Help on Homosexuality issue

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

Cari Benefiel <cari...@concentric.net> writes:
>I just started a course on Logic and Reasoning and i have to write a
>paper on the moral justification of Homosexuality. I have no problems
>finding valid arguments supporting homosexuality but I can only find
>religious arguments against it. How do i evaluate a religious argument?
> Who am i to say one's argument is invalid if based on the Bible? What
>shall I do?

If the class is concerned with logical validity, any appeal to a
religious doctrine will be disqualified as exemplifying the fallacy
of argumentum ad verecundiam.

>Also, any other arguments against homosexuality would be appreciated.

My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages. First
you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
the continuation of the species. Then you argue that if morality
is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality". For one could
only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
thereby countermanding a condition of all willing. You will find
relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.

>Cari

Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zel...@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher *** will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** M...@ptyx.com
ptyx, 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068, 213-876-8234/213-874-4745 (fax)
Come to the Alonzo Church Archive at http://www.alonzo.org *** 310-966-6700

Martin Dann

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In article <5okidr$12...@uni.library.ucla.edu>, Michael Zeleny
<zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> writes
And were that argument not so deeply flawed I suppose one could use it
against virginity or any form of sexual abstinence. Indeed, if one came
from a long line of bastards one could use it against marriage and
sexual fidelity!
--
Martin

Lee J. Finch

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

With all of the recent media on Southern Baptists boycotting Disney, this
issue is a very topical one at the moment. I have even seen it debated in
a newsgroup dedicated to investments because someone had decided to sell
their Disney stock on moral grounds. There was a large flurry of responses
to that posting, both for and against.

I have pondered the issue myself because I know a several gay people. I do
not believe that being gay is a matter of choice (at least not for most
homosexuals), so the question of its morality becomes one of suppressing an
individual's natural inclinations.

From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to be
most justifiable in a logical sense. I am sure that you are aware that in
the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to engage
in homosexual activity. This derives from the postulate that the purpose
of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted by
Michael Zeleny). The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying
this tenet to ALL persons. It views a heterosexual couple using
contraception as committing the same sin as a homosexual couple engaging in
sex. In this sense, of the denominations that condemn homosexuality, I
find the Catholic church to be the most equitable.

One might then simplify the issue to that of whether sexual relations are
only morally acceptable if the possibility of reproduction is present. Of
course, in the Old Testament, a major objective of the Jewish people was to
establish the Jewish state, which could better be accomplished by
multiplying the Jewish population. Socio-economic issues have changed
drastically in modern times (not necessarily for the Jewish people,
specifically), which makes one wonder if the authors of the Old Testament
would have thought differently had they been modern day Ethiopians, for
example.

In regards to biblical references to homosexuality, then, one ultimately
has to decide if the words present were truly divine messages or subject to
poetic license. In the New Testament, I am not aware that Jesus
specifically addresses homosexuality in any of his dialogs (I would greatly
appreciate a reference if anyone has come across this).

If homosexuality is indeed a part of nature (which it appears to be for the
entire history of man), can it's practice be immoral? Is it a test that
the Creator has given to man/woman (to sacrifice his/her sexual urges )?
If there is no Creator, does it go against the laws of humanity? The issue
will surely never be resolved.

I find ancient Greek wisdom appearing on the temple of the Oracle at Delphi
particularly applicable to the homosexuality question: Know Thyself (and)
Nothing in Excess.

I sympathize with homosexuals because I know that they feel helpless to
change their situation (Know Thyself). At the same time, I understand how
people can find public displays of homosexual behavior offensive. One has
to admit that parades or other public appearances of large homosexual
groups often (not always) portray an element of debauchery and could be
considered of poor taste by a majority of people (Nothing in Excess). Some
of my gay friends hold the same opinion. If I had children, I would not
take them to Disney World during a gay-themed weekend. However, I would
certainly wish to take them at some other time. I admire Disney for its
policy of nondiscrimination and continue to believe that the company has a
great deal to offer children of all ages (no, this is not a commercial for
Disney :-)).

In summary, I realize that I have provided no help in answering the
original posting of this question. I am still trying to debate the issue
myself and would greatly appreciate anyone else's intelligent thoughts on
the matter. I have found that most well-educated people do not condemn
homosexuality (at least publicly), but even so some continue to snicker.

It is impossible for me to think of my homosexual friends as sinful beings.
I find them generally intelligent and caring individuals. Those who have
found stable partners do seem to be happy and living a healthy life. Those
who are more promiscuous, however, do seem to be letting themselves get
hurt. However, their promiscuity and their homosexuality are two separate
issues in my opinion.

What do the rest of you think? I welcome your opinions.

Best Regards.


Lu Collider-Closure

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Cardinal Benefiel... sounds like a good name for a demon...

Here's a good argument against certain forms of 'homosexuality':

Most sexual acts take place between a clueless one and one who could be
called a smiling rapist. These types of sexual acts are a form of warfare.

A large portion of homosexual acts occur NOT between unicorns (those incarnated
into human form but lucky enough to find each other and recalibrate each other)
BUT between conquistador and 'victim'.

Luckily the 'victims' are doing subtle damage to their conquistadors, but
mainly here we have a well-designed (and possibly evolved) system taking
over 'virgin territory'. Ungood. For arguments, see Greenpeace or Indians.

All of the above has no place in a nice place like Earth.

: Cari Benefiel <cari...@concentric.net> writes:
: >I just started a course on Logic and Reasoning and i have to write a
: >paper on the moral justification of Homosexuality. I have no problems
: >finding valid arguments supporting homosexuality but I can only find
: >religious arguments against it. How do i evaluate a religious argument?
: > Who am i to say one's argument is invalid if based on the Bible? What
: >shall I do?

Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: If the class is concerned with logical validity, any appeal to a


: religious doctrine will be disqualified as exemplifying the fallacy
: of argumentum ad verecundiam.

: >Also, any other arguments against homosexuality would be appreciated.

: My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
: going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages. First
: you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
: Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
: genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
: the continuation of the species. Then you argue that if morality
: is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
: one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
: ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
: reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality". For one could
: only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
: thereby countermanding a condition of all willing. You will find
: relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
: Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.

: >Cari

: Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zel...@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher *** will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** M...@ptyx.com
: ptyx, 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068, 213-876-8234/213-874-4745 (fax)
: Come to the Alonzo Church Archive at http://www.alonzo.org *** 310-966-6700

--

*****************************************************************************

6+ Trillion Dollars GNP in the USA alone, and NO DECENT SOFTWARE YET ?!

Boss don't let me die until I debug this life,
and don't let me rhincornate until I can't make a mess of next time.

"A .sig is a tail-feather tacked on to a turd." -- Tak Eeyawn

*****************************************************************************

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Lee J. Finch <ljf...@thrifty.net> wrote in article
<01bc8199$34ad8e20$LocalHost@privatepc>...

> With all of the recent media on Southern Baptists boycotting Disney, this
> issue is a very topical one at the moment.

Actually, this is a non-issue, or at least it should be. Since homosexual
behaviour does not inherently harm anyone, there is nothing inherently
wrong with it. I have no yet encountered any argument to the contrary -
although of course everyone is welcome to suggest one. What the Bible says
is simply of no relevance to the issue.

> I have pondered the issue myself because I know a several gay people. I
do
> not believe that being gay is a matter of choice (at least not for most
> homosexuals), so the question of its morality becomes one of suppressing
an
> individual's natural inclinations.

Whether or not it is a matter or choice is irrelevant. It may well be that
being a psychopathic murderer is not a matter of choice - but that would
not make it acceptable behaviour.

What is relevant is whether or not a behaviour harms anyone. If guy wakes
up one morning and says 'You know, I decided it would be fun to find
another consenting male adult and give each other blowjobs in the privacy
of our own homes - we would have to practice safe sex of course' - and then
acts on his decision - this is not immoral behaviour since it does not harm
anyone.



> From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to
be
> most justifiable in a logical sense. I am sure that you are aware that
in
> the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to engage
> in homosexual activity. This derives from the postulate that the purpose
> of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted
by
> Michael Zeleny). The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying
> this tenet to ALL persons.

You may be confusing internal consistency and justifiability. It is true,
given premises of the Catholic Church is logically follows that homosexual
activity is a sin, but the premises are eccentric to put it mildly.

> It views a heterosexual couple using
> contraception as committing the same sin as a homosexual couple engaging
in
> sex. In this sense, of the denominations that condemn homosexuality, I
> find the Catholic church to be the most equitable.

Fair enough, although its views have no basis in the actual Bible - but
that is a matter for another debate.

> One might then simplify the issue to that of whether sexual relations are
> only morally acceptable if the possibility of reproduction is present.

This is not an issue that can be rationally debated. The basis for this
belief is "God tells us so". This belief can not be attacked on rational
basis - it is not falsifiable. This statement's truth value is the same
as "The Easter Bunny really exists" - and it should be take as seriously.

> specifically), which makes one wonder if the authors of the Old Testament
> would have thought differently had they been modern day Ethiopians, for

I am not aware of the Old Testament making any sort of general commandment
about contraception. Onan is condemned for his actions, but no general
statement is ever made.

> In regards to biblical references to homosexuality, then, one ultimately
> has to decide if the words present were truly divine messages or subject
to
> poetic license. In the New Testament, I am not aware that Jesus
> specifically addresses homosexuality in any of his dialogs (I would
greatly
> appreciate a reference if anyone has come across this).

I do not believe he does, although St. Paul does so in his letters.
Further, Jesus did make statements to the effect that he came to confirm
the Scriptures - and the Jewish scriptures do condemn homosexuality.
(Specifically, the Torah condems male homosexuality only. Female
homosexuality is condemned somewhere in the Mishna - but not anywhere in
what is know as the "Old Testament".)

> If homosexuality is indeed a part of nature (which it appears to be for
the
> entire history of man), can it's practice be immoral?

I do not think we can use nature as a source of moral guidance. Natural
behaviour of animals is often vicious - and similar behaviour would not be
tolerated in humans in many cases.

What do you mean by 'nature' anyway - how can something not be part of
nature? Other animals use tools too - does that put them outside of
nature?

> If there is no Creator, does it go against the laws of humanity? The
issue
> will surely never be resolved.

The issue has already been resolved. Homosexual behaviour between
consenting adults does not harm anyone. Therefore there is nothing wrong
with it. The only reason further discussion is needed is because too many
people are too stupid - or too wrapped up in bizarre religious doctrine -
to understand this simple argument.


> I find ancient Greek wisdom appearing on the temple of the Oracle at
Delphi
> particularly applicable to the homosexuality question: Know Thyself
(and)
> Nothing in Excess.

Including moderation.

> change their situation (Know Thyself). At the same time, I understand
how
> people can find public displays of homosexual behavior offensive.

And some small-minded twits find wearing a turban in public offensive. Who
cares?

That does not mean that I would approve of a homosexual couple
tongue-wrestling in public, but this is equally true of a heterosexual
couple as well. But if they want to hold hands, I really do not see why
anyone should get their jockeys in a knot over it.

> One has to admit that parades or other public appearances of large
homosexual
> groups often (not always) portray an element of debauchery and could be
> considered of poor taste by a majority of people (Nothing in Excess).

Yeah, they sort of go against the view that homosexuals are in other
regards no different from anyone else. I saw a gay pride parade here and
it came across as a freak show. Can't say I entirely saw the point of the
exercise.


Cheers

--
Michael Voytinsky
mich...@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv

---- Question authority!? Sez who?

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> writes:
>>Cari Benefiel <cari...@concentric.net> writes:

>>>I just started a course on Logic and Reasoning and i have to write a
>>>paper on the moral justification of Homosexuality. I have no problems
>>>finding valid arguments supporting homosexuality but I can only find
>>>religious arguments against it. How do i evaluate a religious argument?
>>> Who am i to say one's argument is invalid if based on the Bible? What
>>>shall I do?

>>If the class is concerned with logical validity, any appeal to a


>>religious doctrine will be disqualified as exemplifying the fallacy
>>of argumentum ad verecundiam.

>>>Also, any other arguments against homosexuality would be appreciated.

>>My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
>>going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages. First
>>you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
>>Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
>>genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
>>the continuation of the species. Then you argue that if morality
>>is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
>>one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
>>ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
>>reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality". For one could
>>only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
>>thereby countermanding a condition of all willing. You will find
>>relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
>>Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.

>And were that argument not so deeply flawed I suppose one could use it


>against virginity or any form of sexual abstinence. Indeed, if one came
>from a long line of bastards one could use it against marriage and
>sexual fidelity!

If Kant's argument is so deeply flawed, you might want to make
yourself famous by publishing a refutation. At this point, your
proposed counterexamples are merely daft, resting as they do on an
elementary conflation of maxims of acting with terms of avoiding
action, and random silliness of suggesting that marital fidelity,
or lack thereof, has any connection with the fertility of sexual
intercourse.

Mike Oliver

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

In article <01bc8199$34ad8e20$LocalHost@privatepc> "Lee J. Finch" <ljf...@thrifty.net> writes:

>From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to be
>most justifiable in a logical sense. I am sure that you are aware that in
>the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to engage
>in homosexual activity. This derives from the postulate that the purpose
>of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted by
>Michael Zeleny). The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying
>this tenet to ALL persons.

Actually, it is my understanding that the Catholic church does not in
fact hold this view.

They say, rather, that sex must not be artificially *separated* from
reproduction. However they allow, in certain cases, "Natural Family
Planning". They also don't say that couples too old to be fertile --
or who never were fertile -- can't have sex. It is my understanding
that they recognize that part of the purpose of sex is to promote
love between the partners.

Of course this gets into some pretty fine distinctions, but then
when was that a problem for theologians?

--

Disclaimer: I could be wrong -- but I'm not.

(Eagles, "Victim of Love")

Martin Dann

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

In article <5oscen$5...@uni.library.ucla.edu>, Michael Zeleny
<zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> writes
>Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> writes:

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

>>>My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
>>>going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages. First
>>>you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
>>>Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
>>>genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
>>>the continuation of the species. Then you argue that if morality
>>>is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
>>>one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
>>>ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
>>>reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality". For one could
>>>only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
>>>thereby countermanding a condition of all willing. You will find
>>>relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
>>>Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.
>
>>And were that argument not so deeply flawed I suppose one could use it
>>against virginity or any form of sexual abstinence. Indeed, if one came
>>from a long line of bastards one could use it against marriage and
>>sexual fidelity!
>
>If Kant's argument is so deeply flawed, you might want to make
>yourself famous by publishing a refutation.

I thought that had been done by minds greater and wiser than mine!

> At this point, your
>proposed counterexamples are merely daft, resting as they do on an
>elementary conflation of maxims of acting with terms of avoiding
>action, and random silliness of suggesting that marital fidelity,
>or lack thereof, has any connection with the fertility of sexual
>intercourse.

Well of course, daftness and silliness is what you get when riff-raff
the likes of me are allowed onto ngs. I am sorry though that you do not
see that I *was* trying to make a point. You clearly see a moral
distinction between an action and a deliberate failure to act, both of
which have the same effect. I do not. It is the "killing and letting
die" argument again. And, of course, the other problem with the argument
as you stated it is that it assumes that the acceptance of homosexuality
would, or even might, put human reproduction at risk. There is no reason
to believe this true.

As for my random silliness, I will try to refrain from poor attempts at
humour in future.


>
>Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
>Zel...@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
>itinerant philosopher *** will think for food

May you eat well,

Regards,
--
Martin

Dave Thomas

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

> >From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to
be
> >most justifiable in a logical sense. I am sure that you are aware that
in
> >the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to
engage
> >in homosexual activity. This derives from the postulate that the
purpose
> >of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted
by
> >Michael Zeleny). The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying
> >this tenet to ALL persons.
>
> Actually, it is my understanding that the Catholic church does not in
> fact hold this view.

The Catholic Church does indeed hold this view -- both of the one's above.
Yes, I am a Catholic.

--
Dave Thomas
dth...@ccnet.com
http://www.ccnet.com/~dthomas/

"One day the universe may collapse back to an infinitestimal point and
should another Universe later emerge the validity of this post cannot be
guarenteed."

Randy Melton

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

In <5oscen$5...@uni.library.ucla.edu>, zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

< snipped for brevity >


>
>>>My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
>>>going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages. First
>>>you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
>>>Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
>>>genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
>>>the continuation of the species. Then you argue that if morality
>>>is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
>>>one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
>>>ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
>>>reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality". For one could
>>>only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
>>>thereby countermanding a condition of all willing. You will find
>>>relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
>>>Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.
>

< snippage of criticism of above argument>

>
>If Kant's argument is so deeply flawed, you might want to make

>yourself famous by publishing a refutation. At this point, your


>proposed counterexamples are merely daft, resting as they do on an
>elementary conflation of maxims of acting with terms of avoiding
>action, and random silliness of suggesting that marital fidelity,
>or lack thereof, has any connection with the fertility of sexual
>intercourse.
>

Wouldn't Kant's reasoning also argue against the following:

- A decision to be celibate (such as a priest taking vows)
- A decision to use contraceptives
- A decision to marry a known infertile partner

Randy Melton

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Kevin Beaulieu

unread,
Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97
to

>
> I have pondered the issue myself because I know a several gay people. I do
> not believe that being gay is a matter of choice (at least not for most
> homosexuals), so the question of its morality becomes one of suppressing an
> individual's natural inclinations.

Myself, I also think that homosexuality is not a choice, and the
gay community has long argued that way. I have recently seen an
interesting change in direction, though. There is fear that if
homosexuality is genetic, it will become "acceptible" on those grounds
i.e. "have pity on them". What the gay community now seems to want is the
recognition that even if someone DOES choose to be gay, they have that
right. An ethical debate on on homosexuality should treat it as a choice
whether it is or not. That way, there is no "hiding" behind anything.
Homosexuality is okay, because you can't say it's not. Period.
With all the talk of bio-engineering lately, I suspect there is
fear that if a gay gene is found, an attempt may be made to stamp it out.
There we would go again -- correcting nature's supposed flaws. We all
know that that only ruins things in the long run.


>
> From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to be
> most justifiable in a logical sense. I am sure that you are aware that in
> the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to engage
> in homosexual activity. This derives from the postulate that the purpose
> of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted by
> Michael Zeleny). The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying

> this tenet to ALL persons. It views a heterosexual couple using


> contraception as committing the same sin as a homosexual couple engaging in
> sex. In this sense, of the denominations that condemn homosexuality, I
> find the Catholic church to be the most equitable.

"Of the demoninations that condemn homosexuality", I suppose --
but that's all.

> One might then simplify the issue to that of whether sexual relations are

> only morally acceptable if the possibility of reproduction is present. Of
> course, in the Old Testament, a major objective of the Jewish people was to
> establish the Jewish state, which could better be accomplished by
> multiplying the Jewish population. Socio-economic issues have changed
> drastically in modern times (not necessarily for the Jewish people,

> specifically), which makes one wonder if the authors of the Old Testament
> would have thought differently had they been modern day Ethiopians, for

> example.
>
A good point. However, although sex is the means for
reproduction, what is the evidence that that's ALL it's good for? A
screwdriver can be used for more than just screwing. I admire
self-restraint to an extent, but as you later point out, "nothing
in excess". The point is that sex is fun and pleasurable, and like all
other pleasures should be enjoyed, albeit responsibly. What is
responsibility in this case? Well, not forcing it on others for one, and
probably stopping short of obsession (although, if there's one thing
that's almost always on the mind of even the most abstinent people, this
is it. In fact, I suspect it would be MORE on the minds of the
abstinent).

>
> If homosexuality is indeed a part of nature (which it appears to be for the

> entire history of man), can it's practice be immoral? Is it a test that
> the Creator has given to man/woman (to sacrifice his/her sexual urges )?

> If there is no Creator, does it go against the laws of humanity? The issue
> will surely never be resolved.

If it went against the "laws of humanity", it wouldn't exist.
Surely aberrations occur in human nature, but if they are truly harmful or
wrong. they eventually get weeded out. Call me Darwin. As for a purpose,
I've heard rather amusing speculation that homosexuality is both a
pacifying presence, and a form of population check. Remember: we can
only take reproduction at geometric rates so far. Call me Malthus.

>
> I sympathize with homosexuals because I know that they feel helpless to

> change their situation (Know Thyself). At the same time, I understand how

> people can find public displays of homosexual behavior offensive. One has


> to admit that parades or other public appearances of large homosexual
> groups often (not always) portray an element of debauchery and could be
> considered of poor taste by a majority of people (Nothing in Excess).

Nonetheless, "poor taste" should never be "bashed", or legislated
out of existence. That's sheer fascism. Or, if poor taste is just
decided by a simple democratic majority, extinction of it becomes "tyrrany
of the majority". Call me DeTocqueville. Also, the definition of poor
taste might be quite different in the homosexual community.


> Some of my gay friends hold the same opinion. If I had children, I
> would not take them to Disney World during a gay-themed weekend.

Why not? They might learn something about homosexuals: that they
are not monsters.


> found stable partners do seem to be happy and living a healthy life. Those
> who are more promiscuous, however, do seem to be letting themselves get
> hurt.

"Seem" is the key word here. Some promiscuous people are indeed
hurting themselves. Others are not. I think obsession is probably,
again, the deciding factor.

However, their promiscuity and their homosexuality are two separate
> issues in my opinion.

Yes they are, and neither should evoke unthinking condemnation of
any sort.


Respectfully,

Kevin

Y. Rimar

unread,
Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97
to

Not long ago i saw a TV show. They were interviewing school girls what
they think about homosexuals and homosexuality . All of them agreed that
its kind of sickness that should be treated and cured both by
helping every homosexual personally and also by means of education.

Things as: homosexuality issue shouldn't be talked about and marrige
of homosexuals shouldn't be allowed because those things draw public
attention to this isuue, were said.


I am a liberal person and used to think that the younger generation is
getting even more liberal. Guess i was wrong.
Go figure...


Yuval Rimar [UV]


Nir Levy

unread,
Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97
to

[Copy sent to original sender]

"Y. Rimar" saw fit to bestow on us:


Not long ago i saw a TV show. They were interviewing school girls what
they think about homosexuals and homosexuality . All of them agreed that
its kind of sickness that should be treated and cured both by
helping every homosexual personally and also by means of education.

[...]


I am a liberal person and used to think that the younger generation is
getting even more liberal. Guess i was wrong.
Go figure...
Yuval Rimar [UV]

Yuval.
A. What the hell does this have to do with philosophy?

B. The fact that there are primitive persons on this planet,
(the fact that they live in the same place as i do!) does
NOT neccessrily mean that everyone is primitive!

For Some reason the press always gets to interview the
"loud mimority" and not the "silent majority" - I can only
hope that this was the case in the above situation you describe.

I hate to think that most of the people think homosexuality
is a sickness. Although deep down I have to say that I have yet
to see a proof to this assumption (i.e. I have no reason to believe
that most people are NOT homophobic).

Hopefully, Some day most people would understand that sexuallity,
(Homosexuality included) is not a matter of choice but a matter
of human nature.


--
Nir Levy, The above opinions are my own,
nl...@usa.net not my employer's.
--
Rule of Acquisition No. 284: Deep down everyone's a Ferengi.
--

Michael Zeleny

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net> writes:
>Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote :

>>>if A then A.
>>>
>>>Perfectly valid. And perfectly useless.

>>A good point. But it appears from the context that the original
>>question is formulated taking "valid" as an informal synonym for
>>"compelling".

>This was not entirely obvious and a clarification was in order.

If you say so.

>An argument based on the Bible can be valid - and much more complex then
>'if A then A' - in that it logically follows if the Bible is assumed to be
>true - and indeed it may also be compelling to someone who shares a similar
>view of the Bible.

Even so, since the original inquiry suggested that dogmatic views
were not in question, it is unclear what conceivable purpose your
interpretation might serve, above and beyond making you feel smart
in public.

>>The very point of discussing morality in a philosophical forum, and a
>>fortiori in a logic newsgroup, is to assume a view according to which
>>its laws are derivable from the empirical facts and the deliverances of
>>pure reason rather than subject to social conventions or other premisses
>>arbitrarily arrived at.

>Unfortunately I am not aware of any empirical facts that would support a
>moral code.

The empirical fact that your body is more likely to yield to the force
of a 125 grain bullet moving at 1400 feet per second, than bounce it
off, would bear most intimately on the moral import of my attempt to
tickle you remotely with the point-and-click interface of my pistol.
This is, incidentally, a standard example in the literature.

>Does it follow from the fact that someone does not like (assuming I can
>treat subjective experience as fact) being gratuitously hurt that it is in
>some way wrong to do so?

It may well follow, given additional facts about your physical
nature responsible for your likes and dislikes, combined with the
deliverances of reason concerning the nature of right and wrong.
Then again, it may not. As they say in my trade, further study is
required.

>>As regards the libertarian doctrine, that
>>if an action does not cause anyone any harm, there is nothing wrong
>>with it, it certainly qualifies as an arbitrary stipulation, at least
>>until and unless the nature of such harm has been specified and somehow
>>rationally connected with empirical facts about its prospective victims.

>I am not sure how it would become less arbitrary for all that. We can not
>get away from premises that can not themselves be proven. This is not
>neccessarily a problem, however.

When the same situation arises in arithmetic, no one in his right
mind calls it arbitrary. Why should moral postulates fare any worse
than Peano's?

>>Otherwise there is no reason to suppose that the anguish experienced by
>>the fundamentalist neighbor of a practicing homosexual is insufficient
>>as a basis for condemning the actions of the latter as inflicting acute
>>psychological harm upon the former.

>You are switching rather abruptly from the general to the specific -
>seemingly without realizing it.

This is called casuistry, a legitimate traditional technique in
moral discourse and its analysis.

>If actions that hurt others are wrong, and if we agree on this, then we can
>look at specific actions and consider their merits.

We need not agree on such things in order to reason hypothetically,
following yet another legitimate tradition in moral discourse.

>In the specific case you site, you would have to consider what would happen
>if we were all required to take into account our neighbours neurosis and
>phobias at all times. I submit that this would make life unbearable for
>most people. Since one is not inherently harmed by homosexual activity
>next door, it is safe to treat the fundamentalist neighbour merely as
>someone with a neurosis or a phobia - although we can not exclude the
>strong possibility that he is just an asshole and should be ignored.

Of course, naking life unbearable for most people may well be the
proper function of morality, if tales of man's natural inclination
to lies, theft, and bullying are to be believed. And your emphatic
disclaimer of inherent harm is of course perfectly circular at this
point. In fact, if scientific materialism is true, you cannot begin
to distinguish mental anguish from physical damage on any systematic
rational grounds. So all your prattle about asshole safety redounds
to nothing.

>>>It sounds like you have no entirely considered your moral premises.

>>It sounds like you have entirely ignored the possibility, entertained by
>>philosophers from Socrates to Kant and beyond, that moral reasoning need
>>not depend on any specific moral premisses.

>You can do moral reasoning with any set of starting premises, but all
>attempts to have an ethical system based purely on reason failed (because
>of course we still have starting premises somewhere).

Even as proof by assertion, this claim leaves a lot to be desired.
Once again, Kant's argument is out in the open, and you are welcome
to demonstrate its failure as best you can. Go for it.

>>To put it in the simplest terms, virtue is knowledge.

>Arghh! Socrates was at his best when trying to pick apart other peoples'
>ill-considered views. His own moral and political theory is either
>incoherent (eg. the Meno) or stupid (eg. The Republic) - and falls apart
>when itself subjected to Socratic dialectic method.

Nice troll. Have you considered teaming up with Ivan Vasilev in sci.classics?

Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zel...@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

Nir Levy <nl...@usa.net.TO_EMAIL_REMOVE_THIS> wrote in article
<33bb47a3...@news.ibm.net.il>...

> A. What the hell does this have to do with philosophy?

Well, the question of whether or not something is ethical or not is within
the purview of philosophy.

In this particular case the answer is obvious - there is nothing wrong with
homosexuality. No good arguments exist to show otherwise - but it is a
valid, if simple, question.

> Hopefully, Some day most people would understand that sexuallity,
> (Homosexuality included) is not a matter of choice but a matter
> of human nature.

I do not understand how this whole issue of 'choice' fits into this. Are
you suggesting that if a previous normal person decides one day to commit
homosexual acts with another consenting adult, it would be wrong, but if
that person was naturally attracted to the same gender it would not be
wrong? I fail do see how the question of whether sexual orientation is a
matter of choice or not is at all relevant.

Cheers

--
Michael Voytinsky
mich...@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada

http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/

----- Question Authority? Sez who?

Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

Randy Melton wrote:

> Wouldn't Kant's reasoning also argue against the following:
>

> -1 A decision to be celibate (such as a priest taking vows)
> -2 A decision to use contraceptives
> -3 A decision to marry a known infertile partner

It is the intentional use of genitals while being closed to procreation
that is contrary to the natural law.

The argument does indeed preclude #2. All the philosophical arguments
against homosexual acts also apply to contracepting heterosexuals,
who can be understood as 'heterosexual gays' as one west coast gay
pointed out.

But natural law argumentation does not preclude #1 or #3. The celibate
person abstains
from all sex - he does not enguage in sex while trying to thwart it's
outcome.
The sterile couple are not sterile by intention by by accident.

-Alan Wostenberg
Colorado

Graham Walmsley

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to


Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<33BFC5...@ix.netcom.com>...

As I understand it, the natural law argument is as follows: the test
whether doing X is ethical is if we can reasonably wish doing X to become a
law of nature.

So for example (the argument goes) helping the poor is ethical because we
can reasonably wish helping the poor to be a law of nature (i.e. something
that everyone does). Committing suicide when things are going badly is
unethical because we would not want commiting suicide when things are going
badly to become a law of nature: if it was a law of nature, people would
die as soon as something went wrong.

Now if I've got the argument right, celibacy must be "unethical" because we
can't possibly wish being celibate to become a law of nature - because
there would be no procreation. And likewise marrying a known infertile
partner.

(BTW, I'm not arguing in favour of these things being unethical - I'm
simply arguing that the natural law argument leaves a lot to be desired)

Graham

Gerben...@rna.nl

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

You can not logically decide ethical issues.

At least one argument against the 'procreation' argument can be given (with
ease): If genitals are only for procreation and not for recreation, does that
make recreation a bad thing (in other words: is one allowed to have fun while
having sex or is one only allowed to have children?). Or: does the fact that
genitals are `intended' for procreation imply that they are `forbidden' for
other uses?

A second argument goes like this: why is 'adoption by any of one's ancestors
preventing your birth' the rule to be used? The fact that someones parents
were not homosexual leads to someones existence. But if they would have been
homosexual, that someone would not exist. Giving to that non-existing entity
the will to exist, doesn't make sense. And it is also a matter of choice if
someone accepts that "proper dysfunctionality" argument. It is logically
tenable to combine the satisfaction with your existence through the implied
satisfaction that your forebears were not homosexual and accepting that you
are homosexual. In fact, your homosexuality will only affect probable
offspring, it has nothing to do with your ancestors.

Of course what we do know is that it is highly improbable that homosexuality
becomes a 'large majority' of the population (because of evolutionary
pressure and if and only if homosexuality is heriditary). But that does not
mean it is wrong for either the homosexual minority itself, nor for the
homosexual individual.

Again: you cannot decide ethics through means of classical logic.

--
Gerben...@RnA.nl (Gerben Wierda)
"If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there"
Paraphrased in Alice in Wonderland, originally from the Talmud.

Renee: "Met veel koper maakt men hoempa." (After hearing Brahms'
Festouverture)

Synonammes Botch

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

I'm new to this n.g., so this thread may be from a discussion I am coming
in late on. But what are we doing here? Establishing philosophical laws
concerning sex? Or are we debating an already existing set of values? Or
both?

Anyway. I'm a simple person. If it feels good, do it. When you're done,
if you can look in the mirror and smile, you're doing alright.

Blue Spirit

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

In article <33BFC5...@ix.netcom.com>,

Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Randy Melton wrote:

>> Wouldn't Kant's reasoning also argue against the following:

>> -1 A decision to be celibate (such as a priest taking vows)
>> -2 A decision to use contraceptives
>> -3 A decision to marry a known infertile partner

>The argument does indeed preclude #2. All the philosophical arguments

>against homosexual acts also apply to contracepting heterosexuals,
>who can be understood as 'heterosexual gays' as one west coast gay
>pointed out.

Wrong. Some arguments apply in one case and not another.

>But natural law argumentation does not preclude #1 or #3. The celibate
>person abstains from all sex - he does not enguage in sex while trying
>to thwart it's outcome.

>The sterile couple are not sterile by intention by by accident.

Logically incoherent rubbish. It is just as much an accident of nature
that homosexual couples do not produce children as sterile
heterosexual couples. This becomes clearer when we realize that the
definition of gender is not absolutely clear in all instances, and so
the distinction between heterosexual but infertile couples and
homosexual couples is not as absolute as you and most other people
suppose it to be.


D. Maso-Furedi

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97070...@techst02.technion.ac.il>, c072...@techst02.technion.ac.il says...

>
>
>Not long ago i saw a TV show. They were interviewing school girls what
>they think about homosexuals and homosexuality . All of them agreed that
>its kind of sickness that should be treated and cured both by
>helping every homosexual personally and also by means of education.
>
>Things as: homosexuality issue shouldn't be talked about and marrige
>of homosexuals shouldn't be allowed because those things draw public
>attention to this isuue, were said.
>
>
>I am a liberal person and used to think that the younger generation is
>getting even more liberal. Guess i was wrong.
>Go figure...
>
>
> Yuval Rimar [UV]
>


***Can you define "sickness"? Homosexuals are noted by the
medical community to have equally healthy lives as heterosexuals.
"Sickness" defined thru the DSM IV (APA bible) does not list
homosexuality as a disorder, and in fact, research has shown the
homosexual population to be more mentally "healthier" than heterosexuals.
"Sickness" as normal vs. abnormal is equated with religious doctrine.
The majority of the Earth's population is dark skinned, dark haired and
dark eyed. Being blonde, light-skinned with blue eyes can be
considered abnormal. Some religions consider it a sin to judge others
If a Christian is judging a homosexual as "sick", he would be sinning
by judging others. So, what is "sick"?


Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

D. Maso-Furedi wrote:

>
> ***Can you define "sickness"? Homosexuals are noted by the
> medical community to have equally healthy lives as heterosexuals.
> "Sickness" defined thru the DSM IV (APA bible)

Until the 70's it *was* defined in as a sickness there. We simply
redefined it under pressure from gay groups, as we redefined "death" to
be "brain death" under pressure from those who wanted to harvest organs
without being taken to court.

-Alan Wostenberg

Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Gene W. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <33BFC5...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Randy Melton wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't Kant's reasoning also argue against the following:
>
> >> -1 A decision to be celibate (such as a priest taking vows)
> >> -2 A decision to use contraceptives
> >> -3 A decision to marry a known infertile partner
>
> >The argument does indeed preclude #2. All the philosophical arguments
> >against homosexual acts also apply to contracepting heterosexuals,
> >who can be understood as 'heterosexual gays' as one west coast gay
> >pointed out.
>
> Wrong. Some arguments apply in one case and not another.

Please, I'd like to hear an argument against homosexualy gays that does
not also apply to heterosexual gays (contracepting couples).

Alan Wostenberg

Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Graham Walmsley wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the natural law argument is as follows: the test
> whether doing X is ethical is if we can reasonably wish doing X to become a
> law of nature.
>
> Now if I've got the argument right, celibacy must be "unethical" because we
> can't possibly wish being celibate to become a law of nature - because
> there would be no procreation. And likewise marrying a known infertile
> partner.

That would be a good pragmatic test. For any action ask "if everybody
did this what would be the outcome". If everybody took a vow of celebacy
the race would perish. Is that bad? No - who declared survival of the
species is the highest good? Ecologists? Darwinists? Still, procreation
is a good, just not the highest good.

But it is not the celebacy itself that is virtuous, but the voluntary
forgoing of a natural good (pleasure, procreation) for some higher good
(love of God).

The difference between celebacy and contraception is that the former
abstains from sexual acts and their good outcomes. The contrecpting
couple enguages in sex and then tries to thwart the natural goods. It is
the decoupling of sexual acts from the procreative outcome that offends
natural law. We are all free to abstain from sex, drink, food, sleep,
meat, cofee <g>, any of the lesser goods, not becuase they are evil
(that's puritanism) but for the sake of a higher good.

If that covers celibacy and contraceptives we could consider infertile
couple under the natural law. Is the coouple infertile by accident or
surgery?

-Alan Wostenberg

Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Gerben...@RnA.nl wrote:
>
> You can not logically decide ethical issues.
> Again: you cannot decide ethics through means of classical logic.

Some of the first premises (do good; avoid evil) are axiomatic. Others
(don't kill; steal; lie) are widely known postulates.

We know not to kill; but is self defense murder? Only logic will answer
the specific cases from the general principles. If not reason, then
what?

-Alan Wostenberg

Magenta

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> doth speak:


Well, since you guys from alt.philosophy.debate and
talk.philosophy.misc decided to add alt.politics.homosexuality into
this, here is an opinion from an a.p.h gay-

Your phrase "heterosexual gays" for heterosexuals who use
contraception is a misuse of the terms. "Gay" does not mean an
individual who does not reproduce, since many gays do conceive
children.

"Gay" is simply a pop-culture shorthand for homosexual,
nothing more, nothing less.
Homosexuals are individuals who are sexually attracted
to the same sex and not the opposite sex,
heterosexuals are individuals who are attracted
to the opposite sex and not the same sex,
bisexuals are attracted to both sexes.
Someone cannot be gay and straight at the same time,
unless you mean they are bisexual.

There is no such thing as a "gay heterosexual"
anymore than there is a "black caucasian" or a "male woman".
If you want to say non-reproductive heterosexual,
say non-reproductive heterosexual.
The general public has enough problems trying to understand issues of
sexuality without having all of the words redefined on a whim.

+----- Peace & Love, ----+- Magenta (dash) 7 (at) JUNO (dot) com ----+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"Pray look better, Sir. those things yonder|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| | are no giants,but windmills." |
|_________ _/ __________|_____________--Sancho Panza to Don Quixote_|

Randy Melton

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Graham Walmsley wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, the natural law argument is as follows: the test
>> whether doing X is ethical is if we can reasonably wish doing X to become a
>> law of nature.
>>
>> Now if I've got the argument right, celibacy must be "unethical" because we
>> can't possibly wish being celibate to become a law of nature - because
>> there would be no procreation. And likewise marrying a known infertile
>> partner.

>That would be a good pragmatic test. For any action ask "if everybody
>did this what would be the outcome". If everybody took a vow of celebacy
>the race would perish. Is that bad? No - who declared survival of the
>species is the highest good? Ecologists? Darwinists? Still, procreation
>is a good, just not the highest good.

Well, Kant's universal maxims would apply to any rational being
(including, presumbably, non-humans). A key part of the argument as I
understand it is logical -- not based entirely on a natural law
premise. Since your ancestors and you should adhere to the exact same
maxim, your choices should match your ancestors. But if it's a choice
that results in your never being born, you have chosen non-existence,
presumably an irrational choice.

It's hard for me to reconcile this argument with the meager reading
I've done of Kant (mostly Metaphysics of Morals). It seems
uncomfortably close to arguing for procreation as a duty, and seems to
regard the rational being as a means to end, rather than an end in
itself. I suppose the key point, as you bring out, is "is it moral
to not procreate?" Forgetting the ancestor business, can I, at this
moment, will a universal maxim that stops precreation? And bear in
mind that Kant's universal maxims (as I understand it) admitted to no
subjective factors whatsoever. It wouldn't matter what your sexuality
was, whether you already had children, whether you had a good reason
for wanting an exception to the universal law.

One possible line of reasoning is that a universal maxim could not be
willed that would require other universal maxims be violated. A
decision to procreate involves another person. I don't think a
loveless marriage could be willed as a universal law, and if that was
the only choice for procreation (because of asexuality or
homosexuality), that might invalidate a maxim based on procreation.
Might make sperm donations a moral duty, though.

>But it is not the celebacy itself that is virtuous, but the voluntary
>forgoing of a natural good (pleasure, procreation) for some higher good
>(love of God).

>The difference between celebacy and contraception is that the former
>abstains from sexual acts and their good outcomes. The contrecpting
>couple enguages in sex and then tries to thwart the natural goods. It is
>the decoupling of sexual acts from the procreative outcome that offends
>natural law. We are all free to abstain from sex, drink, food, sleep,
>meat, cofee <g>, any of the lesser goods, not becuase they are evil
>(that's puritanism) but for the sake of a higher good.

Putting Kant aside, I think we now know that human sexuality is far
more complex than the classical model. The mind seems to be as
critical as the genitals, if not more so. I think asexual or
homosexual people may be a special case of a fertitily problem. They
have the physical goods but their mental processes make it
problematic. A decision to refrain from procreative sex for these
individuals seems a perfectly valid one, and furthermore, a perfectly
natural and virtuous one.


Randy Melton


Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Randy Melton wrote:
>
> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Putting Kant aside, I think we now know that human sexuality is far
> more complex than the classical model. The mind seems to be as
> critical as the genitals, if not more so. I think asexual or
> homosexual people may be a special case of a fertitily problem. They
> have the physical goods but their mental processes make it
> problematic. A decision to refrain from procreative sex for these
> individuals seems a perfectly valid one, and furthermore, a perfectly
> natural and virtuous one.

Hi, Randy. Let's do put Kant aside and talk from natural law
(Aristotle).

I was asserting: all arguments prohibiting homosexual acts also apply to
contraceptive acts among heterosexuals. You've argued the case that
homosexual acts are like accidentially infertile heterosexual acts, and
unlike intentional contraceptive heterosexual acts.

There are a variety of subjective sexual preferences, as there are a
variety of food preferences. But natural law refers to the objective
case of human nature.

By biological nature our species procreate bisexually; other species do
it different. Individual heterosexual couples fail actualise that nature
through no intent of their own.

But homosexual unions are *by nature* sterile, therefore not in the same
category of heterosexual unions that are accidentially sterile. Another
union *by nature* sterile bestiality.

A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?

-Alan Wostenberg

Randy Melton

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>-Alan Wostenberg

My argument is that a person's sexuality is innate, and therefore
natural. My opinion is that it is a minor, natural variation in the
species, something like being left-handed. The fact that
homosexuality is observed in animal species tends to support his view,
I believe. Just as there is no particular reason for a lefty to curb
his natural tendencies and become right-handed, there is no reason for
a gay person to attempt to defeat his natural tendencies. I do not
think there is the same evidence of innateness in sexual preferences
like beastiality or fetishes.

To put in another way, I see gay people acting on their sexual
preferences in a responsible, moral way to be acting as man qua man.
For them to do otherwise appears to me to be an unnatural denial of
their true nature, a violation of the natural law. This implies, and
I agree with, a view of natural law that does not require each
organism to procreate. Enough of each species must do so for the
species to survive, but it is not a duty of each member, if nature has
not given that individual member the requisite means (and I consider
the proper sexual orientation to be one of those means.)

Now, this has perhaps strayed from the path of the original argument
-- whether homosexuality and contraceptive useage are equivalent in a
moral sense. My view is that they are not, as homosexuality involves
a natural, innate quality not given by man, but the use of
contraceptives is a decision reached by man, through the conscious use
of reason. Although not equivalent, I do not think either is
particularly contrary to nature. A reasoning animal like man can
certainly manage to use contraceptives and still reproduce. Of the
examples discussed to date, celibacy really seems most likely to
violate natural law, for it has immediate negative impact on the
individual human himself. Very few humans, I believe, will be happy
or satisfied with a celibate lifestyle. It seems most vunerable to a
charge of stopping the attainment of man qua man.

Randy Melton

Wostenberg

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

Randy Melton wrote:

btw, I'm not using wordwrap since Netscape can't do it. Are these
postings wrapping OK on your side or do I need to estimate where column
80 is and hand-break the lines?

> To put in another way, I see gay people acting on their sexual
> preferences in a responsible, moral way to be acting as man qua man.
> For them to do otherwise appears to me to be an unnatural denial of
> their true nature, a violation of the natural law. This implies, and
> I agree with, a view of natural law that does not require each
> organism to procreate.

I understand your last point, and think that the central premise from
which our differences spring.

> Now, this has perhaps strayed from the path of the original argument
> -- whether homosexuality and contraceptive useage are equivalent in a
> moral sense.

Yes we have. My original assertion was: any any natural law
argumentation wrt homosexualilty applies also to contraceptives. There
is parity between the two - a person cannot be consistently 'for' one
and 'against' the other, as plenty are, but not you or I.

This needs to be pointed out to contracepting heterosexuals who condemn
homosexual acts.

Core question: can procreative good be intentionally separated from
sexual relations?

If sexual pleasures can be intentionally separated from the procreative
good, there is no reason to restrict the conjugal act to marriage, or to
forbid contraceptives, homosexuality, bestiality. Any orifice will do.

So what would be your argument prohibiting bestiality that does not also
apply to contraceptive acts?

-Alan Wostenberg

Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/13/97
to

In article <33C71B...@ix.netcom.com>, Wostenberg
<pf...@ix.netcom.com> writes

How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.
>
Cheers,
--
Martin

dan shea

unread,
Jul 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/13/97
to

On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 18:34:44 -0600, Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>btw, I'm not using wordwrap since Netscape can't do it. Are these
>postings wrapping OK on your side or do I need to estimate where column
>80 is and hand-break the lines?

They come out fine in my news reader (Agent).

>Yes we have. My original assertion was: any any natural law
>argumentation wrt homosexualilty applies also to contraceptives. There
>is parity between the two - a person cannot be consistently 'for' one
>and 'against' the other, as plenty are, but not you or I.

I missed your original post, and it's no longer in my mail server.
I'm wondering exactly how big a deal this is: I don't know of anyone
who's 'for' homosexuality but 'against' contraception, and very few
who are vice versa. The argument seems to have existential import for
only a few heterosexist contraceptors. Not that that's any reason to
not discuss it, of course.

>This needs to be pointed out to contracepting heterosexuals who condemn
>homosexual acts.

Can't we just let them continue to hold incoherent beliefs? ;)
Well, not, I suppose, if one is interested in promoting acceptance of
homosexuality. It certainly wouldn't be to discourage
contraception...

>Core question: can procreative good be intentionally separated from
>sexual relations?

Every day, millions of people intend to have sex without intending to
procreate. Prima facie, seems like it can.

>If sexual pleasures can be intentionally separated from the procreative
>good, there is no reason to restrict the conjugal act to marriage,

If I could interject here: there is no reason to restrict the conjugal
act to marriage even IF sexual relations are intentionally entwined
with procreation. People can (and often do) intend to have children
out of wedlock.

or to
>forbid contraceptives, homosexuality, bestiality. Any orifice will do.

Not to mention chemical and electronic stimulants, and who knows what
else someone somewhere will find pleasureful.

>So what would be your argument prohibiting bestiality that does not also
>apply to contraceptive acts?

Have you no objection to bestiality, Wostenber, apart from the fact
that it's not intended towards procreation? Yikes.

Now, this is interesting. Your argument is NOT the following:

1) Homosexual sex, contraceptive heterosexual sex, and bestiality can
none be intentionally directed towards procreation.
2) Bestiality is morally wrong.
Therefore
3) Homosexual sex and contraceptive heterosexual sex are wrong.

If that were your argument, it would require the establishment of a
further premise: that bestiality is morally wrong
_in_virtue_of_the_fact_ that it cannot be directed towards
procreation. Which would require the establishment of the premise
that all sex not directed towards procreation is wrong -- in which
case we could dispense with the bestiality premise altogether.

What you've done is shifted the burden of proof: rather than having to
demonstrate that sexual relations not directed towards procreation are
wrong, you've presented something like a reductio to your opponent:

1) By your reasoning, homosexuality and contraceptive sex are morally
acceptable.
2) By the same reasoning, bestiality is morally permissible.
3) Since bestiality is NOT morally permissible, there must be
something wrong with your reasoning.

Ergo, there must be something wrong with the reasoning that finds
homosexuality and contraceptive heterosexual sex morally permissible.
Unless, of course, bestiality is wrong for other reasons.

And so I ask you, Wostenberg, have you no objection to bestiality
apart from the fact that it's not intended towards procreation?

Yikes. What happens if it turns out that sexual relations not
directed towards procreation ARE morally acceptable? I haven't yet
seen an argument against this.

For myself, I've been presented with what looks like a reductio. How
can I argue against bestiality without arguing against homosexuality
and contraception? Let's use some imagination. Look at it from the
poor animal's point of view! I've got an argument against bestiality
-- well, most forms of it, anyways. Sexual relations require mutual
consent. Animals (most if not all of 'em) are incapable of forming
the requisite consent, and so sexual relations with those creatures
constitute rape. Rape is morally wrong. Thus, sexual relations with
dumb animals is wrong.

Of course, depending on what one thinks of the reasoning powers of
animals, this may not prohibit sex with dolphins, chimpanzees, and
possibly other highly intelligent mammals. However, the courts have
fairly high standards of consent in rape cases. For the sake of
argument, I'd accept those standards, and no cases of bestiality that
I'm aware of pass the consent test. But even if some should... hey,
what goes on between mutually consenting adults is their own business.


Now how about a positive argument for the opposite position -- that
the moral acceptability of sexual relations is a matter of their
intention (or lack thereof) towards procreation?

Regards,
dan

To email me, remove "this" from my address as it appears in the message header.

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jul 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/16/97
to

Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<VUqeDAAr...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...

> >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
> >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>
> How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
> the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.

If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?


Cheers

--
Michael Voytinsky
mich...@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv

---- Question authority!? Sez who?

Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/16/97
to

In article <01bc920b$535f95c0$8bf0cfcd@michael>, Michael Voytinsky
<mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net> writes

>Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><VUqeDAAr...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
>> >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>>
>> How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
>> the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.
>
>If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
>one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
>tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

Mmm, not a bad point, but isn't this the "two wrongs make a right"
argument? Should it be acceptable to "use animals for our gustatory
pleasure"? If not for pleasure, is it acceptable to use animals to meet
our dietary needs? If so, is it not then incumbent upon us to treat them
as well as possible? There is clearly a lot of hypocracy involved here
(I am no vegetarian so have to include myself) but there does seem to me
to be a difference between meeting our very natural food needs, and
meeting a perverse and unnatural sexual need. There also seems to me to
be a difference between sex between consenting adults of whatever
gender, and sex with those who have no choice, like animals and
children.
>
Cheers,
--
Martin

dan shea

unread,
Jul 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/18/97
to

A couple things...

This was in my mailbox, and here's my reply:

Hi, Nelson:

I haven't got time to go into it in much detail here, but...

At 12:10 PM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote:

Sexual relations require mutual
>> consent. Animals (most if not all of 'em) are incapable of forming
>> the requisite consent, and so sexual relations with those creatures
>> constitute rape. Rape is morally wrong. Thus, sexual relations with
>> dumb animals is wrong.
>>

>> Dan, your argument here seems to suggest that animals have an innate
>> right to be free from sexual exploitation by humans. Is that
>> necessarily true? If so, what is the basis for such a right and
>> exactly how does an animal go about claiming its "rights?"

For one, I didn't phrase it in terms of rights: I just said it was
wrong to have sex with creatures that didn't consent to it. I prefer
to think of it in terms of a moral constraint on human behaviour than
in terms of a positive right of an animal -- there is more to ethics
than the simple adjudication of rights.

You're probably thinking that, at any rate, it commits me to a theory
of animal rights. My saying it's wrong to fuck a pig is equivalent to
saying that a pig has a right not to be fucked. I dunno -- maybe. I
can live with that. Does the fact that it's wrong STEM from the pig's
right? That's remains to be seen. The basis for saying the pig has
the right, IMHO, is the prior fact that it is morally incumbent on
human beings not to have sex with things that don't consent to it.
Not vice versa. But I'd be perfectly comfortable either way.

For two, I'm not sure how to interpret your statement "is that
necessarily true". True by definition? Analytically true?
Conceptually impossible to conceive otherwise? I'd be surprised if it
were any of those. True nonetheless? You betcha.

How does the animal claim its rights? Unfortunately, as we're dealing
with dumb animals, that's not always so obvious. To borrow a line
from the pro-life side of the abortion debate, "sometimes somebody
needs to stand up for them".

>> Again, why should consent be an issue when it comes to animals? Heck,
>> I suspect that some animals might even manifest signs of enjoying such
>> attention - does that constitute consent?

Not at all. Consent, as you ought to be aware, is an informed
decision, not a reaction to stimuli. Indeed, in my original post I
mentioned there might possibly be cases of animals consenting to sex
-- but you'll notice I framed it in terms of intelligence, not in
terms of sexual proclivity.

Suppose further a scenario
>> wherein a father and his "of age" daughter mutually consent to sexual
>> relations where contraception/abortion/surgery eliminates the
>> possibility of conception - there you have consent. Or are such
>> sexual unions philosophically (morally) agreeable to you?

Morally, I find incest repugnant. Not just the obviously abusive
cases: the vast majority of "consensual" incest cases aren't so
consensual as they appear. I find it impossible to conceive of
parent/child consensual incest, and I've heard it said that it's a
contradiction in terms. But maybe it can happen. What then? I guess
I'll be appalled for all the other reasons people are appalled about
incest. Do you object to it? Why, if not on the grounds of consent?


You're quite right: taking the position that consent is the litmus
test of morally acceptable sexual relations puts one in the
uncomfortable position of condoning all sorts of seemingly-consensual
relations that most people find morally objectionable. I have never
said that consent is the only criteria, though, and I have no
intention of ever saying so. I introduced the concept of consent
merely to show how one can object to sex with animals without
objecting to sex amongst homosexuals or contracepting heterosexuals
(surprising, indeed, that such a position should need to be defended).

Regards,
dan
-----------------------------

Now there's this, written in response to a position very close to my
own:

>> >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
>> >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>>
>> How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
>> the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.
>
>If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
>one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
>tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

Good point. Is it acceptable to keep a chicken in a cage? Hell, no.
If God wanted chickens kept imprisoned their whole lives, He'd have
never given them little beaks so they could peck their way out of
their shells. Well, maybe not... Let's see if we can solve this
without resorting to theology.

The simple fact of the matter is that it IS wrong to use animals for
our gustatory pleasure. Deal with it. Your objection seems to be
that the position (consent is morally relevant) is wrong because the
consequence (vegetarianism) is untenable -- but I haven't seen one
iota of evidence that the consequence IS in fact untenable.

Do you ever find consent (or lack thereof) to be morally relevant,
Michael? Why in some cases but not others?

I'm out of town for a couple weeks and won't be checking in on my
newsgroups. I'd be very interested in hearing responses, so I
encourage you and anyone else who wishes, to send me a copy of your
post here via e-mail.

Regards,
dan

dan...@cyberspc.mb.ca

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Jul 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/18/97
to

Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<mmXyfDAZ...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...

> >If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
> >generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
> >and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure,
if
> >one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken
in a
> >tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
> >intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>

> Mmm, not a bad point, but isn't this the "two wrongs make a right"
> argument?

Not exactly, no. More like "If X is morally acceptable, then if follows
that Y is morally acceptable" sort of argument. This argument can be valid
regardless of the truth value of X.

> Should it be acceptable to "use animals for our gustatory
> pleasure"?

Well, that is an important question. However, the general agreement is
that it is acceptable - and in my argument I simply provided something that
follows from it.

Personally, I find it difficult to justify using animals (especially higher
vertebrates such as mammals and birds) for our gustatory enjoyment.

> If not for pleasure, is it acceptable to use animals to meet our dietary
needs?

Well, in North America and Western Europe, and much of the rest of the
world, animals are not needed to meet our dietary needs. The situation may
be different in places that have land suitable for grazing but not for
farming (eg. much of Mongolia). Indeed, animal farming is generally very
wasteful of resources.

I certainly would not have a difficulty with killing and eating a higher
non-human vertebrate in order to prevent myself from starving, but that is
a rare situation for me.

> If so, is it not then incumbent upon us to treat them as well as
possible?

If animals have any moral standing at all, yes. Since we have no rational
reason to regard them as some sort of Descartes' automata, we have to
assume that they are capable of suffering and modify our actions
accordingly.

As to how much moral standing they have in comparison with humans - that is
not a topic easily covered in one posting.

> There is clearly a lot of hypocracy involved here
> (I am no vegetarian so have to include myself) but there does seem to me
> to be a difference between meeting our very natural food needs, and
> meeting a perverse and unnatural sexual need.

According to at least some studies, the proportion of individuals who
achieved orgasm through sexual contact with animals is in the double digit
percentage in rural areas. If those studies are reasonably accurate, the
behaviour is sufficiently common that it is arguably not "perverse".

Of course, this behaviour may indicate a psychopathology - but that does
not make the behaviour itself "wrong". Much like holding conversations
with imaginary beings may indicate a psychopathology, but that does not
make that activity "wrong".

Its also pretty disgusting, but then so is eating overcooked brussel
sprouts - but we are not likely to see the debate over the morality of the
latter.

> There also seems to me to
> be a difference between sex between consenting adults of whatever
> gender, and sex with those who have no choice, like animals and
> children.

Animals have no choice when it comes to being eaten. Why is sex so
different?

The situation with children is quite different - they have most of the same
rights as adults - and they can be hurt, psychologically and physically, by
sex. I do not think that is really relevant to whether or not sex with
animals is morally wrong.

Robert Greer

unread,
Jul 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/18/97
to

In article <01bc920b$535f95c0$8bf0cfcd@michael>, mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net
says...

>
> Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <VUqeDAAr...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...

>
> > >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
> > >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
> >
> > How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
Homosexuality has no issue, nor scions either. Thought you knew that.


> > the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.

> If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
> generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
> and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
> one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
> tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
> intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>

Actually, bestiality *is* acceptable. The proof is all the "half-breeds"
runnin' around.

>
> Cheers

Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/20/97
to

In article <01bc938a$27660aa0$8bf0cfcd@michael>, Michael Voytinsky
<mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net> writes

>Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><mmXyfDAZ...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...

>
>> >If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>> >generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>> >and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure,
>if
>> >one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken
>in a
>> >tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>> >intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>>
>> Mmm, not a bad point, but isn't this the "two wrongs make a right"
>> argument?
>
>Not exactly, no. More like "If X is morally acceptable, then if follows
>that Y is morally acceptable" sort of argument. This argument can be valid
>regardless of the truth value of X.

Fair enough - I am just questioning the "X is morally acceptable". If
you are right that there is no moral difference between killing animals
and having sex with them, then we should do neither. I cannot see any
justifiable moral argument which says that because we eat animals it is
acceptable to have sex with them.


>
>> Should it be acceptable to "use animals for our gustatory
>> pleasure"?
>
>Well, that is an important question. However, the general agreement is
>that it is acceptable - and in my argument I simply provided something that
>follows from it.

As I am sure you will agree, "the general agreement" does not
necessarily constitute moral acceptability.
>
[snipped - I agree with all your responses until.....]

>According to at least some studies, the proportion of individuals who
>achieved orgasm through sexual contact with animals is in the double digit
>percentage in rural areas. If those studies are reasonably accurate, the
>behaviour is sufficiently common that it is arguably not "perverse".

Can you give references? I know we joke about a virgin sheep being one
who can run faster than the shepherd, but I do doubt those statistics!


>
>Of course, this behaviour may indicate a psychopathology - but that does
>not make the behaviour itself "wrong". Much like holding conversations
>with imaginary beings may indicate a psychopathology, but that does not
>make that activity "wrong".

Doesn't make it right either.


>
>Its also pretty disgusting, but then so is eating overcooked brussel
>sprouts - but we are not likely to see the debate over the morality of the
>latter.

Because eating overcooked sprouts is not a moral issue. Sex with animals
is. (If you think it is not, can you say why?)


>
>> There also seems to me to
>> be a difference between sex between consenting adults of whatever
>> gender, and sex with those who have no choice, like animals and
>> children.
>
>Animals have no choice when it comes to being eaten. Why is sex so
>different?

Hmmm. Can you really not see why? There is another thread on
vegitarianism which I really do not want to get into, but the fact
remains that the fossil records show that humans were hunter gatherers
before they developed agriculture. Humans ate meat because they needed
to in order to survive. Maybe we no longer need to do so, but that is a
separate moral issue. However, there has never been the need to have sex
with animals, even though it is clear from cave paintings that this is
not exactly a modern practice. However - it may well be that you are
right. In which case we have no right to kill and eat animals.

>
>The situation with children is quite different - they have most of the same
>rights as adults - and they can be hurt, psychologically and physically, by
>sex. I do not think that is really relevant to whether or not sex with
>animals is morally wrong.

Well you have brought other issues into it. We were simply talking about
consent, and I included children because they are in no position to give
consent to sex however much a peodophile might pretend otherwise. If you
are going to bring psychological and physical hurt into it you will have
to show either that animals do not suffer such hurt, or if they do, why
it is not a moral issue.


Regards,
--
Martin

Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/20/97
to

In article <MPG.e39cbadf...@news.humboldt.net>, Robert Greer
<bo...@humboldt.net> writes

>In article <01bc920b$535f95c0$8bf0cfcd@michael>, mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net
>says...
>>
>> Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> <VUqeDAAr...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> > >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
>> > >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>> >
>> > How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
>Homosexuality has no issue, nor scions either. Thought you knew that.

So?


>
>
>> > the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.

>> If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>> generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>> and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
>> one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
>> tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>> intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>>
>

>Actually, bestiality *is* acceptable. The proof is all the "half-breeds"
>runnin' around.

Does talking bollocks come naturaly to you, or do you have to practice?
--
Martin

Capillas

unread,
Jul 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/20/97
to

I enjoyed reading all these text, mines are at AlinA y ArenA. I'm a young
mexican woman who is specialized in sociology. sexology and philosophy, my
pages are quite a mess but with nices giffs and alot of texts and ideas,
for those who look further!

http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~virtjack/

AlinA y ArenA

--
Woman Power University by Alina y Arena and A. Capillas, comments and articles should be posted to virt...@iprolink.ch

Ron Allen

unread,
Jul 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/21/97
to


Ron Allen answers:
Viva Mexico! Viva Emiliano Zapata! Viva Francisco "Pancho" Villa!
Viva Chiapas!

Mauro Lepido

unread,
Jul 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/24/97
to

>>> >If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>>> >generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>>> >and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure,

If I was a cow, I'd rather prefer to have interspecies sex than to go
to the barbecue ...
I think that you don't realize the sufference caused by intensive
breeding and massive slaughter of animals, and the similarity of their
hopless lifes with ours. We bear cages in our mind! So where is the
joke with it?

Mauro Lepido

Richard F. Hall

unread,
Jul 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/24/97
to

In article <01bc920b$535f95c0$8bf0cfcd@michael> "Michael Voytinsky" <mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net> writes:
From: "Michael Voytinsky" <mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net>
Subject: Re: Help on Homosexuality issue
Date: 16 Jul 1997 17:06:52 GMT

>> >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
>> >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>>
>> How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does

>> the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.

If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is


generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent

and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

[And isn't the real question of philosophical morality have to do
with whether or not it's rape if you get the poor beast
drunk before you do it? And should you take them out, or do
it in the cage at two in the morning?]

Cheers????


Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/25/97
to

In article <realistic.6...@seanet.com>, "Richard F. Hall"
<real...@seanet.com> writes
My my, you know all the techniques Richard, don't you?
--
Martin

Magenta

unread,
Jul 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/26/97
to

bo...@humboldt.net (Robert Greer) doth speak:
>md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk says...
>> Robert Greer <bo...@humboldt.net> writes
>> >mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net says...

>> >> After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
>> >> tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>> >> intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

>> >Actually, bestiality *is* acceptable. The proof is all the "half-breeds"
>> >runnin' around.

>> Does talking bollocks come naturaly to you, or do you have to practice?

>So, yes, the prevalence of half-breed people does indicate that
>bestiality is quite acceptable to many people. Of course, I *am*
>extending the word *bestiality* by relating it to racism, but that's ok,
>I think. Particularly since I was brief.

The presence of "half-breeds" doesn't prove or disprove anything about
the acceptability of bestiality.

Yes, racist individuals believed other races were animals not humans,
but they also would not have considered sex with another race
acceptable. Without a doubt the majority of "half-breeds" occur when
individuals do NOT believe that racial differences are species
differences, thus it is not bestiality. To draw a parallel you would
have to demonstrate that an "animal lover" actually believes there is
no significant difference between her/him and the animal they are
with.

