Gay Marriage

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Gary Phillips

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 4:08:03 PM2/27/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

: MZ:
: :: The problem with going by the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is
: :: that its own decision in Bowers vs Hardwick forecloses the very
: :: possibility of legitimizing homosexual marriage, provided that the
: :: marriage contract is construed as requiring the legitimacy of sexual
: :: intercourse between the spouses. Instead of taking this easy way out,
: :: I prefer to judge rights on a rational, rather than judicial basis.
: :: So if you can argue from the first principles for the truth of your
: :: assertion, go right ahead; otherwise we might as well curtail this
: :: line of inquiry.

Supreme Court's Bowers decision was wrong, and if the Court's
past reversals on certain issues of social import are any cause for hope,
then we may hope that they will reverse themselves on the Bowers decision
when and if they ever develop a sense of common civility and human
decency.
No reasonable person in the United States questions the existence
of the right to privacy. The question of Bowers was whether that right
to privacy extended to gay persons' sexual relations.
Richard Mohr ("A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Must
Stand Up For Gay Rights," Beacon, 1994), argues that the distinctive
relation that a person holds to his or her body grounds an important
dimension of sexual privacy and of privacy more generally. We not only
have bodies, but in some sense, we *are* our bodies. "What one does
to one's body or has done to one's own body has a special status
underwritten by the importance of the body itself, since the body is the
foundation for a person's being in the world at all. The body is the
foundation for our projection of ourselves into the world through action
and for our instilling value in things. The body is not merely necessary for
existence and action - as food, shelter, and a kidney machine might be -
but also is part of that *in virtue of which* a person is and acts. If a
person is to be free in any of this, he must therefore have control over
his own body - not in the sense of doing *with* it as he will, but doing
*to* it as he will - so that it is his. In order that an action is one's own,
it is not enough that the action be the product of one's intentions, for one's
intentions are presented not merely by and through, but inextricably *with*
one's body. Therefore, if one's acts are to be one's own, one's body as
well as one's intentions must be one's own."
One's thoughts and intentions cannot be said to be one's own
(i.e., that they form the basis of a free action) if they are simply thoughts
that we just happen to have, or if they are put there by someone else,
(brainwashing, electrodes, God). "Ideas can only be said to be our own ...
if we have considered them, worked them over, appropriated them, and
especially if one produced them new." Barring this, one's thoughts cannot
truly be said to be one's own.
"Similarly ... if one's actions are to be free, one's body must
not belong to one merely by accident. One must not be forced merely to
accept what is given by nature or by other's volitions. One must be
permitted the opportunity to mold it, shape it, alter it, and even to make
it as boldly new as it is capable, not as others allow, assuming, of
course, all the usual constraints on what one may do *to* others *with*
it. One may not reshape one's fist by breaking it on another's skull.
One may not be permitted to cut one's hand at all if that would cause one
preemptively to fail of some duty justifiably incumbent upon one - say,
military service in a defensive war. But such relatively clear exceptions
aside, one must be free to do to one's body as one sees fit, if one it to
be free at all."
A persons body is not just another thing that he has, or owns, but
"rather has a special value and standing as that in virtue of which (s)he
possesses other things and as the chief means by which other things come
to have value. 'My body' has a wholly different status than even 'my house.'"
Things belong to a person by virtue of the fact that we make or build them
with our bodies or by virtue of the fact that we have bought those things
with the fruit of the labor that our body has provided. "An unappropriated
object in the world becomes one's own as one mixes one's labor with it,
for it would then be unjust for anyone else to take it. No one else in this
circumstance deserves it."
"One's property rights then devolve from a special status that one
has as a body. If some of the world is one's own, it is so because of
one's body. The body is not merely a necessary condition for one's
appropriating what is one's own, it is also the chief causal condition for
appropriation. If one speaks of one's body as 'mine,' it is nevertheless
not subject to the same restraints and controls as other things that one
owns, for it is morally and causally prior to their being one's own.
A person's body is therefore not available to government for its
legitimate projects in the way his (other) property is. Government cannot
prevent the individual from valuing himself and possessing himself and yet
still suppose that ... he is not merely a tool of and for government. If
there are any substantive liberties, a person has the right to instill
value in himself and possess himself.
"A very powerful right to privacy then is generated by and over
the body because of its special status in one's projects, one's values,
and one's very presence in the world. As the means by which one both
projects oneself into the world and appropriates what is one's own to
oneself, the body engenders special protections for one's actions that
chiefly affect it, even if the features of the world which it affects,
produces or appropriates are not covered by the same right and thus remain
generally subject to state control.
"The general right to control one's body has at its core a cluster
of specific, bodily based liberties: one has a strong presumptive right to
feed one's body, to dress it as one sees fit, to seek medical treatment,
to inject foreign bodies into it, to permit others to do so, to touch it,
to have others touch it, to allow others to present their bodies to it,
and to be the chief governor and guarantor of one's own feelings, emotions
and sensations - compatible with a like ability on the part of others and
with other requirements for civil society. Consensual sex between adults
engages and nearly exhausts the core protections of the general right to
bodily based privacy. Indeed, it comes close to being a perfect or
complete exemplification of its provisions.
"Only when one's control of one's body is protected, does one have
a right to bodily integrity, and only when one has bodily integrity is one
a person at all. Any moral systems, then, in which persons are a locus of
value will be obliged to protect from government those persons' acts of
consensual sex."


--
Gary Phillips
orp...@kaiwan.com
Laguna Beach, CA

Gary Phillips

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 4:09:30 PM2/27/95
to
: AW:
: : Why on earth is it rational to require sexual intercourse between
: : spouses to legitimize a marriage? .... [I]f you extend a benefit
: : to one group of people and not another you should have a rational reason
: : to distinguish the two. I see no rational reason to say only people who
: : can legitimately have sexual intercourse can get married.

: To say that the marriage contract must require the *legitimacy* of sexual
: intercourse between the spouses is not to imply that it must ipso facto
: require its *possibility*,

Granted, for what it's worth.

: And your attempt to demonstrate that marriage can exist
: in the absence of any physical possibility of intercourse sheds no
: light on its permissibility whenever such intercourse is illegitimate.

Any and all consensual sex between adults is legitimate by
virtue of the argument presented by Mohr, the previous post. Your point
is thus irrelevant and beside the point. Marital relations assume a level
of intimacy that often, if not always, includes sexual relations. Since
marriage is, with rare exception, precluded to persons below the
age of consent, the question of whether such sexual relations are
legitimate can never arise, legitimately that is.

------------------------------------------------
: MZ:
: Construing marriage mainly as an institution for social regulation of
: sexuality in its relation to procreation and child-rearing, does not
: foreclose systematic exceptions for cases where such concerns fail to
: arise because of accidental circumstances of physical handicap or
: geographical separation. As regards your plea for rational reasons,
: one has been given earlier, by correlating marriage with an intrinsic
: likelihood of natural reproduction.

Your construal of marriage is inadequate, however. Even if
one grants that, in the past, marriage's primary function was to
regulate sexuality in relation to procreation and child-rearing (I do
not) that does not exhaust it's legitimate social functions, then or
now.
Moreover, given the actual scope of legal marriage,
reproduction and child-rearing cannot be its purpose or primary
justification. Aside from reasons already given by other participants
here, this observation is further confirmed by looking at the rights
and obligations of marriage, which exist independently of whether
a marriage generates children and which frequently are not even
instrumental to childbearing and rearing. Mohr points out that
"while mutual material support might be viewed as guarding the
interests of children, other marital rights, such as the immunity
against compelled testimony from a spouse, can hardly be grounded
in child-rearing purposes. Indeed this immunity is waived when
relations of one's own children are what is at legal stake, as in
the cases of alleged child abuse."
Also, "the assumption that child rearing is a function
uniquely tethered to the institution of heterosexual marriage also
collides with an important but little acknowledged social reality.
Many lesbian and gay male couples already are raising families in
which children are the blessings of adoption, artificial insemination,
or prior marriages. ... A 1988 study by the American Bar Association
found that eight to ten million children are currently being raised
in three million gay and lesbian households. This statistic, in
turn, suggests that around 6 percent of the U.S. population is made
up of gay and lesbian families with children. We might well ask
what conceivable purpose can be served for these children by
barring to their gay and lesbian parents the mutual cohesion,
emotional security, and economic benefits that are ideally promoted
by legal marriage."

---------------------------------------------
: AW:
: : I think you misunderstood my statement. I meant the consent of
: : competent citizens who are the ones getting married. I didnt mean people
: : should take opinion polls on whether they should get married. My
: : contention was that it makes sense to allow people who are competent and
: : consent to get married. I do note that this would allow mormons and
: : moslems to engage in polygamy but i dont see any particularly good
: : reasons to disallow that either. (there might be some increased fear of
: : coersion but this would argue for increased scrutity of consent not
: : elimination by law.)

: Correction accepted. Now please distinguish your conception of
: marriage from an arbitrary civil contract between two or more parties.

Marriage is a relationship that presumes an intimacy and a
level of transparency between the parties that is not at all like the
relation of unrelated parties entering into an arbitrary civil contract.
It is, in Mohr's words, "intimacy given substance in the medium
of everyday life, the day-to-day. Marriage is the fused intersection
of love's sanctity and necessity's demand."
Intimate relations differ markedly from public or commercial
transactions. For instance, there is nothing distinctive about your
waiter that bears on the meaning of your buying a meal from him.
The waiter is just carrying out a role, one that from the buyer's
perspective nearly anyone could have performed.
Friendships are intimate relationships, but we do not
consider them marital relations because "while we might count
on a friend in a pinch" for some urgent need, "friendly relations
do not usually manifest themselves through such necessities of
life. Friendships are for the sake of fun, and tend to break down
when put to other uses. Friendships do not count as marriages,
for they do not develop in the medium of necessity's demand."
Nor do we consider roommates as married, in spite of
the fact that roommates often cook, clean perform household chores,
and share finances together. Sharing the day-to-day necessities
of life is only one ingredient of marriage.
"Marriage requires the presence and blending of both
necessity and intimacy. ... This required blend of intimacy and
the everyday explains much of the legal content of marriage. For
example, the required blend means that for the relationship to work,
there must be a presumption of trust between the partners; and, in
turn, when the relationship *is* working, there will be a transparency
in the flow of information between the partners - they will know
virtually everything about each other. This pairing of trust and
transparency constitutes the moral ground for the legal right against
compelled testimony between spouses, and explains why this same
immunity is not extended to (mere) friends."
"The remaining vast array of legal rights and benefits of
marriage equally well fit this matrix of love and necessity - chiefly
by promoting the patient tendance that such life requires (by providing
for privacy, nurture, support, persistence) and by protecting against
the occasions when necessity is cussed rather than opportune,
especially when life is marked by crisis, illness, and destruction."
[Quotes taken without permission from Richard Mohr's,


"A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Must Stand Up For

Gay Rights," Beacon, 1994].

Gary Phillips

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 4:10:11 PM2/27/95
to
:MZ:
: Aside from the Cartesian precedent legitimizing doubt as a universally
: applicable philosophical attitude, there is the issue of the moral
: specificity of the marital contract, which infringes on the autonomy
: of its parties in numerous ways, above and beyond the boundaries of
: normal contractual arrangements. So there has to be a compelling
: reason to allow a citizen to abrogate his natural rights for the sake
: of entering into such contract. It is easy to adduce such reasons
: when the issues of child-bearing and child-rearing arise as a natural
: consequence of the contract. But in so far as we may be prepared to
: deny the standard case of marriage as a fertile heterosexual union,
: these considerations no longer would arise in intrinsic connection
: therewith. So there would appear no prima facie reason to allow
: anyone but practicing heterosexual parties to bind themselves beyond
: the limitations of standard contractual arrangements, or to arrogate
: to their situation the legal benefits and protection beyond those,
: which normally accrue therein.

A human being's natural rights include the right of entering
into marriage. Moral value cannot consistently be held to reside in the
moral agent if he is not free to excercise that agency with regard to
what he does or allows to be done to his body. In fact, the moral agent
must be free to curtail his autonomy in conformance with his set of moral
values, else it is senseless to call him a moral agent at all. This includes
the moral agent's freedom to curtail his autonomy by entering into mutually
consensual and binding intimate relationships that he deems valuable.
Your first point, then, is invalid. The only compelling reason necessary to
establish the natural right of an individual to enter into such contracts is
the fact of his moral agency. Child-bearing and child-rearing are
irrelevant to the establishment of necessary and sufficient justification
for responsible adults to enter into such a relationship.

-----------------------------------------------

: MZ:
: ::::: The marriage contract is quite unlike any other contractual
: ::::: arrangement, in that it seeks a special recognition from, and
: ::::: enforcement by, the powers of the state. The rational basis
: ::::: for this preferential treatment (in comparison with all other
: ::::: types of legal contracts) cannot be warranted by the constituent
: ::::: factors of sexual intimacy, emotional bonding, or domestic
: ::::: partnership, which need not elicit any special concern from the
: ::::: community.

: AW:
: ::: i would say the first sentence of that paragraph is true but the
: ::: second is ridiculous, unsupported and probably "begging the question."

: MZ:
: :: I thought it to be self-evident. Consider the sole available
: :: alternative of opening the issues of sexual intimacy, emotional
: :: bonding, or domestic partnership to the intrusion of the same
: :: state that sustains the majority ruling in Bowers vs Hardwick.

Such issues are already open to the intrusion of the state, but only
legitimately to the extent that we want justice to be a reliable background
and foundation for family life. The fact is that emotional bonding, sexual
intimacy and domestic partnership become issues of special concern for the
community when love's harmony wears thin and justice is undone. The
necessity of legal marriage has to do with providing a foundation, backdrop,
or refuge of last resort in just these situations.
Quoting Mohr again, "Conflicts between love and justice can be
relieved if we view marriage as a legal institution that allows for appeals
to justice when they are needed. We do not want justice to be the
motivation for loving relations, but neither do we want love and family to
exist beyond the reach of justice. ... We therefore need to look at legal
marriage as a nurturing ground for social marriage, and not (as now) as that
which legally defines and creates marriage and so precludes legal
examination of it. We want marriage law to be a conduit for justice in
moments of crisis - in financial collapse, in illness, at death - to guard
against exploitation both in general an in the distinctive forms that
marriage allows."

-------------------------------------------------
: AW:
: : I think the fair implication is that he is saying that it is the
: : state's burden to justify the exclusion of people from exercizing certain
: : rights (or opportunities under the law or whatever you want to call them.
: : While that is a legal arguement, it is also a policy arguement as to what
: : kind of laws the state should have.

: The marriage cointract is traditionally defined as applicable only to
: parties of opposite genders.

This is factually false.
"Most state laws speak of spouses and do not actually make explicit
that people must be of different genders to marry. During the 1970's, gays
challenged these laws in four states, claiming that in accordance with
common-law tradition, whatever is not prohibited must be allowed, and that
if these laws were judicially construed to require different sex-partners,
then the laws constituted illegitimate gender discrimination or sexual
orientation discrimination. Gays lost all these cases, which the courts
treated in dismissive, summary, but revealing fashion.
"The courts would first claim [as you do] that the silence of the
law notwithstanding, marriage automatically entails gender difference. The
best-known of these cases, Singer v. Hara (Washington State 1974), defined
marriage as 'the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.'
This definition has become *the* legal definition of marriage since it has
been taken up into the standard law dictionary, Black's Sixth Edition, where
Singer is the only citation given in the article on marriage. Yet, this
definition tells us nothing of the content of marriage. First, the
qualification 'as husband and wife' is simply circular. Since 'husband'
and 'wife' *mean* people who are in a marriage with each other, the
definition, as far as these terms go, presupposes the very thing to be
defined. So what is left is that marriage is 'the legal union of one man
and one woman.' Now, if the term 'legal' here simply means 'not illegal,'
then notice that a kiss after the prom can fit its bill: 'the legal union of
one man and one woman.' We are told nothing of what 'the union' is that is
supposed to be at the heart of marriage. The formulation of the definition
serves no other function than to exclude from marriage - whatever it is -
the people whom America views as destroyers of the American family, same-sex
couples and polygamists: '*one* man and *one* woman.' Like the ordinary
dictionary definitions, the legal definition does no explanatory work.
"Nevertheless, the courts take this definition, turn around, and say
that since this is what marriage *means*, gender discrimination and sexual
orientation discrimination are built right into the institution of marriage,
and so since marriage itself is okay, so too must be barring same-sex
couples from it. Discrimination against gays, they hold, is not an
illegitimate discrimination in marriage, indeed it is necessary to the very
institution: no one would be married if gays were, for then marriage
wouldn't be marriage. It took a gay case to reveal what marriage is, but
this case revealed that marriage, at least as it is legally understood, is
nothing but an empty space, delimited only by what it excludes - gay
couples. And so this case has all the hallmarks of being profoundly
prejudicial in its legal treatment of gays.
"If we shift from considering the legal definition of marriage to
the legal practices of marriage, are there differences of gender that
insinuate themselves into marriage, so that botched definitions aside,
marriage does after all require that its pairings be of the male-female
variety? There used to be major gender-based legal differences in marriage,
but these have all been found to be unjust and have gradually been
eliminated through either legislative or judicial means. For example,
husbands used to have an obligationn to take care of their wives' material
needs without their wives (no matter how wealthy) having any corresponding
obligation to look after their husbands (however poor). Now, though, both
spouses are mutually and equally obliged. It used to be that a husband
could sell his wife's property without her consent; the wife had no
independent power to make contracts. But these laws have not generally
been in force since the middle of the last century and are now
unconstitutional. It used to be that a husband could *by definition* not
rape his wife - one could as well rape oneself, the reasoning went. Now,
while laws governing sexual relations between husbands and wives are not
identical to those governing relations between (heterosexual) strangers,
they are nearly so, and such differences as remain are in any case cast in
gender-neutral terms. Wives are legally protected from ongoing abuse from
husbands - whatever the nonlegal reality.
"Now that gender distinctions have all but vanished from the legal
*content* of marriage, there is no basis for the requirement that the legal
*form* of marriage unite members of different sexes. The legal definition -
'union of one man and one woman' - though doggedly enforced in the courts,
is a dead husk that has been cast off by marriage as a living legal
institution."
(Mohr, 'A More Perfect Union, 36-37).

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 2:17:32 AM2/28/95
to
If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of
bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves. Accordingly, I
will answer a personal statement or even a paraphrase of the position
in question, provided that its size is kept within reasonable bounds.

cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me

Gary Phillips

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 6:30:12 AM3/2/95
to
Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of

: bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
: only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves. Accordingly, I
: will answer a personal statement or even a paraphrase of the position
: in question, provided that its size is kept within reasonable bounds.

About half of my post was devoted to Mohr's positions. You have
avoided answering the arguments presented in either half. One can only
guess at the true reasons, since what you claim above is an obvious
sham.
If you would care to discuss Mohr's views, to which I tentatively
subscribe, I would be more than happy to engage you in the discussion. In
fact, I would appreciate it if you would oblige me with your antagonism.
Having just finished two of Mohr's books, I have not had adequate time to
digest all of what he has to say sufficiently to feel comfortable
formulating his thoughts in my own words, nor enough time to decide
whether or not I subscribe to his views wholeheartedly. Believe it or
not, I welcome your antagonism. I encourage it, as a matter of fact. I
would rather be engaged in a conversation with someone who is anxious to
poke holes in one of my favored arguments than with someone who is
uncritical of them. Given my own obvious bias, how better to improve
upon those ideas and arguments to which I am naturally drawn than to have
a hostile opponent willing to criticize my ideas and the ideas of those I
admire?

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 12:06:28 AM3/3/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of
>bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
>only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves.

No. In this forum you cower away from people capable of speaking for
themselves, and attempt to evade, wish away or misconstrue their
arguments.

That's why you get no respect. Not because you're a Philosopher King
among the heathen, but because you're a worthless pseudo-intellectual
among people who make a living out of their integrity and capability.

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"A cripple taught me how to dance, a blind man taught me how to see.
A fallen angel taught me how to fly, and a prisoner taught me to be free."
- Simple Image.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 4:24:16 PM3/3/95
to
In article <3j4a84$7...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

:: If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of
:: bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
:: only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves. Accordingly, I
:: will answer a personal statement or even a paraphrase of the position
:: in question, provided that its size is kept within reasonable bounds.
:
: About half of my post was devoted to Mohr's positions. You have
: avoided answering the arguments presented in either half. One can only
: guess at the true reasons, since what you claim above is an obvious
: sham.

Your sulking is unbecoming. Anyone with a week's experience on the
USENET will have learned to ignore articles owing their existence to
a scanner. If you insist on be noticed, you must work much harder.

: If you would care to discuss Mohr's views, to which I tentatively


: subscribe, I would be more than happy to engage you in the discussion. In
: fact, I would appreciate it if you would oblige me with your antagonism.
: Having just finished two of Mohr's books, I have not had adequate time to
: digest all of what he has to say sufficiently to feel comfortable
: formulating his thoughts in my own words, nor enough time to decide
: whether or not I subscribe to his views wholeheartedly. Believe it or
: not, I welcome your antagonism. I encourage it, as a matter of fact. I
: would rather be engaged in a conversation with someone who is anxious to
: poke holes in one of my favored arguments than with someone who is
: uncritical of them. Given my own obvious bias, how better to improve
: upon those ideas and arguments to which I am naturally drawn than to have
: a hostile opponent willing to criticize my ideas and the ideas of those I
: admire?

This is one of the most hostile places in the known universe. Most
people who come here can be safely presumed to like antagonism. But
they are not entitled to demand it, particularly without first having
expended some personal effort to elicit it. Learn trolling from the
masters.

quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 8:41:44 PM3/4/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>Occam's razor is very effective in excising the sheer likelihood of
>ecclesiastical approval of the selfsame form of sexual behavior that
>benefitted from uniform contemporary ecclesiastical condemnation --
>lacking conclusive evidence to the contrary.

One will note the word "contemporary" in the above phrase. Translated,
Zeleny is claiming that the *early* Christian Church could not have had
same-sex marriage ceremonies because the *current* Christian Churches
are against it.

One will notice that the same logic can conclude that there was never
any slavery in the US.

Zeleny is right to suggest conclusive evidence is needed. Zeleny has,
however, dismissed Boswell's book without offering any reason except the
above for doing so. We must conclude that it is not the lack of available
evidence which is the problem, nor the possibility that it is flawed. It
is Zeleny's attempt to wish that, if he closes his eyes real tight and wishes
hard, it will go away.

This is, of course, the attitude of a child.

Your specific objections to the evidence contained in Boswell's book
are, Zeleny ?

- Tony Q.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 4, 1995, 9:33:25 PM3/4/95
to
In article <3jb16i$7...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: Occam's razor is very effective in excising the sheer likelihood of
:: ecclesiastical approval of the selfsame form of sexual behavior that
:: benefitted from uniform contemporary ecclesiastical condemnation --
:: lacking conclusive evidence to the contrary.

: One will note the word "contemporary" in the above phrase. Translated,
: Zeleny is claiming that the *early* Christian Church could not have had
: same-sex marriage ceremonies because the *current* Christian Churches
: are against it.
:
: One will notice that the same logic can conclude that there was never
: any slavery in the US.

"contemporary -- Belonging to the same time, age, or period; living,
existing, or occurring together in time." -- The first definition
cited by the OED.

You were saying...?

: Zeleny is right to suggest conclusive evidence is needed. Zeleny has,


: however, dismissed Boswell's book without offering any reason except the
: above for doing so. We must conclude that it is not the lack of available
: evidence which is the problem, nor the possibility that it is flawed. It
: is Zeleny's attempt to wish that, if he closes his eyes real tight and wishes
: hard, it will go away.
:
: This is, of course, the attitude of a child.
:
: Your specific objections to the evidence contained in Boswell's book
: are, Zeleny ?

What evidence?

: - Tony Q.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 5:06:56 AM3/5/95
to
In article <3j684k$e...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of
:: bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
:: only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves.

: No. In this forum you cower away from people capable of speaking for
: themselves, and attempt to evade, wish away or misconstrue their
: arguments.

Are you perchance fond of mirrors? You have very aptly summarized
your preposterous performance in our discussion.

: That's why you get no respect. Not because you're a Philosopher King


: among the heathen, but because you're a worthless pseudo-intellectual
: among people who make a living out of their integrity and capability.

Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

By the way, some of my best friends share your unhealthy inclinations.
I always got through to them, too -- as long as they were able to
survive their affliction.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 5, 1995, 11:07:08 PM3/5/95
to
On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> In article <3j684k$e...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

It looks like Zeleny has finally crossed over the line into outright
net.kookery. We have:

> : That's why you get no respect. Not because you're a Philosopher King
> : among the heathen, but because you're a worthless pseudo-intellectual
> : among people who make a living out of their integrity and capability.

> Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
> heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.

> By the way, some of my best friends share your unhealthy inclinations.

Amazing. Without the slightest evidence of ironic consciousness, he does
his version of "some of my best friends are Jewish". And again, he just
assumes Quirke is gay.

That's it, folks. The man's a nut. I'm nominating him for March Kook of
the Month.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 4:01:11 AM3/6/95
to
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

: On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: It looks like Zeleny has finally crossed over the line into outright
: net.kookery. We have:

::: That's why you get no respect. Not because you're a Philosopher King
::: among the heathen, but because you're a worthless pseudo-intellectual
::: among people who make a living out of their integrity and capability.

:: Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
:: heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

: If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
: time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
: asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.

Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
rational criticism.

:: By the way, some of my best friends share your unhealthy inclinations.

: Amazing. Without the slightest evidence of ironic consciousness, he does
: his version of "some of my best friends are Jewish". And again, he just
: assumes Quirke is gay.

Some of my best friends are Jewish. Others are homosexuals, lawyers,
professional killers, and Holocaust revisionists. I have a very high
tolerance for peculiar occupations and outlooks.

: That's it, folks. The man's a nut. I'm nominating him for March Kook of
: the Month.

Considering the source, this must be taken as a compliment.

: --


: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu

Dakidd

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 8:33:53 AM3/6/95
to
In article <3j4a84$7...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>, orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com
(Gary Phillips) wrote:

followup: set to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.homosexuality,
alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.correct, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.politics.theory

reply-to: set to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.homosexuality,
alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.correct, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.politics.theory

alt.sex.bestiality removed from newsgroups: line.
CC: poster's mailbox.

Please guys, this has gone on long enough. It is entirely irrelevant to
the group alt.sex.bestiality.

Please take the extra second to remove the inappropriate newsgroups from
this list the next time you reply to one ofthese messages. Nobody else but
the two of you care about this thread or it's repeated mud-slinging back
and forth.

I realize that it may not have been you who decided to cross-post it
across the alt hierarchy, but you can at least have the decency to
UN-CROSSPOST it by trimming your newsgroups line of the extra "fat" and
sending followups to where they belong: alt.flame. Thank you in advance.

Comments are welcome. Flames should be addressed to /dev/null. If you feel
the nedd to chuck flame messages into my mailbox, please be aware that I
will cheerfully forward them to your postmaster.

(And for anybody else in the other newsgroups that this thread has managed
to invade, I suggest that you all start adding your input. Forward the
entire message back to the poster's mailbox, set followups: and reply-to:
line to appropriatiate groups, and trim your newsgroup out of the list
that it's being forwarded to. Maybe by so doing, we can get the thing
turned back to where it belongs.)

Andrew Hall

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 1:40:09 PM3/6/95
to
>>>>> Michael Zeleny writes:

Michael> In article <3j684k$e...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>> zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>> If I wanted to discuss Richard Mohr's ultra-libertarian conception of
>>> bodily rights, I would have written a book review. In this forum, I
>>> only talk to people capable of speaking for themselves.

>> No. In this forum you cower away from people capable of speaking for
>> themselves, and attempt to evade, wish away or misconstrue their
>> arguments.

Michael> Are you perchance fond of mirrors? You have very aptly summarized
Michael> your preposterous performance in our discussion.

>> That's why you get no respect. Not because you're a Philosopher King
>> among the heathen, but because you're a worthless pseudo-intellectual
>> among people who make a living out of their integrity and capability.

Michael> Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
Michael> heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

Quirke and I are both heterosexuals that think your view stink.

Michael> By the way, some of my best friends share your unhealthy inclinations.
Michael> I always got through to them, too -- as long as they were able to
Michael> survive their affliction.

What unhealthy inclination?

ah

=======================================================================

[Saddam Hussein is] Hitler revisited... worse than Hitler.
-- Ex President George Bush. When challenged on the
analogy, he said: ``I didn't say the Holocaust. I
mean, that is outrageous.''

Rod Swift

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 9:57:03 PM3/6/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>:: Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
>:: heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

>: If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
>: time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
>: asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.

>Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
>and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
>involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
>rational criticism.

Gee, that's a round about way of saying: "I'm so stupid I assumed
Tony to be a f**king homo-bloody-poofter".

Can't you admit you were wrong? You could market a new product:
"I can't believe it's not brain cells".

>: That's it, folks. The man's a nut. I'm nominating him for March Kook of
>: the Month.

>Considering the source, this must be taken as a compliment.

Hahahaha. Macadamia Michael.

Rod
--
| ... ..... | be...@fohnix.metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 11:41:46 PM3/7/95
to
On 6 Mar 1995, Rod Swift wrote:

> zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

> >:: Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
> >:: heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

> >: If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
> >: time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
> >: asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.

> >Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
> >and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
> >involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
> >rational criticism.

> Gee, that's a round about way of saying: "I'm so stupid I assumed
> Tony to be a f**king homo-bloody-poofter".

Indeed. And in any case, his claim was that "I never have a problem
getting respect for my views from a heterosexual." Zeleny is the Rodney
Dangerfield of the net, and yet he claims that heterosexuals always
respect his views. That is beyond stupid, and into kook territory. It's
a little like Fred Cherry if you look at it.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 5:16:20 AM3/8/95
to
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

::: One will note the word "contemporary" in the above phrase. Translated,


::: Zeleny is claiming that the *early* Christian Church could not have had
::: same-sex marriage ceremonies because the *current* Christian Churches
::: are against it.

:: "contemporary -- Belonging to the same time, age, or period; living,


:: existing, or occurring together in time." -- The first definition
:: cited by the OED.

:: You were saying...?

: Mea culpa.

Quirke Admits Error -- Film at 11.

There may be hope for you yet.

: Please present the evidence that the same Churches Boswell claims
: performed these ceremonies were any more down on homosexual sex than they
: were on sex in general.

Being Christians, they were beholden to the letter of Romans 1:27.

::: Your specific objections to the evidence contained in Boswell's book
::: are, Zeleny ?

:: What evidence?

: Care to expand on that ?

I would fain demur, no longer having access to a copy of Boswell's
text. Generally speaking, I think that the review in the New Republic
(the habitual sounding board of Martha Nussbaum, and hardly anything
but a persistently homophilic venue) was right on the money. Speaking
from a personal perspective, I have found the Soviet poster of the
downtrodden Ukraininan peasant kissing his Russian military liberator,
cited as evidence of remanent popular Eastern European homoeroticism,
to be exemplary of Boswell's naivety. He might as well have adduced
Brezhnev's habit of kissing progressive foreign dignitaries as prima
facie evidence of a positive correlation between communist ideology
and homosexual inclinations. See the remarks by Camus (in _La chute_)
on the Western incapacity to surmise an innocent interpretation of the
same-sex physical contact prevalent in the Eastern European cultures.
Also consider that AIDS is not nearly as prevalent in the East as it
is in the West, in spite of the scarcity of the prophylactic devices
and general indifference to the safe sex practices.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 1:41:33 PM3/8/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

> Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
> and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
> involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
> rational criticism.

Zeleny is blind to all rational criticism, and therefore must be involved in
some unheathly sexual practice. Perhaps Erin can enlighten us as to what
that practice is.

Of course, if his point is that a professed heterosexual who writes a lot
about homosexuality *must* be emotionally unhealthy, he certainly appears
to qualify.

henry

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 8:05:59 PM3/8/95
to
In article <3jej0n$g...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,

Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

>: It looks like Zeleny has finally crossed over the line into outright
>: net.kookery. We have:
>

[some kookery deleted]

>:: Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
>:: heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.
>
>: If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
>: time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
>: asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.
>
>Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
>and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
>involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
>rational criticism.

this is a _hysteron proteron_ fallacy.

it is also known as 'begging the question,'
but then since you evidently have trouble
understanding that phrase, i will point out
it's fallacy in the simplest terms.

first, you are referring to your own demented
rantings as 'rational criticism' and secondly
your assertion that quirke must be queer are
predicated on the assumption that only a queer
could possibly disagree with you.

further bogus illogicalities exhibited
in this four brief lines are left as an exercise
to the reader. i'm tired.

>:: By the way, some of my best friends share your unhealthy inclinations.

wow. this is even better than SOMBFA!

'some of my friends are among the inferior races.'

h
oh, and btw, FUCK YOU

Orc

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 2:13:54 PM3/9/95
to
In article <3jlble$j...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
Erin Y. Zhu <z...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950308133412.2844G-100000@lab1> Gene Ward

>Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>
>>zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>> Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
>>> and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
>>> involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
>>> rational criticism.
>
>>Zeleny is blind to all rational criticism, and therefore must be involved in
>>some unheathly sexual practice. Perhaps Erin can enlighten us as to what
>>that practice is.
>
>The only thing that comes to mind is his wasting his time and words
>responding to perpectual Internet interlocuters with nothing new to say.

Well, yes, if you disregard the frothing lunacy about
homosexuality, yeah. But if you disregarded that, he wouldn't be a
kook, or a high-ranking entry in killfiles all over the world.

____
david parsons \bi/ Oh, and I forgot the indefensible leaps of illogic.
\/ Sorry.

Brian Kane

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 6:46:56 PM3/9/95
to
David E. Latane (dla...@hibbs.vcu.edu) wrote:

:Boswell couldn't have included pictures of Brezhnev; one presumes you
:mean the engraving in Bozzie's Corsican travels of him embracing
:General Paoli.

No, you're wrong. Boswell includes a photograph taken of a (East)
German billboard displaying Brezhnev and Erich Honneker kissing.
--
Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
"The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
"Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"

Rod Swift

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 10:55:00 PM3/9/95
to
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

hahahaha. I think Zeleny should get netkookdom for claiming Tony
has been blinded to all rational criticism based on Tony's
homosexuality -- which is of course, not evident.... :)

Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |

Deacon Maccubbin

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 11:22:28 PM3/9/95
to
On 8 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

> Speaking from a personal perspective, I have found the Soviet poster of
> the downtrodden Ukraininan peasant kissing his Russian military liberator,
> cited as evidence of remanent popular Eastern European homoeroticism, to
> be exemplary of Boswell's naivety.

It is apparent that you didn't read Boswell's "Same-Sex Unions," or if you
did so, you retained little of the author's discourse.

Here is the caption that accompanies the reproduction of a 1968 postage
stamp: "This Soviet stamp, showing the grateful reception by the peasantry
of Russian soldiers returning from World War II, was not shocking to
Russians, who entertained less horror of homosexual interaction than did
their Western counterparts. It is possible that the artist was gay, and
concocted the scene for his own delight, but that remains uncertain."
(Note: It was probably a proofreading error, but the scene actually
depicted on the stamp is from the end of World War I, not II.)

Below that plate in the book is another contemporary photograph showing a
large mural on a Soviet street. The mural depicts "Leonard Brezhnev of the
Soviet Union and Erich Honecker of East Germany greeting each other with a
kiss" on the lips. As Boswell notes, "In the West, many observers would
regard this picture as immoral."

And, to set David E. Latane's mind at ease, there are only three plates in
Boswell's work that could be termed contemporary. The third is a
photograph of an Indian wedding tradition. There are no "facile pop
culture observations."

/s/ Deacon Maccubbin
========================================================
LAMBDA RISING BOOKSTORES - E-mail address: lambda...@his.com
Every Gay & Lesbian Book in Print - Videos, Music, & Gifts, Too!
FREE Catalog by Mail - Out-of-Print Book Search Service
========================================================

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 11:50:08 PM3/9/95
to
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>: On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

>:: Funny how I never have a problem getting respect for my views from a
>:: heterosexual. This must be due to a worldwide homophobic conspiracy.

>: If the man really believes it is only homosexuals who give him a hard
>: time, he has lost it--if indeed he has ever had it. He might start by
>: asking why he is so sure that Quirke is not heterosexual.

>Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
>and respectful or outed and obstreperous.

I don't know which is less likely. Would you care to put a time limit
and money on your prediction ?

>Only an unhealthy emotional involvement in an indefensible sexual practice
>can blind a man to all rational criticism.

Now, let's see...

I would, as you note, appear to be very involved in the issue of
homosexuality and homosexual rights. I also would appear to be advancing
the general impression that I am straight.

There is, of course, a possibility that I could be repressing homosexual
feelings and therefore be in denial.

I counted the number of posts from me in a.p.h. on my system before
starting to read it. There were 10.

Not counting those read today (in order to be fair), there were 21 from
one Michael Zeleny.

Logging on to another server, I find 15 posts by me. There are 30 by
Michael Zeleny.

Now, I gather that one of the signs of denying psychological drives is
the demonstration of graphic imagery about the thing in question, even while
the person is running it down.

From the 10 posts by me, and the 21 by Zeleny:

Graphic descriptions of anal sex: TQ 0, MZ 5 ("Buggery", "sodomy", "fuck my
ass with broken glass")
Graphic descriptions of anuses: TQ 0, MZ 3 ("Sexual perusual of orifaces",
"chapped anal passages", "commodious rectum")
Graphic descriptions of the effects of homosexual sex and/or AIDS: TQ 0,
MZ 2 ("bodily degradation", "deterioration of the immune system")
Graphic descriptions of male homosexuals: TQ 0, MZ 2 ("hapless catamite",
"screaming rimadonna")

Interesting, don't you think ?

- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)

"Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled

and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995,
on failing to believe that a straight could disrespect his views.

Michael Feld

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 3:17:52 AM3/10/95
to
In article <3jom8o$p...@saba.info.ucla.edu> zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

[Whew! have I deleted much]

>Note that Quirke has been tempering his opposition, and that he just
>issued his first apology to your humble servant. With a little luck,
>he may yet reclaim his rationality and join my heterosexual former
>opponents Michael Feld, Mike Morris, and Gus Rodgers, by recognizing
>the legitimacy to my views.
>

Which is not to say their truth or soundness.

One remarkable thing about Mr. Zeleny's homophobia is his political
/legal tolerance, and pleas for tolerance, of the behaviour he so
deplores.
-
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 275-2411
University of Manitoba | Voice: (604) 733-8134
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 4:45:52 AM3/10/95
to
ku...@abel.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo) writes:

: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> wrote:

:: Zeleny is the Rodney Dangerfield of the net,

: Which leaves you eligible to play Joe Isuzu.

I am told that Gene Ward Smith is a dead ringer
for Sidney Greenstreet in _The Maltese Falcon_.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 5:32:12 AM3/10/95
to
In article <3jp1vg$8...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

: In article <3jom8o$p...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

: [Whew! have I deleted much]

:: Note that Quirke has been tempering his opposition, and that he just
:: issued his first apology to your humble servant. With a little luck,
:: he may yet reclaim his rationality and join my heterosexual former
:: opponents Michael Feld, Mike Morris, and Gus Rodgers, by recognizing
:: the legitimacy to my views.

: Which is not to say their truth or soundness.

I do not recall ever having claimed privileged access to either.

: One remarkable thing about Mr. Zeleny's homophobia is his political


: /legal tolerance, and pleas for tolerance, of the behaviour he so
: deplores.

No. Intolerance of persecution is not tolerance of the persecuted.
I accept consensual behavior, no matter how deplorable, because I am
appalled by the means necessary to censure it, not because I opt to
tolerate it. As a limit case, I would defend an abortion clinic in
spite of personal opposition to abortion, because the certainty of my
moral assurance in such matters does not measure up to the force of
my conviction that terrorism does not constitute acceptable political
means. A fortiori, I would gladly protect Gene Ward Smith's favorite
glory-hole bathhouse from any violence, be it initiated by government
troops or by private religious fanatics.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 3:57:22 PM3/10/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950310133714.14302A-100000@lab1> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>On 9 Mar 1995, David E. Latane wrote:
>
>> But seriously, does the post above (or below, depending on the
>> viccisitudes of newsreaders) really mean that a book I presumed to be
>> about the middle ages has a lot of facile pop culture observations
>> about slavdom? Dumber, then, than I thought.
>
>No, there are not a lot of observations about slav culture, facile or
>otherwise. Why not read the book before presuming to know enough to
>comment on it?

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
> gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.equality,alt.discrimination,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bigots Target
Summary:
Expires: April 31, 1995
References: <3jgeei$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <3jji15$i...@saba.info.ucla.edu> <3jot8n$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: ptyx
Keywords:

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:::: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
:::: antecedent determination of a rational social order.

::: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
::: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?

:: This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
:: social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.

: Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.

Remarkable how you can claim this so unselfconsciously.

: There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
: even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
: to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
: overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.

Stop. Right. Here.

There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production
of even a single grain of wheat -- except for the laws of supply and
demand. As long as your labor results in production valued by the
market, you are guaranteed reciprocal access to goods of similar value
in exchange for its fruits. Looking from another angle: production of
any exchange value stimulates the market economy to enable the
satisfaction of every economic need. Conformant with the stipulation
of a rational social order, these inferences are all grounded in
nomological connections salient to productive labor, rather than mere
predictions with an extremely high rate of probability. Contrast:
there is nothing in the possible outcome of buggery, as distinguished
from orthogenital intercourse, to connect with the emergence of the
next generation. Moreover, there is nothing in the possible outcome
of homosexual behavior as such, as distinguished from heterosexual
behavior as such, to connect with the emergence of the next
generation. Therefore, just as only our involvement in economic
production of goods enables us to leave the production of any
particular goods to others, no amount of sexually sterile practice can
warrant us to leave reproductive sex to others.

: We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
: establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
: predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
: to be manufactured.

Rationality is not comprised of rules of thumb. Rational inferences
can proceed only in accordance with laws. The laws of economics
ensure that supply meets demand, and that having exchange value at
one's disposal enables one to meet his demand.

: We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
: establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
: levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
: rate of probability that children will continue to be born.

Contrast: though the success of your prediction of future production
of food is sustained by the incidence of productive labor, the success
of your prediction of future reproduction of mankind is not merely
disconnected from, but actually subverted by, the incidence of
homosexual sex.

: Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
: social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
: will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.

You have no grasp of rationality.

: Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
: engage in reproductive sex.

The contrary has been shown.

::: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
::: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
::: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
::: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.

:: So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.

: Thank you for evading my point.

Your point has been made in ignorance. The maxim of free choice is
indeterminate of behavior, and hence indeterminable of its moral
merit.

: Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
: the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
: homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.

Prevention is too strong a term. But each act mitigates the
reproduction of the next generation in its own way.

: Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
: rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.

Explain the rational ground of the rights violated in the former case.

::: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

:: You are not getting any smarter.

: And you're getting *less* credible.

Just as buggery makes no contribution to sexual generation, stupidity
makes no contribution to the assessment of intellectual merit.

: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.

The contrary has been shown.

cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Bigots Target
Summary:
Expires: April 31, 1995
References: <noid> <3jojmj$3...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: ptyx
Keywords:

In article <3jojmj$3...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:

: [One will note that quote marks are used to indicate definitions I do not
: necessarily agree with]

::: Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
::: masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
::: orgasm.

:: Lovely. Erin instructs me to inquire whether or not such acts can be
:: considered foreplay if they lead to female orgasm only.

: I point out that *you* are the one who wishes to establish that a sexual
: act can only be considered "moral" if it involves the chance of reproduction.
: As such, a "sexual act" for the purposes of possible reproduction logically
: follows as "any sequence of events culminating in male ejaculation", with
: your "moral" sexual act being that where this occurs within the vagina.

Correct.

: Inform Erin that, under the logic you are expousing, any activity she
: may enjoy is merely an attempt by you to get her to allow you to act
: "morally", and that you do not provide her pleasure for it's own sake.

You are confusing issues of morality with issues of psychological motivation.

: If either you or her wish to claim that considerations of love or
: affection affect your lovemaking, it logically follows from your thesis
: that these are irrelevant. The be all and end all of all sexual activity
: between you and her, according to your statements, is *only* you coming
: inside her.

Moral irrelevance is not tantamount to irrelevance simpliciter.

::: I requote your words:
::: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
::: to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile
::: form of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
::: choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
::: would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of
::: your current moral deliberation."
::: And to be even clearer:
::: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."

::: By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
::: be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
::: ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.

:: Correct -- though that would be Boris and Natasha, my culturally
:: challenged antipodean friend. But consider how much more depraved
:: it would have been to choose a partner in a way that denied one the
:: option of rectifying his erroneous choice of sexual venue.

: Pardon me, but once the seed is spilled on barren ground, that's it. You
: have wasted the precious opportunity to ejaculate inside a vagina, and are
: therefore acting "immorally". There are no degrees of "depravity" between
: them.

Not so. If pair-bonding has a subsidiary moral value because of its
contribution to reproduction, any action aimed at buttressing existing
reproductively relevant bonds is of moral merit.

: All anal sex, being essentially infertile, is "immoral" according to you.
: Likewise oral sex. The possibility that you may indulge in PiV sex afterwards
: does not mitigate this "immorality" in the slightest. I point out that in
: the above examples, Boris has schtupped both Bruce and Natasha. Is his
: "immoral" act with Bruce mitigated by his later "moral" act with Natasha ?

Contrast acts occurring within a given fertile union with those
occurring without its boundaries. If anything, the latter are
deleterious to its stability, albeit perhaps not necessarily so.

::: Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?

:: What contradiction do you have in mind?

: Shown. The "immorality" of anal sex derives from ejaculating anywhere
: but in the vagina, and therefore is "immoral" whether performed on a man
: or on a woman.

You are confused by the conclusion, because you have failed to attend
to its rationale. The immorality of anal sex wholly derives from its
necessary failure to make any positive contribution to reproduction.
Given that reproduction is aided by family cohesion, the sterility of
nonorthogenital intercourse occurring between reproductive partners may
be mitigated by its contribution to the durability of their union. One
economic analogy is afforded by the company picnic, which has no direct
relevance to the constituted goals of the corporate body, but makes an
important indirect contribution thereto by dint of increasing overall
corporate cohesion. Though I am not entirely sure of this line of
reasoning, it seems worthy of further consideration.

:: You have just described the standard Jewish account of what constitutes
:: permissible sex between man and wife -- it does not matter where you get
:: started, as long as you finish in the right place. What are you, some
:: kind of Judeophobe?

: Not I. The logical consequence of your own argument is that the standard
: Jewish account of what constitutes permissible sex between man and wife
: must be "immoral".

You are either blitheringly stupid or utterly dishonest. Once again,
the Jewish tradition mandates vaginal ejaculation, while countenancing
any form of preliminary genital deployment.

: It would appear that it is *you* condemning Jewish tradition.

If you have a shred of intellectual integrity, you will retract this lie.

The contrary has been shown.

: One *does* hope you don't add to your hypocrisy and decide to get married
: within that tradition.

The more I entertain the possibility, the more appealing it seems.

: - Tony Q.

cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Bigots Target
Summary:
Expires: April 31, 1995
References: <noid> <3jont6$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: ptyx
Keywords:

quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: ga...@umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) writes:

::: What makes a sex act 'fertile'?

:: Conception.

: So every single time you have sex, you ejaculate where conception is
: a possibility ?

Not so fast. I have answered all of your personal questions without
getting a single answer in return. If you want to continue along these
lines, you will have to reciprocate first by revealing facts relevant
to your personal motivation in pursuing this argument.

Have you ever buggered a man, or been buggered by a man?

Have you ever sucked cock, or had yourself blown by another man?

Have you ever had sex with a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog, a dingo, an
emu, a wombat, or any other wild or domestic animal not of your own
species?

Feel free to volunteer any other information you may deem apposite.
Please be precise and specific.

::: Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
::: organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
::: (fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
::: of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist?

:: Offspring.

: So you don't consider love, affection or play to be valid reasons for
: sex in and of themselves ?

I consider them perfectly valid, but not morally relevant. I am not
enough of a philistine to require a belief that my emotional diversions
contribute to the salvation of the universe.

: Uh-huh.
:
: - Tony Q.

cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Bigots Target
Summary:
Expires: April 31, 1995
References: <noid> <3jooue$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: ptyx
Keywords:

quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:

::: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
::: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
::: or immoral for them to have sex?

:: Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
:: that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.

: So ?

So they are vitiating his agency by disregarding his autonomy.

This is a big no-no.

: The only "moral" goal of sex, according to you, is the possibility of
: reproduction. It follows that *you* use claims of love or affection in
: pursuit of the same end.

This is an interesting point, which receives its answer in the docrine
of Right. The use of another person as sexual means is mitigated by
the mutual alienation of the parties in a marriage contract. Allow me
to explain:

According to Kant, "_Sexual union_ (_commercium sexuale_) is the
reciprocal use that one human being makes of the sexual organs and
capacities of another (_usus membrorum et facultatum sexualium
alterius_)." (Here and in the sequel, the relevant texts are _\sl The
Doctrine of Right_, Part I, Chapter II, Section III ("On Rights to
Persons Akin to Rights to Things"), Title I ("Marriage Right"),
Paragraphs 24-7, and _The Doctrine of Virtue_, Part I, Book I, Chapter
I ("Man's Duty to Himself as an Animal Being"), Article II, Paragraph
7, and passim, in the complete translation of _The Metaphysics of
Morals_ by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1991, and assorted
parts of the _Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals_, as translated
by James W. Ellington, Hackett, 1981. All references are given to the
original pagination, as reproduced in both texts.) This reciprocal use
"takes place either in accordance with mere animal _nature_ (_vaga
libido, venus volgivaga, fornicatio_) or in accordance with
_principle_." The latter is possible only in the state of marriage,
defined as "the union of two people of opposite sexes for the lifelong
possession of each other's sexual attributes." The stated moral need
for matrimony, lifelong or otherwise, is wholly independent from the
end of nature in begetting and bringing up children, which Kant
acknowledges as a likely end of human sexuality and the inclinations
that motivate it, and so need not be coeval or compossible with its
realization -- for otherwise marriage could not endure in the absence
of child-bearing and rearing. At this point, we may feel entitled to
inquire about the rationale for insisting on marriage as an end in
itself, and the motivation for its restriction to heterosexual
couplings, in the absence of the natural end of procreation. Kant's
answer to the former question is as follows. In course of the natural
use of the sexual organs of one sex by another, the former gives itself
up to the latter for the sake of _enjoyment_. In so doing, a human
being contravenes the Right of humanity in his own person by making
himself into a mere thing. Kant goes on to insist that man cannot make
such use of _another_ person to get mere animal pleasure apart from a
special contractual limitation, establishing the permanent right,
whereby two persons put each other under total mutual obligation:

There is only one condition under which this is possible:
while one person is acquired by the other _as if it were a
thing_, the one who is acquired acquires the other in turn;
for in this way each reclaims itself and restores its
personality. But acquiring a member of a human being is at
the same time acquiring the whole being, since a person is
an absolute unity. Hence it is not only admissible for the
sexes to surrender to and accept each other for enjoyment
under the condition of marriage, but it is possible for them
to do so _only_ under this condition. (MM278)

But if it is taken as permissible for a spouse to have a tennis game
with friends, why is it not likewise permissible for a spouse to have
an affair? As long as nobody gets pregnant or contracts any diseases,
what _is_ the difference between a tennis game and an affair? Our
question can be formulated more precisely, given that Kant would say
that for one, as a moral being (_homo noumenon_), to use another person
as a physical being (_homo phaenomenon_) as mere means to an end is
wrong. So why would the moral injunction apply to an adulterous
affair, but not to a game of tennis? In order to address this puzzle,
we must return to the wellspring of Kant's moral philosophy. For Kant,
"a categorical (unconditional) imperative is one that represents an
action as objectively necessary and makes it necessary not indirectly,
through the representation of some _end_ that can be attained by the
action, but through the mere representation of this action itself (its
form), and hence directly." (MM222) In its most general form, the
Categorical Imperative reads: "Act as if the maxim of your action were
to become through your will a universal law of nature." (G421) Here,
nature is explicitly taken in the widest possible sense, as the active
corpus of universal causal laws. So far, it seems that the principle
is so loose as to justify any conceivable course of action -- for
clearly the Hobbesian conception of the state of nature as a "Warre of
all against all" admits of a nearly unlimited range of self-consistent
active willing. But Kant further argues that the very personhood of
rational beings depends on their being marked out by nature as ends in
themselves. Thus by accommodating this aspect of his conception of a
person Kant arrives at another formulation of the same principle, which
he claims to be equivalent to the above -- "Act so as to treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as
an end and never as means only." (G429)

In the above application, the formula of the end in itself seems to
place greater strictures on moral conduct, ruling out, in accordance
with the above considerations, any possibility of sexual intercourse
outside of an enduring contractual arrangement involving total mutual
alienation of the participants. But we note that this argument
depends on an equivocation. On one hand, it involves what we may call
personal identity, or the identity of a man as a _homo noumenon_, the
Cartesian _res cogitans_, which, as we often neglect to add, is also
the _res dubitans, affirmans, negans, pauca intelligens, multa
ignorans, volens, nolens, imaginans etiam \& sentiens_. On the other
hand, in construing the same man as an object of base "animal
pleasure", it involves the material identity of a human being as a
_res corporeas_, or the Kantian _homo phaenomenon_, a concrete
physical organism. Put the two together, and you have that allegedly
contingent, and admittedly fragile unity that Pascal calls _un roseau
pensant_, the thinking reed. But it remains unclear, to what extent
Kant's conception of what is involved in animal pleasure -- namely,
the fulfillment of a desire obviously appertaining to the _res
cogitans_, but supposedly having as its aim solely the corresponding
_res corporeas_ -- furnishes an adequate link between these two types
of human identity. For if it does, then the pleasure is certainly not
_merely_ animal; but if it does not, then acquiring a member of a
human being (_res corporeas_) is certainly _not_ tantamount to
acquiring the whole being, since as Descartes observes on several
occasions, unlike the human soul, the human organism is _not_ an
absolute unity. But for Kant, the noumenal self clearly has priority,
in the sense of bearing the responsibility for the comportment of its
phenomenal counterpart.

So Kant continues: "Hence it is not only admissible for the sexes to
surrender to and accept each other for enjoyment under the condition
of marriage, but it is possible for them to do so _only_ under this
condition." To extend this reasoning to other kinds of enjoyment, the
casual game of tennis appears out of question; instead, one would have
to commit oneself inalienably to an exclusive and enduring ludic
partnership with one's opponent. More interestingly, by the same
lights, it would seem well nigh impossible for a Kantian agent to get
a shoeshine in good conscience, without alienating himself to the
shoe-blacker, inasmuch as in receiving his services, he accepts his
brush-wielding member for his enjoyment. Moreover, given that a
shoemaker in the final analysis acquires his products by alienating
them from the state of nature and adjoining them to his political
person of a proprietor, it would seem equally impossible for our hero
to get mere "mercantile pleasure" by engaging in any consensual act of
casual trade, at least until we can figure out a way to disentangle
his acquisitive social body from its aforementioned physical and
mental counterparts. By now, we may feel the error of our
interpretive ways. Where might we have gone wrong?

At first blush, we can draw a line between sex and other forms of
ludic commerce along the line of Kant's own emphasis, by insisting on
the difference in the respective aspects of physical intimacy,
conditioned by the direct and unmediated use of the organs of another
for the sake of _enjoyment_. But to say this much would not suffice;
for we must also specify the particular aspect of this intimate
enjoyment that infringes on human autonomy. We may do just that, by
resorting to assistance from Georges Bataille, on the principle that aNewsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.correct,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Homosexual Rights = Special Rights?
Summary:
Expires: April 30, 1995
References: <3jgf9g$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <3jjko2$9...@saba.info.ucla.edu> <3jonit$4...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: ptyx
Keywords:

quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:::: Would you care to explain the alleged rationale behind your ascription
:::: of inconsistency to the general case?

::: Please show where I am *currently* asserting that the general case
::: can be shown to be inconsistent under law.

:: Are you admitting that the same approach would not work elsewhere?

: I have been persuaded it would probably not pass at the *Federal* level,
: the *Federal* ERA not having passed.

Recall that there is another necessary condition presupposed by the
Hawaiian ruling.

: As to whether it would pass in other States which have similar pieces of
: legislation to the Hawaiian ERA, I have no idea.
:
: I guess we'll just have to find out, won't we...

Would you care to make a bet?

::::: Reality is a place where the legal application of marriage under
::::: Hawaiian law has been found to violate the Hawaiian Constitution.
::::: Deal with it.

:::: Oh dear! did I miss the annexation of California by Hawaii?

::: What do the words "Full Faith and Credit" imply ?

:: I have one word for you: Utah.

: Hmm. "California". "Utah". "California". "Utah". One has San Francisco,
: the other has Salt Lake City.
:
: Oh well, probably another spelling error.

: Utah's initiative *demonstrates* my point about the "Full Faith and
: Credit" phrase. They wouldn't be advancing it if they did not think that
: there was a clear and present danger of them being affected by the _Baehr_
: case.

On the contrary -- the principle motivating the initiative is far
more likely to arise from the ever-popular injunction to CYA. There
are moreover numerous precedents of superfluous and supererogatory
legislation enacted solely in order to make a political stand.

: One also points out that it might very well be overturned at a later
: stage as violating the US Constitution.

: Again, we'll just have to wait and see...

Again, would you care to make a bet?

::::: Both the former and the Latter can be found in _Baehr vs Lewin_, a
::::: finding by the Hawaiian Supreme Court. That *is* reality, whether you
::::: like it or not.

:::: So is the failure of the ERA on the federal level. Perhaps you ought
:::: to find someone with a working neuron to explain the relevance of that
:::: piece of reality.

::: Pardon me, but why is it that you throw in the ERA when asked to discuss
::: something that *does* exist ? Is it that you can't seem to actually *deal*
::: with what is being discussed ?

:: Because the Hawaiaan ERA was the sine qua non for their local ruling.

: Indeed.

: Which invalidates what part of the assertion that legal same-sex
: marriages may soon be possible in Hawaii ?

NIMBY is enough solace for me. But would you care to expound your
modal qualification?

: And which invalidates which part of the assertion that the "Full Faith and
: Credit" clause of the US Constitution directly implies that these marriages
: would have to be accepted by other States, in the absence of conflicting
: legislation ?

See below.

::: I refer you to _Baehr vs Lewin_. I also refer you to the "Full Faith and
::: Credit" clause of the US Constitution.

:: Been there, done that. Incidentally, would you care to explain the
:: legal mechanisms that permit Hawaii to enjoin me from exercising my
:: constitutionaly protected rights under the Second Amendment, in spite
:: of my having been duly licensed to do so by the state of California?

: Gosh. Could it be that your license issued in California specifies that
: it's only valid *for* California ?

No, it does not. Just like my driver's license, my firearm carry
license specifies *only* that it is valid in California. Its de facto
validity in other states of the Union is left to the discretion of the
local legislature. Now, would you care to explain how this situation
is compatible with your interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit
clause, and how the case of marriage licences pertaining to a right
merely inferred from the US Constitution differs from the case of the
firearms carry licenses pertaining to a right explicitly protected by
the US Constitution?

: If you want to go ahead and ask for a license valid for the entire United
: States, be my guest.

"If you want to go ahead and ask for a marriage license valid for the
entire United States, be my guest."

:: Could it be that licenses issued by one state need not be recognized
:: on the territory of another, the thorny issue of constitutional rights
:: notwithstanding?

: The legislature of Utah seems to consider Hawaiian marriage licenses as
: valid enough in Utah so as to require special legislation to *invalidate*
: some of them.

Note that "considers as valid enough" does not contradict "need not be
recognized", just as your figments may peacefully coexist with brute
reality.

: Could it be you're clutching at straws ?

I am the one willing to make a bet, not the one insisting that "we'll
just have to wait and see..." Could it be that *you* are clutching at
straws?

Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith | don't
"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for | tread
his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift | on me

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 10:58:26 PM3/10/95
to
On 10 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

> I am told that Gene Ward Smith is a dead ringer
> for Sidney Greenstreet in _The Maltese Falcon_.

I doubt you were told any such thing.

People who knew both of us used to tell me I remided them of the
late Richard Montague, which is a nice UCLA connection for you. Of
course, that was years ago.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 11, 1995, 2:21:16 PM3/11/95
to
On 10 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> In article <3jp1vg$8...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
> fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> :: Note that Quirke has been tempering his opposition, and that he just
> :: issued his first apology to your humble servant. With a little luck,
> :: he may yet reclaim his rationality and join my heterosexual former
> :: opponents Michael Feld, Mike Morris, and Gus Rodgers, by recognizing
> :: the legitimacy to my views.

> : Which is not to say their truth or soundness.

> I do not recall ever having claimed privileged access to either.

> : One remarkable thing about Mr. Zeleny's homophobia is his political
> : /legal tolerance, and pleas for tolerance, of the behaviour he so
> : deplores.

This is the typical double-standard of the _soi disant_ "liberal" who
believes in "tolerance", but cannot really grasp the notion of equality,
it seems to me. Zeleny objected to the comparison of his minority
status as a Jew to the minority status of other people as homosexuals.

The analogy is clear, but I can think of at least one obvious
difference--if someone were to use the kind of language about Jews that
Zeleny habitually uses about homosexuals, they would be tossed off the
net. Nor, I think, would people Feld come to the defense of such a
person's liberal and humane aversion to oppression. I think in that case
it would be pretty clear that hate is hate, and bigotry is bigotry, and it
cannot be given another name nor be praised for a quality it does not
possesses.


> A fortiori, I would gladly protect Gene Ward Smith's favorite
> glory-hole bathhouse from any violence, be it initiated by government
> troops or by private religious fanatics.

A case in point. Zeleny is perfectly happy talking about my non-existent
"favorite glory-hole bathhouse". Why does he assume a homosexual must
have a "glory-hole bathhouse"? If a homosexual said something about
"Michael Feld's favorite house of prostitution", would this strike Mr. Feld
as a "plea for tolerance"? And yet, allegedly, this paragraph was "a plea
for tolerance". Obviously, it is no such thing. So why does Feld claim
that it is?

Let's look at some of the Zelenyisms that Tony Quirke recently posted, and
see how they stack up as pleas for tolerance:

"Screaming rimadonnas"

A heterosexual analogy would be, say, "slavering cunt-lappers".

"Hapless catamite"

I put in an anti-Semitic analogue to this, but deleted it. It made me
sick. It makes me sick that anyone could relate stuff like the things
below in any way to a "plea for tolerance". It is clear Mr. Feld must
deal with his own quantum of homophobia before he can began to assess the
extent of Zeleny's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why would that be a consideration when your "lot" is so combustible? Not
that there is any excuse for wasting real sentiment on a group
distinguished by choosing an expression of love as barren and bereft of
issue as the crematoria of Auschwitz. Contempt is the strongest emotion
you merit, and the only one you will ever elicit from me."

"The refractory homosexual is a pathetic freak of nature who, whenever
left to his own tawdry devices, acts as a vivid reminder of the misery
concomitant with willful deviance from the moral ends of mankind."

"A man who strives to overcome his unwholesome inclinations merits the
highest praise. But a refractory homosexual is no different from a
refractory coprophage."

"Since we have been over this ground many times before, I surmise that
the deterioration of your immune system under a perpetual ingress of
foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your modest cognitive
faculties. One often hears of psychosomatic ailments -- but you afford a
living example of a mind irremediably corrupted by abject bodily degradation."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The double standard of people like Feld about bigotry is all too apparent;
I *never* see this kind of defense of such extreme bigotry except in the
case where it is directed at homosexuals. In Mr. Feld's mind, clearly
some animals are still more equal than others.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 6:33:20 AM3/12/95
to
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

:::: Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled


:::: and respectful or outed and obstreperous. Only an unhealthy emotional
:::: involvement in an indefensible sexual practice can blind a man to all
:::: rational criticism.

: this is also bullshit on more grounds than i initially
: raised. 'only' presumes that no other thing can 'blind a man
: to all rational criticism.' 'indefensible' compounds original
: errors in logic.

As the Stoics taught us, man is a rational animal. To repudiate
rationality is to reduce your nature to that of an animal, motivated
solely by the drives of attraction and repulsion. Hence blindness to
reason is likely to be due to the predominance of base animal instinct,
such as would account for an unhealthy emotional involvement in a
sexual practice, whose indefensible nature has been established
elsewhere by an independent argument.

:: Incidentally, here is another sample of prima facie justification --
:: it is highly likely that any virulent and anonymous critic of the
:: views put forth in this thread is a resentful, closeted homosexual.

: in my case this'd be half-correct.
:
: however, the probability that this is so does not make your
: judgment valid on an individual basis. do you know _anything_
: about statistics and their lack of predictive power when applied
: to individuals?
:
: are you so blinded by your own rhetoric as to have lost touch
: with objective reality and logic?

When my philosophical betters talk of prima facie justification for X,
they mean "I know that X, though I am prepared to stand corrected by
evidence that not-X." In this instance, Usenet anonymity is a kind of
a closet, so I thank you for confirming my surmise. Note that Quirke
has been strenuously avoiding reciprocating my candor in response to
his insistent inquiries about my sexual practices. I interpret his
avoidance as prima facie confirmation of my surmise of his homosexual
orientation.

::: 'some of my friends are among the inferior races.'

:: As a member of a putatively inferior race, I take exception to my
:: provenance being lumped together with pathological inclinations.

: exception noted. your use of the word 'pathological,' a term
: with a strict definition, is not sanctioned by the ama, the apa
: or any body of physicians. it is shared largely by cellar-
: dwellers and those in rural, decaying enclaves of bigotry.

Moral pathology exists on par with its physical counterpart.

: though it _is_ nice to say that _some_ bigots are capable
: of pretending to rational discourse.

And it is nice to see that you do not bother with such unseemly pretense.

:: Such bravery coming from a creature too timorous to identify itself!
:
: [ad hominem, yawn]
:
: doesn't make you any less full of shit, dear.

What a wonderful example of a substantive rational response.

: h

Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?

_____________________|_________________________________________________

Deacon Maccubbin

unread,
Mar 11, 1995, 11:27:17 PM3/11/95
to
In article <3jpnaa$8...@hibbs.vcu.edu>, dla...@hibbs.vcu.edu (David E.
Latane) wrote:

> Deacon Maccubbin helpfully quotes the caption:


>
> "This Soviet stamp, showing the grateful reception by the peasantry
> of Russian soldiers returning from World War II, was not shocking to
> Russians, who entertained less horror of homosexual interaction than
> did
> their Western counterparts. It is possible that the artist was gay,
> and
> concocted the scene for his own delight, but that remains uncertain."
>

> and then tells me that there are no "facile pop culture
> observations" (my words). Thanks to him for proving my point.
>
> Totalizing, unfounded assertions about whole (multi)cultures based on
> the imagined reception of a postage stamp--what did "facile" mean
> again?

If you can find "totalizing, unfounded assertions about whole
(multi)cultures based on the imagine reception of a postage stamp" in that
caption, you must be reading between the lines. Boswell used the postage
stamp as an example illustration of greater tolerance for "homosexual
interaction" in Russia, not as prima facie evidence of it. You'd have to
read the book (not just the caption) for the background of his whole
exposition (which is quite adequately footnoted, as usual).

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 7:12:52 PM3/12/95
to
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
: On 11 Mar 1995, Michael Feld wrote:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:

::: The double standard of people like Feld about bigotry is all too apparent;


::: I *never* see this kind of defense of such extreme bigotry except in the
::: case where it is directed at homosexuals. In Mr. Feld's mind, clearly
::: some animals are still more equal than others.

:: I don't qualify as a liberal by Canadian standards, nor by American
:: standards either, but it's the "double standard" reference that I
:: suppose I ought to challenge, if only for the record. I've defended
:: the expressions of beliefs far more unpopular than those of Mr.Z's
:: (whose skill at defending his views I admire, just as I think the
:: defence hopelessly, learnedly, wrong-headed); it's just that you read
:: only some of my posts, and we've never met. And if you find Mr. Z's
:: bigotry "extreme", you've lived a life of charmed innocence: the guys
:: who denounce me threaten a lot more than tongue-lashing.

: I didn't know we were talking about defending the expression of
: belief--that topic never arose. The point is, can Mikhail's views be
: defended on their merits, as the outcome of an actual quest for the
: truth--or are they merely in the pattern of any other vulgar,
: mean-spirited bigotry? Clearly, they are the latter. To say that there is
: something more to it that that, and put Zeleny in a class in some way
: superior to a racist or an anti-Semite, is to accept the notion that there
: is merit to be found in anti-gay polemic which is not discoverable in
: racist or anti-Semitic diatribes. And that is to accept the notion that
: homosexuals are inferior.

"Mikhail's views [that homosexuals are inferior] cannot be defended on
their merits, as the outcome of an actual quest for the truth. To say
that there is something more to it [than vulgar, mean-spirited bigotry],
and put Zeleny in a class in some way superior to a racist or an
anti-Semite, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be found in
anti-gay polemic which is not discoverable in racist or anti-Semitic
diatribes. And that is to accept the notion that homosexuals are
inferior."

"The proposition that 3 > 2 cannot be defended on its merits. To say
that there is something more to it than the proposition that whites are
superior to blacks, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be
found in arithmetic which is not discoverable in racist diatribes. And
that is to accept the notion that 3 > 2."

You gotta love the logic.

As an aside, Zeleny's thesis that homosexual acts are morally degrading
does not imply that people suffering from homosexual inclinations are
in any way inferior.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 9:47:26 PM3/12/95
to
In article <3k0aeu$m...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:

: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) quotes and
: then caricatures the claim of Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1>:
:
:: "Mikhail's views [that homosexuals are inferior] cannot be defended on


:: their merits, as the outcome of an actual quest for the truth. To say
:: that there is something more to it [than vulgar, mean-spirited bigotry],
:: and put Zeleny in a class in some way superior to a racist or an
:: anti-Semite, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be found in
:: anti-gay polemic which is not discoverable in racist or anti-Semitic
:: diatribes. And that is to accept the notion that homosexuals are
:: inferior."
::
:: "The proposition that 3 > 2 cannot be defended on its merits. To say
:: that there is something more to it than the proposition that whites are
:: superior to blacks, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be
:: found in arithmetic which is not discoverable in racist diatribes. And
:: that is to accept the notion that 3 > 2."
::
:: You gotta love the logic.
::
:: As an aside, Zeleny's thesis that homosexual acts are morally degrading
:: does not imply that people suffering from homosexual inclinations are
:: in any way inferior.

: They do in the way you've formulated Gene's response, which is at
: substantial variance with the way Gene formed it himself. You equate the
: proposition "that 3>2" with the proposition that "homosexuals are morally
: inferior," whereas Gene's argument began with the proposition that your
: views re: the moral standing of homosexual acts cannot be defended on its
: own merits. Then, you repeat your own erroneous equation in the
: consequent of the argument you've contrived in order to paint Gene's
: argument as though it were guilty of affirming the consequent. Looking
: over Gene's comments, it is clear that that is not the case.
: Conclusion: you've created a straw man. Gene's criticism holds.

Smith aims to demonstrate that my alleged views that homosexuals are
inferior cannot be defended on their merits, as the outcome of a quest
for the truth. In support of his claim he asseverates that to say that
there is something more to the views in question than bigotry, and put me
in a class in some way superior to a racist, is to accept the notion that
there is merit [not rationality] to be found in anti-homosexual polemic
that is not discoverable in racist diatribes, which is tantamount to
accepting the notion that homosexuals are inferior. In other words, he
argues that my views are indefensible because they are unacceptable,
without offering any further explanation of their alleged flaws.

Gary Phillips

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 9:36:57 PM3/12/95
to
David E. Latane (dla...@hibbs.vcu.edu) wrote:

: I'm sorry, the price of admission here is too high. At first it was
: demanded that I read a long contentious book on a topic I'm not
: particularly interested in; now I have to have a Ph.D., teach at
: Yale, and win a national award for a book before my comments are
: valued. I have learned one valuable thing, however. I think I'll
: pad out my next book with pictures of postage stamps--

Since you admit to having never read the book, you are in no position to
determine whether is it contentious or not. Nor are you in any position
to discuss, in any intelligent manner, the relevance of the examples
Boswell used in his book to his thesis.

I apologize for my earlier rudeness. It seemed to me at the time that
your flippant and uneducated dismissal of Boswell's work deserved an equal
turn. That was wrong. The observation that what you have to say about
the subject is irrelevant is still true, however (assuming of course that
you are not an expert in the field and have not read the book).

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 12, 1995, 10:22:49 PM3/12/95
to
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

:: As an aside, Zeleny's thesis that homosexual acts are morally degrading


:: does not imply that people suffering from homosexual inclinations are
:: in any way inferior.

: No. It doesn't. It presumes it and is, in fact, the only basis for
: formulating such an argument in the first place.

Here is a brief lesson in logic: to say that the demonstration
of X presumes Y as the only possible basis for its formulation,
is to say that X implies Y.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 13, 1995, 2:23:59 AM3/13/95
to
be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

:: As an aside, Zeleny's thesis that homosexual acts are morally degrading


:: does not imply that people suffering from homosexual inclinations are
:: in any way inferior.

: Loaded explanation... Suffer is used to indicate some sort of
: inferiority or disorder.

As another aside, Zeleny's belief that kyphosis is a pathological
condition does not imply that people suffering from spinal curvature
are in any way inferior to those straight of back.

"Suffer -- I.3.b. from or (now rare) under a disease or ailment." OED

: Bzzt. You just proved your own bigotry. Next.

See a therapist. But see a dictionary first.

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 13, 1995, 10:08:13 PM3/13/95
to
ja...@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes:

: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> writes,
: quoting and then mimicking Gene Ward Smith:

:: "Mikhail's views [that homosexuals are inferior] cannot be defended on


:: their merits, as the outcome of an actual quest for the truth. To say
:: that there is something more to it [than vulgar, mean-spirited bigotry],
:: and put Zeleny in a class in some way superior to a racist or an
:: anti-Semite, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be found in
:: anti-gay polemic which is not discoverable in racist or anti-Semitic
:: diatribes. And that is to accept the notion that homosexuals are
:: inferior."
::
:: "The proposition that 3 > 2 cannot be defended on its merits. To say
:: that there is something more to it than the proposition that whites are
:: superior to blacks, is to accept the notion that there is merit to be
:: found in arithmetic which is not discoverable in racist diatribes. And
:: that is to accept the notion that 3 > 2."
::
:: You gotta love the logic.

: 3 > 2 can be derived from the postulates of number theory. Where are the
: generally accepted postulates of human morality?

One might cite the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, or the
Categorical Imperative. Given a more pragmatic outlook, you
could substitute "Might is right", eliminating the bothersome
task of arbitrating between incompatible maxims. However I
am not sure what the evidence of a public consensus could
contribute to the demonstration of moral facts.

In any event, my point in the above analogy is that Smith's
reasoning can be applied with equal force, or lack thereof,
to impugn any proposition whatsoever.

: Jason

Gary Phillips

unread,
Mar 15, 1995, 6:36:36 AM3/15/95
to
Tal Kubo (ku...@germain.harvard.edu) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950310133714.14302A-100000@lab1>,

: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> wrote:
: >
: >No, there are not a lot of observations about slav culture, facile or

: >otherwise. Why not read the book before presuming to know enough to
: >comment on it?

: Tell us, did you *read* *the* *opinions* in Bowers v. Hardwick
: before presuming to classify that decision as odious? Would a law
: review article be sufficient grounds for comment, in your opinion??

Why? Do you disagree that the decision was an odious one, ill-formed, and
antithetical to the continued existence of any person's right to privacy,
self-determination, moral autonomy, and other sundry individual rights now
under attack by the Supreme Court in virtue of it?

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 15, 1995, 4:19:29 PM3/15/95
to
lambda...@his.com (Deacon Maccubbin) writes:

: dla...@hibbs.vcu.edu (David E. Latane) wrote:

:: Deacon Maccubbin helpfully quotes the caption:
::
:: "This Soviet stamp, showing the grateful reception by the peasantry
:: of Russian soldiers returning from World War II, was not shocking to
:: Russians, who entertained less horror of homosexual interaction than
:: did their Western counterparts. It is possible that the artist was
:: gay, and concocted the scene for his own delight, but that remains
:: uncertain."
::
:: and then tells me that there are no "facile pop culture
:: observations" (my words). Thanks to him for proving my point.
::
:: Totalizing, unfounded assertions about whole (multi)cultures based on
:: the imagined reception of a postage stamp--what did "facile" mean
:: again?

: If you can find "totalizing, unfounded assertions about whole
: (multi)cultures based on the imagine reception of a postage stamp"
: in that caption, you must be reading between the lines. Boswell used
: the postage stamp as an example illustration of greater tolerance
: for "homosexual interaction" in Russia, not as prima facie evidence
: of it. You'd have to read the book (not just the caption) for the
: background of his whole exposition (which is quite adequately
: footnoted, as usual).

The book's thesis falls apart in parallel with the misinterpreted
illustrations of alleged homosexual interaction. Consider the next
photograph, captioned as follows:
The Russians were still not shocked: a contemporary mural
of Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union and Erich Honecker
of East Germany greeting each other with a kiss. In the
west, many observers would regard this picture as immoral.
The preceding illustration depicted a Soviet postage stamp dedicated
to the anniversary of the liberation of Ukraine. A downtrodden
Ukraininan peasant kissing his Russian military liberator was cited
as evidence of remanent popular Eastern European homoeroticism. No
explanation was adduced to substantiate the imputation of eroticism
to a common Eastern European form of social interaction. Recall the
ending of Boswell's previous book, which quotes a claim made by an
admittedly mediocre, albeit "gay-positive" historian of the phallus,
that the Viking "blood-brothers" could not *but* have been covert
homosexuals. A similar leap of logic, ostensibly warranted only by
the moral corruption that prevents the author from seeing anything
*but* conclusive similarity to his sexual practice in any form of
same-sex sociability, is in evidence here. But this time it is
happily if unwittingly refuted by his very next example, in moving
from the miniature to the grotesquely exaggerated.

Brezhnev's habit of bestowing hearty kisses on progressive foreign
dignitaries was the butt of many jokes during the Soviet stagnation
period. Most wags cited it as prima facie evidence of a positive
correlation between communist ideology and homosexual inclinations,
especially in connection with the visits of Arafat, whose fondness
for young boys was well known. The mural reproduced by Boswell was
painted many years after Brezhnev's death, in the late Eighties, as
part of the plaintive and strident self-criticism of the perestroika
era. Both its inscription (conveniently ignored by Boswell) and its
groresquely magnified aspect are intended to elicit repulsion in the
viewer as a means of denouncing the rituals of an unpopular regime.
Notably, homoeroticism that was at the most latent in the original
state interaction, is here brought to the fore as a stark symbol of
communist corruption. Thanks to his ignorance of foreign cultures,
Boswell contrives to subvert the central thesis of his work, which
rests on an unsupported extrapolation from the Western discomfort
with any practice of casual social encroachment on one's inviolable
"private space", deemed permissible only in sanctioned instances of
sexual contact, to a society that historically lacks the very concept
of privacy and promotes cordial physical intimacy in no way connected
with sexuality or eroticism. See the perceptive remarks by Albert
Camus (in _La chute_) on the Western incapacity to surmise innocent
interpretations of the same-sex physical contact so prevalent in the
Eastern European cultures.

Honni soit qui mal y pense.

Tal Kubo

unread,
Mar 15, 1995, 6:39:56 PM3/15/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950312145859.5769C-100000@lab1>
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>On 11 Mar 1995, Michael Feld wrote:
>
>> If a homosexual said something like, "I think that houses of
>> prostitution are vile, and the men who frequent them are sordid
>> rejecters of their Natural Law obligations to chastity, but, of
>> course, I reject jailing or lynching those who do frequent such
>> places", I'd be happier than if he had said "Death! to the unchaste",
>> and I'd try to reason with him about his reasoning, if, as is not the
>> case, I disagreed with it.
>
>No doubt you would be happier with it--but is it a plea for tolerance? In
>any case, Zeleny was not attacking the frequenters of bathhouses, but
>homosexuals, and given the fact of the existence of heterosexual
>bathhouses, the two are logically quite disjoint.

Of course, "plea for tolerance" is something you fabricated by distoring
Michael Feld's position beyond recognition (and falsifying the chronology
for good measure).

>
>Let me see if I can make my point more explicitly. Zeleny used the
>occasion of his supposed "plea for tolerance" to talk about something
>about which many people have a negative attitude,

ie, Gene Ward Smith. It seems you don't understand multitasking:
if Michael manages to take a stance in favor of tolerance AND push
your buttons in a single post, I say, that's praiseworthy efficiency.


> and so to attempt to
>reinforce anti-homosexual sentiment.

You wouldn't by any chance be confusing yourself with an entire population?


>> Given the growing public intolerance of major sections of the American
>> public, I've grown more selective in my choice of enemies. Same for the
>> Jew-haters, too, of course, and, yes, your point is well taken -- what
>> business has anyone to say things that insult your personal values? -- and
>> thanks for omitting a parallel Jew-hating diatribe.
>
>I have adopted the opposite point of view for some of the same reasons.
>I give no quarter whatever. I think there is something very dangerous
>about the idea that reasonable people may disagree on some forms of it.
>That makes it more acceptable. Hence I will sometimes direct my remarks
>to what seems to some people to be inappropriate targets, in that more
>egregious things by far are being said by someone else.

Do you also apply this Zero Tolerance even-for-the-good-guys policy
to statements like the following?

"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for

his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift


>


>I didn't know we were talking about defending the expression of
>belief--that topic never arose.

Not at all, other than you cheering for Collier's net-coppery and
expressing distaste for the "double standards" which prevent
posters that displease you from being "tossed off the net".


> The point is, can Mikhail's views be


>defended on their merits, as the outcome of an actual quest for the

>truth--or are they merely in the pattern of any other vulgar,

>mean-spirited bigotry? Clearly, they are the latter. To say that there is
>something more to it that that, and put Zeleny in a class in some way


>superior to a racist or an anti-Semite, is to accept the notion that there
>is merit to be found in anti-gay polemic which is not discoverable in
>racist or anti-Semitic diatribes. And that is to accept the notion that
>homosexuals are inferior.

Perhaps you could explain to us what you *would* consider an acceptable
mode of scrutinizing the ethical status of homosexual behavior per se. Or
is such a discussion intrinsically unacceptable?

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 18, 1995, 7:04:11 PM3/18/95
to
Gene Ward Smith writes at Tal Kubo:

: If Zeleny meant to say that he read a review somewhere which he recalled
: said it was crap, he should have said so

Zeleny read both of Boswell's books, along with numerous reviews thereof.

: Your own lack of intellectual standards are showing.

Yet another gem for the .sig file -- nearly as good as the following:
__________________________________________________________________________
You talk about ethics in the way a person deaf from birth might talk about
music--you've read what others say, but you seem to have no idea what they
are talking *about*. -- Gene Ward Smith
__________________________________________________________________________

: --


: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu

Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent

Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
_____________________|_________________________________________________

|"Your own lack of intellectual standards are showing." | don't
|"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith| tread
|"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for| on
| his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift| me

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Mar 18, 1995, 8:00:47 PM3/18/95
to
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

:: As the Stoics taught us, man is a rational animal.

: so fuck the stoics. precisely where does the relevance
: of the stoics lie in this case?

Have some respect for Dead White European Males. Some of them might
have been your ancestors.

: your absurd case insisting on the moral degradation
: inevitably resulting from gay sex is both specious
: and without merit, and dragging in a bunch of dead
: people does not bolster it.

If my argument is "both specious and without merit", what would you
call your own irrationalist eructations?

:: To repudiate


:: rationality is to reduce your nature to that of an animal, motivated
:: solely by the drives of attraction and repulsion.

: your sole subject of posting to the net reflects
: an unhealthy obsession with what gays do in bed--
: that's the attraction. you are so obsessed by the
: subject that you lovingly, almost pornographically
: detail its slightest nuances, revelling in your
: self-righteous disgust--that's the repulsion.
:
: so.
:
: you were saying?

I was saying that I attempt to address the moral implications of
sexuality in a calm and rational manner. Henceforth I refuse to be
provoked into degrading myself to the level of any bombastic blowhard
who prefers to denounce the messenger instead of discussing the message.

:: Hence blindness to


:: reason is likely to be due to the predominance of base animal instinct,
:: such as would account for an unhealthy emotional involvement in a
:: sexual practice, whose indefensible nature has been established
:: elsewhere by an independent argument.

: you seem to spend most of your free time in an unhealthy
: emotional involvement with other people's sexual practices.
: you spend more time whining about gay sex than most gay
: people spend having it.
:
: you also completely lose all pretense of rationality when
: anyone points out the gaping holes in your logic, which
: you desperately attempt to cover with a thin sheen of
: glossy rhetoric.
:
: when you can't deal with the fact that your bizarre,
: recondite arguments don't hold water, you start screaming
: about auschwitz and rimadonnas and glory-hole bathhouses.

I note that your failure to poke holes in my "bizarre, recondite
arguments" may be the motive force behind your tepid obloquy.

:: When my philosophical betters talk of prima facie justification for X,


:: they mean "I know that X, though I am prepared to stand corrected by
:: evidence that not-X." In this instance, Usenet anonymity is a kind of
:: a closet, so I thank you for confirming my surmise.

: usenet itself is a kind of closet. 'mikhail zeleny' doesn't
: tell me shit about you. i know nothing about you that you
: don't tell me.

You know my name and address, without extending to me the
reciprocal courtesy of revealing your identity.

: if you don't understand why someone might choose to use
: a pseudonym, with screaming bigots demanding the extermination
: of 'my kind,' you are obviously stupid beyond your years.

I understand that anonymity implies a lack of intestinal fortitude.
The social cost of shrieking and posturing under a nom de plume is
negligible. It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs. The
anonymous scrivener has none.

:: Note that Quirke


:: has been strenuously avoiding reciprocating my candor in response to
:: his insistent inquiries about my sexual practices. I interpret his
:: avoidance as prima facie confirmation of my surmise of his homosexual
:: orientation.

: so what?
:
: are you saying that if a queer says two plus two equals four
: it's automatically invalid? what the hell _are_ you saying?

I am saying that vested interests interfere with moral deliberation.

: what's quirke's sex life have to do with this, anyway? do you
: have a sick curiosity? do you want to know what he might
: (hypothetically) be doing in a (hypothetical) glory-hole
: bathhouse?

Quirke was the one to drag personal practices into this debate.
I regret having debased myself by sinking to the same level.

: i thought we were debating an issue. deal with the arguments.
: whether they're written by a serial killer, a drug dealer,
: a giant praying mantis or an artificial intelligence program,
: they were still correct, and you still haven't responded to them
: with much more than--'look, he's a FAG! look at him! can't
: you TELL he's some kind o' fuckin' BUTTREAMING FAGGOT
: GLORY-HOLE cocksucker! he's DISAGREEING with me! he's a fag,
: a fag, a fag! he's obviously WRONG, because LOOK at him,
: he's a FUCKING FAG!'

Show me your arguments and I will deal with them.

: your arguments are no more coherent or sane than the 'arguments'
: i attribute to you--what you write is essentially the equivalent
: of what any white-sheet wearing cross-burning redneck would say.

So you say.

: you just say it in a quasi-lofty manner which makes it appear
: oh-so-urbane and witty. well, it's still disgusting, it's still
: shit, and it still stinks.

So you say.

::: exception noted. your use of the word 'pathological,' a term


::: with a strict definition, is not sanctioned by the ama, the apa
::: or any body of physicians. it is shared largely by cellar-
::: dwellers and those in rural, decaying enclaves of bigotry.

:: Moral pathology exists on par with its physical counterpart.

: your bogus appropriation of the term 'pathology' to lend
: an illusory sense of validity to your arguments carries no
: weight with anyone.

You mean to say that it carries no way with you.

: your wild lies and insane allegations are no less wild or
: insane for being couched in what appear to the casual observer
: to be rational terms.

If you could show the irrationality of my terms, you would do me
a favor. Please do not hesitate to do so.

::: though it _is_ nice to say that _some_ bigots are capable


::: of pretending to rational discourse.

:: And it is nice to see that you do not bother with such unseemly pretense.

: no, unlike you, i do not pretend or lie by cloaking my venom
: in a phony, mealy-mouthed pretense toward civility. i do not
: extend civility to those who demand a slap in the face.

To slap me in the face, one would have to discard the cloak of anonymity.

::: doesn't make you any less full of shit, dear.

:: What a wonderful example of a substantive rational response.

: actually, it is substantive. me being anonymous, bisexual,
: a watcher of the x-files, a bibliophile of broad interests,
: the writer of an occasional unofficial faq, a wearer of
: silk shirts, or a sufferer of occasional colds does NOT
: in the slightest way alter the validity of YOUR posts.

Your personal practices may shed light on the motives that
underlie your violent opposition to my arguments.

: get it?
:
: if not, well, bend over and i'll give it to you REAL GOOD.
:
: and REAL SLOW, since you're not too swift.

How interesting to see an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality
exhorting a man to play an receptive role in sexual intercourse in
a way suggestive of degradation, abjection, and opprobrium. Thank
you for supporting my thesis yet again.

:: Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent

:: Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art

: [bla bla bla deleted]

: i also must comment that signing all your bilious
: exercises in purple rhetoric with 'cordially' is so
: phony as to inspire nausea.

Cordial words are those that come straight from the heart.

: h
: and by the way, since you were talking about auschwitz earlier,
: do you happen to know where the queer pink triangle came from?
:
: yeah, that's right, auschwitz. it was the equivalent of a star
: of david.

I get it -- since homosexuals were victimized by the Nazis,
homosexuality must be a Good Thing.

Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
_____________________|_________________________________________________

|"Your own lack of intellectual standards are showing." | don't

|"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith| tread
|"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for| on
| his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift| me

Carolann4

unread,
Mar 19, 1995, 12:23:15 AM3/19/95
to
Mickey?!! Mickey Zeleny, you get in here right now!! This is your Mama
speaking to you, young man! I told you if you can't play nice with your
little friends, I am going to slap your bare tuchus until you can't sit
for a week!!

Do you HEAR me, young man??!! You talk nice about people, or you don't
talk at all!! And don't be making faces about those nice boys down the
street...you remember your Uncle Murray, God rest his soul, he never
married, you know, and there was talk. Yes. But you remember how nice he
was to you, and took you to the circus that time? Yes, that's right. And
you wouldn't have wanted anyone talking mean about Uncle Murray, would
you?? No. There's my good boy. Go in and wash your face now, it's almost
time for supper. Yes, brisket. What? Yes, my darling, you can invite
that serious boy from Parkway for your birthday party...what's his
name...Zeno. Strange, his people must be Lutheran.

Now you get IN there...and get those ears washed out, you could be growing
potatoes in there for my latkes.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 19, 1995, 12:31:57 AM3/19/95
to
On 19 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:

> Zeleny read both of Boswell's books, along with numerous reviews thereof.

Funny how you seem to know nothing about _Same Sex Unions_ beyond one of
the pictures, and have already admitted to relying on a book review, which
you would hardly have done had you actually read it.

You are such a pathetic fraud. I notice as usual you did not repond to
anything substative, and instead have preferred to bring up one red
herring or another, such as this preposterous notion--if you have indeed
read the book, a preposterous pretense--that the picture in question has
any importance at all in its argument.

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Mar 19, 1995, 1:46:24 AM3/19/95
to
On 15 Mar 1995, Tal Kubo wrote:

> B a l o n e y. There is no Jew/homosexual asymmetry in content-based
> access restrictions, and none in the enforcement of those restrictions.
> Gannon, Applegate, McElwaine et al were "tossed off" for their volume of
> unwelcome posting and crossposting. Gannon (and, I think, Applegate)
> regained net access, without any change in content, by simply limiting
> the crossposting.

It is pretty absurd to compare these to Zeleny. And the Reverend
Applegate counts decidedly *against* your position, so it was foolish of
you to bring him up. Applegate spewed venom against gays for quite a
while without getting yanked. He then decided to infest
soc.culture.jewish as a "Messianic Jew". It was *this* which got him
reined in. And yet he wasn't telling people on soc.culture.jewish how
vile and disgusting they were, or in general being as obnoxious as he was
with with respect to homosexuals.

> On the other hand, there seems to be no problem
> de-netting posters that homosexuals dislike, *as such*: your buddy
> John "GRE" Collier managed to have Michael Zeleny's MIT account removed on
> the basis of an odious "anti-harassment" policy, and the Usenet Kook List
> records an instance where another poster lost not only his net access, but
> his job, in connection with anti-homosexual postings. So there may in fact
> be a double standard here, though not quite the one you identified.

Give me a break. If Zeleny had been saying stuff about black people, let
us say, of the kind he constantly says about homosexuals, he would have
been yanked a long time before that. There is quite a bit of
anti-Semitism floating around the net, but really deranged attacks saying
that Jews are human garbage is not the kind of stuff I see; rather, we get
holocaust revisionists, etc. Zeleny goes over a line with respect to
homosexuals which just is generally not tolerated with respect to most
minority groups.

If you can prove me wrong, do so. Find a regular poster who spews venom
about another minority comparable to Zeleny (or DJK, etc.) If you can't, I
take the point by default. Martillo used to get going pretty well about
Islam, but he didn't quite get to the point of attacking all Moslems as
scum, and he hasn't been around for years. I really don't think you can
find such a poster.

> >A case in point. Zeleny is perfectly happy talking about my non-existent
> >"favorite glory-hole bathhouse". Why does he assume a homosexual must
> >have a "glory-hole bathhouse"?

> He doesn't, obviously. Only an illiterate would deduce that. Avail
> yourself of a dictionary, and look up "rhetorical", "hypothetical", and
> "insult".

The point is, he used this as yet another opportunity to attack
homosexuals. He really cannot talk about this subject without spewing
bigotry and bile.

Tal Kubo

unread,
Mar 19, 1995, 4:05:03 AM3/19/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950317234513.4326B-100000@lab1>
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>On 15 Mar 1995, Tal Kubo wrote:
>
>> Do you also apply this Zero Tolerance even-for-the-good-guys policy
>> to statements like the following?
>
>> "You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for
>> his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift
>>
>
>I first saw this quote in a context where Zeleny was using it to
>demonstrate his own victimhood, once again doing a Fred Cherry;

It is telling that you equate bringing it up with whining about
victimization. Thank you for putting in evidence what I've been
contending all along: that your supposed ethical concern is simply
a figleaf for whinging, cringing victimary cant.


>I next saw it where someone had pointed out it was inappropriate.
>
>Now I am seeing it from you, whom I know to be a total hypocrite on this
>issue. You think concern for such things is a mere concern for "bourgeois
>propriety"--unless, of course, the words in question are directed at you
>or someone known to you personally,

If you seriously believe I'm concerned about Holocaust remarks from some
yahoo, think again. I'm simply using it as an illustration of your
own mendacity.


> as your disgusting whining about the
>possible professional implications of disussing such matters on sci.math
>made clear.

You are lying, Liar. My articles dealt with your motives for posting
accusations of bigotry to sci.math -- an issue you've been carefully
avoiding. The motivation for that attack, as confirmed by your more recent
attempts to bully that well-known Nazi sympathizer and homophobe Michael
Feld in these very newsgroups, was transparently to discredit and embarrass
in a professional context. That your credibility and standing as
mathematician are insufficient to accomplish that goal (and your
overcompensation in that forum indicates that you are aware of this
limitation), is really beside the point.


>Posting something anti-Semitic in response to Zeleny's nauseating
>provocations cannot be defended.

Nice backpedalling. Nobody was talking about defending them.
"Nauseating provocations" is a good start, though.

You loudly proclaimed that anti-Semitic phrases make you sick, to the point
that you can't even quote them here; that you "give no quarter" to
intolerance of any kind, and find it especially important to condemn it
when it comes from the Good Guys; and that it's all the more odious
when smuggled into pleas for tolerance. ALL these conditions hold for Rod
Swift's posting, and yet even when called on it you refuse to apply the
very Zero Tolerance policy you were thumping your chest about. Could it be
that your supposed ethical concern was a self-serving farce all along?


> If someone were to break his arms and
>legs and put him in a hospital, that could not be defended either. But it
>would not prove your point nor his correct--in fact, it tends to show just
>the opposite. One cannot argue words are harmless in the face of harm.

A strawman. Nobody's been arguing that it "proves" anything other
than your hypocrisy.

>
>Zeleny is hardly in a position to snivel in a sickening manner about other
>people's insults giving the fact of his own disgusting bigotry and how he
>chooses to express it. It is rank hypocrisy for either him or you to
>complain about such things just because they apply to *you*.

Nobody's complaining, Moron. We're merely exposing your mendacity, and
Swift's.

>
>> Not at all, other than you cheering for Collier's net-coppery and
>> expressing distaste for the "double standards" which prevent
>> posters that displease you from being "tossed off the net".
>

>I think a single uniform standard should apply to all.

More equivocation. Why not come out of the closet and admit what you
*really* want? Your continual use of PC terms of art like "hate speech"
does make it obvious that you'd like nothing better than to de-net the
posters you consider "homophobes", notably including Zeleny.


> Obviously, you
>don't; which is to say, you are a bigot.

Yawn. I refuted your nonsense on double standards, in a paragraph which
you've conspicuously elided. When you can answer it, let me know; failing
that, up the Liar Count by one.


>Let me ask you what you would consider to be an ethically acceptable way
>of discussing the Jewish Question. Surely we can discuss in a rational
>way whether Jews are or are not precisely human, whether they can really
>be accommodated within a modern national state, whether they should be
>banished like lepers once were in the way Zeleny hoped that homosexuals
>would be, and questions of that sort. If we cannot rationally discuss
>such things, what recourse have we?

This is Exhibit A of your hysterical, dishonest rhetoric. Nobody here has
been discussing homosexual analogues of the above. The correct analogy
would be a discussion of whether Jewish religious practice as such is
ethical. I don't see anything wrong with that.

henry

unread,
Mar 19, 1995, 5:07:53 AM3/19/95
to
In article <3kfvnv$t...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

>If my argument is "both specious and without merit", what would you
>call your own irrationalist eructations?

flames. why?

>I was saying that I attempt to address the moral implications of
>sexuality in a calm and rational manner. Henceforth I refuse to be
>provoked into degrading myself to the level of any bombastic blowhard
>who prefers to denounce the messenger instead of discussing the message.

you're only saying this because your ranting about 'hapless
catamites,' 'rimadonnas,' and 'glory-hole bathhouses' failed
to elicit the desired response.

>: when you can't deal with the fact that your bizarre,
>: recondite arguments don't hold water, you start screaming
>: about auschwitz and rimadonnas and glory-hole bathhouses.

>I note that your failure to poke holes in my "bizarre, recondite
>arguments" may be the motive force behind your tepid obloquy.

check alt.politics.homosexuality. i responded to you with
a slightly less contemptuous and vituperative tone there.

>:: When my philosophical betters talk of prima facie justification for X,
>:: they mean "I know that X, though I am prepared to stand corrected by
>:: evidence that not-X." In this instance, Usenet anonymity is a kind of
>:: a closet, so I thank you for confirming my surmise.

>: usenet itself is a kind of closet. 'mikhail zeleny' doesn't
>: tell me shit about you. i know nothing about you that you
>: don't tell me.

>You know my name and address, without extending to me the
>reciprocal courtesy of revealing your identity.

so? of what use to me are your name and address? i couldn't
care less where you live.

>: if you don't understand why someone might choose to use
>: a pseudonym, with screaming bigots demanding the extermination
>: of 'my kind,' you are obviously stupid beyond your years.

>I understand that anonymity implies a lack of intestinal fortitude.
>The social cost of shrieking and posturing under a nom de plume is
>negligible. It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs. The
>anonymous scrivener has none.

oh fuck off.

just to stop your endless snivelling, here:

rob clark
p. o. box 91
(street address 142 old boalsburg road)
boalsburg, pa 16827-0091

and i post under an anonymous id largely for the purpose of
showing solidarity for those who do--a few months ago i had
a reason to wish to be anonymous, but now it's mainly just to
annoy idiots like you.

>: are you saying that if a queer says two plus two equals four
>: it's automatically invalid? what the hell _are_ you saying?

>I am saying that vested interests interfere with moral deliberation.

however, they do not alter the import or the validity of any
given statement. given that you're a raving homophobe, one
might suggest that your arguments are lacking in merit, but
they would be incorrect in saying so.

your arguments are lacking in merit because of their lack of
merit and not because of your moral turpitude, lack of
character and vile personal habits.

the fact that you are an obsessive loser with nothing better
to do with your time than queer-bait all the time does not
affect the validity of your arguments.

your lack of any of the identifying traits of humanity does
not affect the validity of your arguments.

similarly, the validity of your arguments is not affected
by the fact that you are a depraved, repulsive pisher with
shit for brains and rocks for a soul.

>Quirke was the one to drag personal practices into this debate.
>I regret having debased myself by sinking to the same level.

you did not 'sink' to the same level. your moral position
at all times was more equivocal than that of quirke--indeed,
your series of disgusting personal questions was far more
offensive than any personal attack with which quirke ever
took you to task.

>Show me your arguments and I will deal with them.

check out alt.politics.homosexuality.

>: your arguments are no more coherent or sane than the 'arguments'
>: i attribute to you--what you write is essentially the equivalent
>: of what any white-sheet wearing cross-burning redneck would say.

>So you say.

so is evident to the most cursory observer.

>: you just say it in a quasi-lofty manner which makes it appear
>: oh-so-urbane and witty. well, it's still disgusting, it's still
>: shit, and it still stinks.

>So you say.

so is evident to the most cursory observer.

>::: exception noted. your use of the word 'pathological,' a term
>::: with a strict definition, is not sanctioned by the ama, the apa
>::: or any body of physicians. it is shared largely by cellar-
>::: dwellers and those in rural, decaying enclaves of bigotry.

>:: Moral pathology exists on par with its physical counterpart.

>: your bogus appropriation of the term 'pathology' to lend
>: an illusory sense of validity to your arguments carries no
>: weight with anyone.

>You mean to say that it carries no way with you.

it carries no weight to anyone who values precision of
language.

>If you could show the irrationality of my terms, you would do me
>a favor. Please do not hesitate to do so.

check alt.politics.homosexuality.

>::: though it _is_ nice to say that _some_ bigots are capable
>::: of pretending to rational discourse.

>:: And it is nice to see that you do not bother with such unseemly pretense.

>: no, unlike you, i do not pretend or lie by cloaking my venom
>: in a phony, mealy-mouthed pretense toward civility. i do not
>: extend civility to those who demand a slap in the face.

>To slap me in the face, one would have to discard the cloak of anonymity.

done, bigot.

>::: doesn't make you any less full of shit, dear.

>:: What a wonderful example of a substantive rational response.

>: actually, it is substantive. me being anonymous, bisexual,
>: a watcher of the x-files, a bibliophile of broad interests,
>: the writer of an occasional unofficial faq, a wearer of
>: silk shirts, or a sufferer of occasional colds does NOT
>: in the slightest way alter the validity of YOUR posts.

>Your personal practices may shed light on the motives that
>underlie your violent opposition to my arguments.

nonsense. while it is true that my motivations in making
an argument may reflect on my character, the validity of
an argument must be judged within the terms of the argument,
and not by some _ad hoc_ misappropriation of etiology.

responding to quirke's arguments with a series of perverse
questions regarding the intimate details of his personal
life does not constitute a rational response.

>How interesting to see an outspoken advocate of male homosexuality
>exhorting a man to play an receptive role in sexual intercourse in
>a way suggestive of degradation, abjection, and opprobrium. Thank
>you for supporting my thesis yet again.

yes, i put that in there for your especial amusement.

however, the degradation, abjection and opprobrium is
all yours.

>Cordial words are those that come straight from the heart.

your heart is a tragically incomplete thing, and i respectfully
request that you quit aiming it at me like that.

>I get it -- since homosexuals were victimized by the Nazis,
>homosexuality must be a Good Thing.