. Dubuc, that this holds true regardless of whether the person is a
}Christian, atheist, Thelemist, or devil worshiper.  Society has stated
}that: "We may or may not LIKE your religion, but we won't deny you any of
}the fundamental rights which all members of society hold--the right to
}work, the right to associate, the right to make a life for yourself free
}of harassment."  This is all that the Gay Rights movement seeks.

You have the fundamental right to work because you are human beings.  To
put specific protection on you based on the fact that you practice
homosexuality is actually putting that specific practice above moral
debate and endorsing it as right.  

}At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I make this analogy to religion
}only to explode the myth of chosen versus innate behaviors.  Protection
}of rights under the law cannot (and has never been) limited to only
}innate conditions.  I refuse to guess on which side sexual orientation lies.

Which side it lies on *does* make a difference in how we think about it.

}
}	>I think that homosexuality ( like other things considered morally
}	>"wrong" ) contributes, to the extent of its pervasiveness in
}	>society, to the instability of human relationships in society.  I
}	>view homosexual relationships as generally unstable and insecure.
}	>Therefore I do not have any confidence in the ability of
}	>homosexual relationships to accomplish things important to the
}	>continuance of a healthy and stable society.  (i.e. raising
}	>children well).
}
}This is the kind of statement which I was trying to get you to examine more
}closely.  I am amazed that you feel justified in making this statement at
}all, unless it is in fact based on "empirical scientific data."  At best, it
}is akin to the working-class Joe complaining about the laziness of blacks
}and their uncontrolled reproductive habits.  I invite you to back this up
}somehow, else rightly face a charge of bigotry.  Would this be "unfair"
}to you?  Less unfair than your own irresponsible comment.

Moral questions are not based on empirical scientific data.  I
contest the charge of bigotry.  In my objection to homosexuality
I am against a specific practice.  Your analogy is not accurate.
All blacks are not lazy and if some are they are no so just because
they are black.  I think it fair to say, though, that all homosexuals
do practice homosexual activity.  There is nothing wrong with being
against laziness itself is there?  Blacks are not defined by what they
do.  They just *are*.  You seem to assume again that sexual preference
is inherent (like race).

}
}To proceed, whether someone "accomplishes things important to the
}continuance of a healthy and stable society" or not is irrelevant to the
}protection of that person's rights.

Why is it irrelevant?  People's rights are usually limited (even defined)
in this way.

}What is more, "raising children well"
}is only one part of the "continuance of a healthy and stable society",
}though it should be mentioned that many gay married people DO raise
}children well.

Children *are* the future, not "only one part" of it.  What percentage
of gays are married?  Of that group, how many raise children at all?
How long does the average gay marriage with children stay together?
I honestly don't know of any independant study on this, but I have
been in some areas where there is a large gay population. (e.g.
Provincetown, Mass.)  I didn't see many childern and it has been
my general impression that the gay relationship is grounded mainly
in erotic or sexual love.  I think relying on this type of love
(whether homosexual or heterosexual) destabilizes the relationship.
It only lasts as long as the feeling does.  Since sex is such an
intimate and personal expression of love, competition and infidelity
are particularly destabilizing.  The more pervasive such
a reliance is in society, the more unstable the society.

Where the raising of children are concerned, the heterosexual can
always say that the children are the product of their love.  In a
homosexual family there is a disconnection between their lovemaking
and children.  It is said that a person achieves immortality through
their children.  Homosexuals must rely on heterosexual practice
for their progeny. I think this is a substantial contradiction to
the assertion that homosexual practice inherently contributes to
the continuation of a stable society.  It is my observation that the
homosexual couple who marries, and raises children to maturity in a
stable and secure environment is quite rare.  Raising children is a
exeptional desire among homosexuals.  It is not intrinsic to their
lifestyle or marital relationship.  Please don't reduce all this
to an argument agains the "naturalness" of the relationship between
two homosexual individuals.  Any problem on the individual level
is specific to the individual.  Yet individuals make up the building
blocks of society.  With the growth of homosexual practice comes
and increasing problem for society.  Practices that are detrimental
to society will have little detrimental effect as a minority.  That
doesn't mean that there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice.
And sexual practices are different from others (eating oysters) because
of their impact on human relationships.

I still have to reject your demand for empirical scientific support
for my opinion here (lack of it supposedly makes me a bigot).  Is the
argument against it based on empirical data.  Human social relationships
are very complex.  Social science is not mainly a matter of objective
experiment.  I outlined in my last article the experiment that would
have to be performed to give my assertions a true scientific grounding
or refutation.  It's just not practical.  As it is there are so many
complex social factors that could be blamed for the results I would
attribute to homosexual pervasion with no real empirical proof either
way.  It's more of a conflict in moral standards and ideology rather
than scientific determination of the truth.

Also, moral standards are not irrelavant to public policy.  You said
that removing this discussion from religious grounding (actually the
morality inherent in religious belief) is "better".  Why?  If you
think it is because that will make it relate to a broader spectrum
of people, fine.  If you think a moral standard is irrelevant just
because it is inherent in a religion, I dissagree.  Morals are morals.
We have to deal with their content not exclude them because of their
source.

}And finally, the historical record clearly shows the
}enormous contribution which gay individuals have provided to Western
}society over the past 5000 years.

Enormous contributions are made by exeptional people, what does
their being gay have to do with it?  How was their contribution
linked to their practice of homosexuality?

As usual, I am interested in reasoning responses to my stuff.  Please
mail them.  Steve's last postings never made it here.  Thanks for
mailing them, Steve.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)