Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Fundaphobia
Message-ID: <8150@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Jun-84 12:21:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.8150
Posted: Wed Jun 27 12:21:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 02:25:21 EDT
References: <3127@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 42

From Paul Dubuc:
>A response to Steve Dyer (et. al.)
>}
>}
>}	>The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue.
>}
>}I really do not understand this.  Really not.  In fact it sounds just a bit
>}bizarre to me.  Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue."
>}Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is
>}so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them
>}to being singled out for moral notice?
>
>"Eating oysters" is not grounded in the moral arena.  The only thing that
>singles out homosexuality for moral notice here is the fact that this is
>net.motss.  Human sexual relationships have an inherently moral fiber.

I am not arguing for the sake of argument here, but I completely disgree with
Paul Dubuc.  As a matter of fact I think that eating oysters is MORE a moral
issue than sexual relationships are.  In the first place I do not understand
why sexual relationships are a  moral issue (like Steve) and nothing that was
said in Paul's answer justified his claim.  he just stated over and over
that sexuality is a moral issue.  I could very well admit that sexuality might
be a moral issue in our society because our society has decided to make it
one, but I cannot see why there is anything inherent in any sexual act that
could turn it into a moral issue.

Coming back to oysters now.  To eat oysters one has to kill them first (actually
if they are already dead before you try to kill them, then they're no good) so
you are dealing with the issue of whether or not killing for pleasure (nobody
NEEDS oysters for survival) is moral.   This issue can be debated on and on.
So, I happen to think that killing animals is a moral issue, so what?  Paul
Dubuc doesn't seem to think it is even though he thinks sexuality is.  How can
I defend my claim against his?  to be honest, I can't, but neither can he defend
his! So it seems to me that morality is in the mind of the beholder;  I just
wish people would be honest enough to admit it.

PS: I am not joking when I say that I view eating oysters as a moral dilemna.
I sincerely do, along with many other people, most of whom resolve this
dilemna by becoming vegetarians.

Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley