Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/1/84; site seismo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!keith
From: keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Notes on Last Few Submissions
Message-ID: <1724@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 16:08:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: seismo.1724
Posted: Mon Jul  2 16:08:57 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jul-84 00:56:22 EDT
References: <2050@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 77

>>> It seems to me that the same sociological evidence that would give intrinsic
>>> rights to homosexuals would also give them to those who claim to have been
>>> born with pedophilic tendancies (sic).

>> Bingo.  That's absolutely correct.

> It is?  Just what kind of sociological evidence are you two referring
> to?  References, please.
> I've noticed a tendency to lump homosexuality together with sex with
> animals and children.  Note that there's one fundamental difference being 
> overlooked:  homosexuality _per_se_ involves mature, consenting adults. 
> There's a definite difference between sex that involves a fellow adult and 
> sex that involves an easy-to-manipulate object.

Until recently, homosexuality was *correctly* lumped together with sex with
animals; the word was perversion, I believe.  What we're saying is that 
sociological evidence *as a class* of evidence has nothing to do with the
discussion; example time: if I construct a society made up of the
chaps that are into child sex the exact same logic can be used to justify
it as *is* being used to justify homosexuality, i.e. well, everyone agrees
that it's okay, the people that are doing it are well-adjusted (by our
standards) etc. etc.  Again, I'm *not* attacking homosexuality; just the
logic that was used to defend it.  (Detect a note of paranoia?  There was a
joke going around a long time ago:
	Q: How many women's libbers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
	A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!
The winner, and new champeeeeen!!!!!
Not that the libbers' sense of humor about themselves has improved,
but the gay groups are edging right in there...  guess it's tough to be
amused by what you really believe to be *wrong*.  On the other hand, there's
a real thin line between that and taking yourself a little too seriously. 
And, as we all just noticed, that's my own little prejudice; enough of this
bull, back to the *real* issues, heh, heh)

>> I have a large problem with those people who wish to say that gay rights are
>> inherently "right"; that women's liberation is inherently "right"; that black
>> rights are inherently "right".

> Yes, you do seem to have a problem.  Homosexuals, like women and black 
> people, are humans and as such are bestowed with the same equal and 
> inalienable rights as any human.  If you wish to challenge their rights, 
> then you should also challenge the rights of all humans - a challenge that 
> would probably belong in net.philosophy or net.politics.

In this culture, suicide is illegal and immoral, punishable by jail, but
	war is perfectly OK.
In this culture, I can kill animals for the sheer giggles of it all, not
	to mention (leg-hold) trapping, but I cannot "have sex" with them.
In this culture, I cannot have sex with an under 18 year-old, unless I marry
	her, in which case she can be pretty much any age at all.
In this culture, I can (at the right restaurants) consume live animals.
	(And we're not talking oysters here.)
Slavery was implicity written into the original constitution; the musical
	1776 had a wonderful (fictional) rendering of this.

Let's talk about the word "inherent".  Jim, the inalienable rights that you 
speak of so glibly are evolving on a daily basis.  It makes a lot of sense
for the gay population to point out that discrimination on the basis of sexual
preference is pretty stupid.  The statment "I have an inherent right to be
homosexual" makes no sense at all.  Let's also talk about the word "right".
As you say, the original comment might better have been posted elsewhere
on the net.  It was an another attack on the reasoning process, however, not 
homosexual rights.  I am *so* tired of this amazing ability some people
have that allows them to blithely inform me that something is (gulp, gosh)
"right".  Time to tune in the real world, folks.  I don't care who you are,
what you do, what your sign is, or what you mix avocado dip with after midnight.
You don't know what the hell you're doing.  (Imagine that said in an even
monotone, campers.  Honest, I practiced...)  There aren't twenty people in the
world that you could get to agree on *anything* let alone something important.
And, based on this masterpiece of judgement, I automatically, without a second
thought, reject any argument that even delicately hints of an inherent
rightness.

		Yeaaaah... enough, of my drivel, thanks for listening,
		Keith 
			ARPA: keith@seismo 
			UUCP: seismo!keith