home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!mara
- From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
- Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
- Message-ID: <1992Nov19.223524.3078@panix.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:35:24 GMT
- References: <9NOV92.11344298@enh.nist.gov> <1992Nov9.215419.16057@news.ysu.edu> <1992Nov12.035614.14567@funlwb.enet.dec.com> <BOB.92Nov11210959@dolores.Stanford.EDU> <1992Nov17.050246.12001@funlwb.enet.dec.com>
- Organization: (getting there)
- Lines: 66
-
- sunderl@obvius.stl.dec.com (Mike Sunderland) quotes Bob Lodenkamper
- at length, and then (apparently missing all of the points) says:
-
- >Seriously though, what is it that pisses you off about the "religious right"
- >so much? I mean what makes the religious right the bad guys?
-
- It's a little hard to believe.
-
- >Ok, they hold a world view that is probably seriously at odds with yours.
- >They think you are doing something morally wrong in having sex with a partner
- >of the same gender as yourself. AND they want to make sure that everybody
- >hears about what they have to say about it. Are they wrong just because they
- >disagree with you and disaprove of something that you hold very dear, or is
- >there more to it than that? And what does all this creationism stuff have to
- >do with the subject?? Enlighten me.
-
- We've been trying, but your lack of comprehension looks to me like
- it requires an effort of will.
-
- It's not just that they hold views that are at odds with ours-- they
- want their views to be the law of the land and our views to be
- outlawed. They want to prevent *public* schools from teaching
- science as it is generally agreed to be science. Some of the
- science that they don't want taught is evolution (hence the
- "creationism"); some of it is the existence of the clitoris (see the
- title of this thread).
-
- >BTW, on the judgement thing - am I not allowed to hold an opinion
- >about what other people do just because their activities don't affect
- >me? If I don't like what you do does that mean I am judging you? Is it
- >ok for me to believe that some things are open to personal preference
- >while some other things are not?
- If you go around announcing that you don't like what I do, yes-- you
- are judging me. In fact, if you go around announcing that you *do*
- like what I do you are juding me (but I'm less likely to object). I
- am not among those who claim it's always wrong to judge (although I
- seem to remember a Biblical injunction on the topic). Of course,
- once you make your judgments of other people a matter of public
- record, you make it possible for folks to judge you on the basis of
- them.
-
- >I'm not trying to stir up a flame war or poke fun at anyone,
- I'm trying to take your word for this, but you are really missing a
- point that seems very obvious to me.
-
- >but I do want to understand. I am often annoyed when I see people
- >talking and acting as though sexual immorality were the only kind of
- >immorality - ignoring things like greed, corruption, dishonesty and
- >all kinds of injustice. But I think maybe you have some other
- >concerns?
-
- What bothers me is the assumption that sexual (im)morality is a
- matter of the sex (as in male or female) of one's partner(s).
- That simply does not seem to me to be an issue of morality-- period.
- Among moral issues that have to do with sex are whether you're
- honest about the nature of your relationship and whether you
- treat the other(s) involved with respect. Greed, corruption,
- and dishonesty are certainly immoral in my book. Injustice is more
- complicated; it may be immoral, and it is always unfortunate.
-
-
- --
-
- Mara Chibnik
- mara@panix.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
-
-