Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Fundaphobia
Message-ID: <811@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 28-Jun-84 03:05:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.811
Posted: Thu Jun 28 03:05:55 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 02:30:01 EDT
References: <3127@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 89

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.  That's not so.  I was a bit
unclear, in that you inferred that I was somehow reading Christianity into
the discussion when in fact you hadn't mentioned it.  I am guilty of only
one thing here, namely, responding to you in the fullness of the impression
you leave on the net, and not only in this last submission to net.motss.
It's pretty clear from the articles in net.religion and net.origins that
you are a practising Christian, and I took that as one aspect of your
opinion.  I most certainly did not label you as a bigot in my previous
posting.  If you wish to leave religious arguments out of this, all the
better.  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.

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.

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.

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.

	>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.

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.  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.  And finally, the historical record clearly shows the
enormous contribution which gay individuals have provided to Western
society over the past 5000 years.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA