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: Will he *ever* go away? :-)
Message-ID: <821@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 03:56:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.821
Posted: Tue Jul  3 03:56:31 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 00:14:38 EDT
References: <3147@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 169

The difference between Dubuc's thinking and my own is that I firmly believe
that opinions about the "morality" of an action or a condition are subject to
rational scrutiny, and if the premises fall down, the argument cannot stand.
In fact, this is a traditionally Thomist/Catholic view of faith and morality
and reason has always been the tool for the exposition of such ideas (although,
admittedly, official Church teaching hasn't yet come to the same conclusions
that are expounded here, mainly because our premises differ.)  It is not enough
to say something is immoral, if that is precisely the issue being argued.

Anyway, some comments on his last (really!) posting:

	>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?

My own opinion is that the government has no role to play in the choice
of clergy or of religious support people (such as Sunday school teachers.)
Thus, religious organization should be free to choose pastoral leaders
whose values reflect their own.  This would encompass discriminating against
openly gay people.  This is not to say that I approve of this situation, or
that one should not try to work and lobby through channels to see this changed,
but I do agree that the force of law should be kept out of this arena.
On the other hand, the secular aspects of religious organizations (legal,
clerical, and other support positions) should be protected vigorously by
the government.  Just as any actions contrary to the Civil Rights acts would
be challenged, regardless of where they appear, so too, I support the same
challenge if a gay rights bill were passed.  Perhaps then we would be able
to eliminate situations such as the one in Boston where a secretary was fired
from her clerical job at the Christian Science Monitor because she admitted
her lesbianism once it was "leaked" by an anonymous tip.

I am not in favor of anyone, gay or straight, coming up before a class
and expousing their religion, homosexuality or heterosexuality as "right".

	>What about modes of dress that are considered by the homosexual
	>to be a rightful espression of his lifestyle.

What, pray tell, would this be?  A light salmon chiffon?  Gay rights speak
not at all to the necessity of proper behavior in public.  I would expect
that a gay person would be held to the same standards of presentability
that anyone else would be.  If someone dressed improperly for the position he
finds himself in, then that is grounds for warning or firing.  I don't think
that a chief financial officer who is also gay has any inherent "right" to
wear an earring, regardless of the ear it's in.  It is also silly to even have
to state this baldly obvious fact.
	
	>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.  

Not so.  I will vigorously fight any attempt to remove my "fundamental right
to work" because I am gay.  Unfortunately, many people, not nearly as open
minded as Mr. Dubuc, feel free to do just that.  Laws prohibiting acts of
discrimination speak NOT AT ALL to moral issues--they are there to ensure 
the protection of basic rights.

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

And I am saying you do not know where it lies, nor do I.  Nor do I think
we will ever have an answer soon.  Your quaint theory of "filters" is
an appealing construct to jam reality into something consonant with your
preconceptions. 

	>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).

Dubuc is ignoring the issue here.  He made the claim that "homosexual
relationships are generally unstable and insecure."  I asked for
"empirical scientific evidence" to that effect.  This is not a question
of morality, despite the number of times that Dubuc repeats that.
It fills me with fury to hear someone so obviously ignorant of the facts
so self-assuredly dismiss gay relationships (which includes my own, a
relationship which has prospered for over five years.)  Let me parrot
Dubuc's own words: all gay relationships are not unstable and insecure, and
if some are they are not so just because they are between people who are
gay.

	>>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.

Surely, you had a lapse in judgement during your long response.  Are you
telling me that only "productive people" (whatever that phrase means)
have inalienable rights?  I wish to affirm that the bag lady down the street
who minds her own business, and doesn't cause a scene has as much right to
continue doing what she does, regardless of what you might think about it.
Rich Rosen is right in underscoring the issue of individual rights as primary,
subordinated only when necessary for the common good.  I will freely call any
contrary opinion FASCIST, despite the objection of people like T.C. Wheeler.

	>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.

Provincetown!  Har har!  Using Provincetown as a measure of gay relationships
is about as reliable as going to a singles bar, or maybe Club Med, and saying
the same things about straight relationships.  Do you see the invidious bias
here?  Do you see how clearly Dubuc fits data to his model and presents it
as fact?  Provincetown is a resort town, as well as a kind of gay "free zone"
so one can expect to see behaviors where people loosen up, and express
the sexual aspects of their nature.  But it's a fantasyland, not at all
representative of the gay population in general.  Myself, I find I can take
only one day on Commercial Street, and it's off to the beach for me.

Long-term gay relationships are no more grounded only on erotic and
sexual love than straight relationships.  If ANY relationship is to last,
one needs to establish bonds of caring, friendship and trust.

	>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.

Piffle.  And the same goes, I suppose, for those poor people who are
sterile and must adopt children.  Rather "disconnected" with their
lovemaking, I'd say.  And let's not forget those who choose to be celibate.
They clearly aren't holding their end up, either.  I'd prefer to achieve
"immortality" through my works and the people whose lives I touch.  I have
no fetish for seeing my genes in print through my children, and Dubuc would
be the first to admit that "immortality" is the WORST reason for having
children.

Dubuc has a remarkably limited (and inflexible) view of what it means to
"contribute" to society.  Not all people are called to procreation.  And
there is no stigma attached to this.  People contribute to a better society
in innumerable ways, and only one of these is the act of procreation.  Is
it really necessary to enumerate all these for his benefit?  In fact, his
description of the role of "straight" people is downright demeaning: people
are more than simply vehicles for more people.

I have grown weary of this argument, so unless someone has some unusually
incisive points to make, I'd prefer to let it die.  I have been unimpressed
by any of Dubuc's postings, and I fear they are going nowhere.  The two of
us can continue this off-line with whatever enthusiasm we can muster.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA