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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: Re: More "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <1112@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 18:32:16 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1112
Posted: Tue Nov  6 18:32:16 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 01:25:14 EST
References: <211@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 18

It's important to get one point clear: the issue of "choice" surrounding
one's identification as a gay person is IRRELEVANT to any discussion of its
ethics or morality.  Something objectively considered "bad" simply does not
become "good" because the agent exercises no free will.  I fear that those
who would make a case for the "But-I-was-born-this-way" argument are
unwittingly using the same arguments as Brunson and his kind: weak
arguments which presuppose that being gay is inherently bad.  To argue from
that point is to concede the discussion from the beginning.  The
existential state of having a sexual preference for others of the same sex
is morally and ethically neutral.  "Choice" has nothing whatsoever to say
about it.  There are gay people who have been involved in heterosexual
relationships, but who have "chosen" their gay relationships and there are
others who have always limited their relationships to the same sex.  Is one
group "better" than another?  Of course not!
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA