NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/ca/politics/9598

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mipl3!pdb059
From: [e-mail] (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:48:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab
Lines: 98

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> [e-mail] (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>
> Non sequitor.  Proscribing homosexual activity does not pass any legal, moral,
> or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
> more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that
> proscribing an activity denies their humanity.  I realize that many self-
> labelled "homosexuals" would attempt to define themselves entirely in
> terms of their sexuality, but that is merely a sign of their mental
> instability.

Oh, nonsense.  You're beginning to sound like Clayton Cramer.  Proscribing
homosexual activity most certainly does, by definition, pass legal judgment
on a person (or, more precisely, what that person chooses to do).  If this
proscription is passed for moral reasons, which is certainly the case for
homosexuality, then the law is acting to pass moral judgment as well.

"Merely bans an activity".... Gad.  Might I suggest that you examine it from
the other perspective?  What if a law were to be passed forbidding us from
having sex with women?  Even women that we had made a lifelong commitment to?
That law would merely ban an activity, right?  You still have not addressed
the issue of why you feel a law should be passed that regulates behavior in
the privacy of a home between two or more consenting adults.  I can think of
no case where any such law would be proper.

Out of curiosity, why did you use the phrase "self-labelled", and why did you
put "homosexuals" into quotes?  I know of no homosexuals who define themselves
"entirely in terms of their sexuality", but I know of a great many hetero-
sexuals who define homosexuals in just that way.  You, based on what you have
said here, are one of those.

Many homosexuals band together in groups for the same reason that blacks
tend to hang around with other blacks, asians hang around with other asians,
Christians hand around with other Christians, and so on.  Any person tends
to hang around with people they are comfortable with.

> The situation you describe would, of course, be reprehensible.  However,
> if society said to my son/daughter "The action you have taken is wrong
> and detrimental to society" I would have no choice but to agree.  I love
> my children, but that love requires me to point out wrong action.

Talk about non sequiturs.  Since you have not demonstrated that homosexuality
is wrong nor detrimental to society, your argument is meaningless.

> My point is that the gay person can no more attack the straight person for
> attempting to outlaw homosexuality than a child molester can attack both
> for outlawing child molestation.

And once again, like Clayton Cramer, you attempt to equate the two.  Sorry,
but there are too many critical differences between the two for me to accept
this argument.  As has been pointed out to you in the past, homosexuality
involves two consenting adults.  Child molestation is entirely different.
Therefore, a gay person has every right to ask the straight person to not
pass laws outlawing homosexuality.

>>The point is that gay people are here, have been here, and probably will be.  If
>>two adults decide that they want to be together, then there is nothing morally
>>wrong with that.  It all lies within the eye of the beholder. I could come up
>>with list of things that 'straight' people indulge in and should possibly be
>>outlawed...
>
> You certainly could.  You would be wrong, but the list could easily be
> constructed.

Let's try.  Sado-masochism between two consenting adults in the privacy of
their own home, including bondage, chains, whips, and even minor bodily harm.
Why is this acceptable to you while homosexuality is not?

> Oh, please, what gives you the right to label the act "molestation"?  You've
> just said morality is in the eye of the beholder.  You've said there is
> no right or wrong.  Child molestation, by your definition, cannot possibly
> be attacked as wrong - it is simply a different way to live one's life.
> If a 12-year old adult wants to have sex with a 35-year old adult, who are
> you to say it's wrong, hmmmmm?

It's simple--a twelve-year-old child is not an adult and is not capable of
an informed decision on such matters.  That's why we have laws protecting
them.  Two adults, on the other hand, are quite capable of making informed
decisions.

> I know several gay people.  I know several people who have used illegal
> drugs.  I know several people who stole things.  I know people who have
> molested children.  I know people who lie.  All of them are, or can be,
> good people when they want to be.  Their actions are detrimental to
> society, however, and when the occasion has risen, I have let them know
> that.

I love this one.  Please tell me why a gay person's sexual acts are "detri-
mental to society"?  I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
[e-mail]   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------