Only in those incidents of someone from one race raping someone of
another race that they regard as an animal would that be bestiality.
And even then, that would not be acceptable sexual conduct by most
members of society.

And since the title of this thread is "Help on Homosexuality issue"
what does any of this have to do with homosexuality? Homosexuality
crosses no species lines, and in most cases no racial lines, so how
does the topic relate?

+----- Peace & Love, ----+- Magenta (dash) 7 (at) JUNO (dot) com ----+

| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"There are more things in heaven and earth,|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| | Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|_________ _/ __________|_________________--[Hamlet Act I: Scene V]_|

Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/26/97
to

In article <MPG.e4380ba7...@news.humboldt.net>, Robert Greer
<bo...@humboldt.net> writes
>[This followup was posted to alt.philosophy.debate and a copy was sent to
>the cited author.]
>
>In article <jBEDmHAL...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>,
>md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk says...

>> In article <MPG.e39cbadf...@news.humboldt.net>, Robert Greer
>> <bo...@humboldt.net> writes
>> >In article <01bc920b$535f95c0$8bf0cfcd@michael>, mich...@NOSPAM.igs.net
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> Martin Dann <md...@j39to56.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> >> <VUqeDAAr...@j39to56.demon.co.uk>...
>> >>
>> >> > >A person could use your argument to justify bestiality. How would you
>> >> > >answer him, without also prohibiting homosexual acts?
>> >> >
>> >> > How would you justify bestiality without also justifying rape? How does
>> >Homosexuality has no issue, nor scions either. Thought you knew that.
>>
>> So?
>> >
>> >
>> >> > the "beast" consent? There's your difference, Alan.
>> >> If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>> >> generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>> >> and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
>> >> one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a

>> >> tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>> >> intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, bestiality *is* acceptable. The proof is all the "half-breeds"
>> >runnin' around.
>>
>> Does talking bollocks come naturaly to you, or do you have to practice?
>> --
>> Martin
>>
>
>Ask that again, in English this time, and I'll answer in kind.

Does talking bollocks come naturally to you, or do you have to practice?
Typo corrected - now in English - OK?
>
>But in the meanwhile, consider that racism is a sort of dehumanization of
>people, and that (in the eyes of many racists) the members of other races
>are inhuman, literally animals in fact.

And as there is just one human race any suggestion that some humans are
inhuman is objectionable - that's what I take you to be doing.
>
>A review of racist expressions in any nation you choose to examine will
>show that many such people equate skin/hair/facial differences with an
>animal (not human) nature.

Where do you get this from?

> In times when such things can be said openly,
>they often are,

Which does not mean that they *should* be.

> and even many scientists have defended their bigotry (and
>opportunism) with that claim.

Not, of course with any scientific or moral justification.
>
>Many jokes, here in the USA and elsewhere, repeat the idea with only a
>half-joking intent. (What do you get when you cross a Texan with a
>buffalo? Answer: an Indian).

Is this supposed to justify racism? This all still looks like bollocks
to me.
>
>
>And yet, in spite of this attitude, the number of racially cross-bred
>people always rises quickly when inter-racial sex is possible.

There is one human race.

> Even
>during, and perhaps *especially* during, the times when the "lesser
>races" (which ones those are depends on the speaker only) are widely
>called, and treated like, animals.

There is one human race. There can therefore be no "lesser races".
Speakers who claim such display their ignorance.


>
>So, yes, the prevalence of half-breed people does indicate that
>bestiality is quite acceptable to many people. Of course, I *am*
>extending the word *bestiality* by relating it to racism, but that's ok,
>I think. Particularly since I was brief.

Brief bollocks, then. Extending the word "bestiality" to fellow humans
is not OK. It is ignorant and offensive.
>
>By the way, this "bollocks" means "balls" (in an insulting way) doesn't
>it? Does it have an origin in "bullock" (a type of animal, if I
>recall?) Hey, nicely turned! Here, I was talking about dehumanizing
>people by referring to them as animals, and indirectly about animal sex,
>and you perhaps demean my joke by referring to it (and indirectly, to me)
>as an "animal's balls," which is, I recall, a standard British phrase for
>such things.

>Gee, it just goes to show ya!
>
No it doesn't. The word "bollocks" was originally spelt "ballocks", and
is a very old English word. It is the same source as "balls", meaning
testicles, and until the middle of the last century was standard
acceptable English. It has nothing to do with "bullocks", which are
castrated male cattle (bulls) - no balls at all. "Bollocks" as English
slang now means "rubbish, balderdash, nonsense". Any more English words
about which you would like information?
--
Martin

Thomas Glenn Martin

unread,
Jul 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/26/97
to

Ron Allen wrote:

Ron, it's quaint to see racism rear its ugly head in this day and age.
You must be very proud.

Truly,

Thomas Glenn Martin Jr.
------------------------------
mart...@ix.netcom.com


Adam Hibbert

unread,
Jul 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/29/97
to

Seems to me;

(a) who or what you shag is your business, so long as you're not damaging
another human being (and I mean damage in the human sense, not a few
welcome sharp stimuli - a la Spanner case in the UK)

(b) That said, if you want to shag animals or even mindless adolescents, I
can't have any respect for you myself: it's just a matter of how
sorted-out you are about your sexuality. In my opinion, either of the
above would indicate that you are socially under-developed.

(c) all questions involving sex are fetishised and moralised-over, by a
society that still requires us to confine our sexual inter-relations
within the dependency-relations of the family. No discussion of sex can
ignore this social and economic context.


* If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
* generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
* and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
* one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
* tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
* intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

Because there's pleasures and pleasures, you amateur; as above, sexual
relations are intra-human relations. Unless you're a cannibal, your
relation to food is qualitatively different. To fail to distinguish
between these two spheres is to fail to be a social being - and is thus
rightly socially discouraged.

Adam

PS. Sorry not to engage with the 'bestiality between humans' debate - but
you two seem to be happy enough doggy-paddling around each other without
my assistance.

----- All your ideological problems discreetly resolved -----
----- a.hi...@ucl.ac.uk * http://www.informinc.co.uk -----


Martin Dann

unread,
Jul 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/31/97
to

In article <nospam-2907...@mac-135.ucl-32.bcc.ac.uk>, Adam
Hibbert <nos...@ucl.ac.uk> writes

>Seems to me;
>
>(a) who or what you shag is your business, so long as you're not damaging
>another human being (and I mean damage in the human sense, not a few
>welcome sharp stimuli - a la Spanner case in the UK)

The implication here is that: (1) morality is entirely subjective (ie
you don't give a toss what distress you cause the sheep you shag - if
it's alright with you it's alright period); (2) morality concerns only
human interaction (ie wiping out species, destroying the environment,
biting the heads off kittens may be messy but not immoral, or "wrong").

>
>(b) That said, if you want to shag animals or even mindless adolescents, I
>can't have any respect for you myself: it's just a matter of how
>sorted-out you are about your sexuality. In my opinion, either of the
>above would indicate that you are socially under-developed.

The question, "how *should* we live our lives, how *should* we treat
mindless adolescent and animals" appears not to be relevant. But of
course there are no shoulds in a subjective world, only personal
feelings, of no relevance to anyone else.


>
>(c) all questions involving sex are fetishised and moralised-over, by a
>society that still requires us to confine our sexual inter-relations
>within the dependency-relations of the family. No discussion of sex can
>ignore this social and economic context.

Why should it? Why this desire to atomise? We are social animals. We are
political animals. The economics goes with the territory. Our socio-
political lives are also our sexual/inter-relational lives. In a
different society and different culture attitudes towards sex might be
different, but they would be an integral part of the culture.

>
>
>* If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is
>* generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
>* and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
>* one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
>* tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
>* intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?
>
>Because there's pleasures and pleasures, you amateur; as above, sexual
>relations are intra-human relations. Unless you're a cannibal, your
>relation to food is qualitatively different. To fail to distinguish
>between these two spheres is to fail to be a social being - and is thus
>rightly socially discouraged.

With that I can agree :-)=.

Cheers,
--
Martin

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,
Aug 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/4/97
to

lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
> Yes, racist individuals believed other races were animals not humans,
> but they also would not have considered sex with another race
> acceptable. Without a doubt the majority of "half-breeds" occur when
> individuals do NOT believe that racial differences are species
> differences, thus it is not bestiality. To draw a parallel you would
> have to demonstrate that an "animal lover" actually believes there is
> no significant difference between her/him and the animal they are
> with.

Strange reasoning.

Heterosexual sex is ok, I think. But, following your logic, to prove
this you would have to demonstrate that an "women lover" actually
believes there is no significant difference between him and the women
they are with. In other words, it would be ok only for bisexuals, not
for pure heterosexuals who believe that there is a difference to have
sex with men or women. Funny.

Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>
http://www.cyberpass.net/~ilja

Ilja Schmelzer

unread,
Aug 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/5/97
to

lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
> >Strange reasoning.
> Ilja, you took that paragraph out of context.

Accepted.

Magenta

unread,
Aug 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/5/97
to

Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de> doth speak:

>lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
>> Yes, racist individuals believed other races were animals not humans,
>> but they also would not have considered sex with another race
>> acceptable. Without a doubt the majority of "half-breeds" occur when
>> individuals do NOT believe that racial differences are species
>> differences, thus it is not bestiality. To draw a parallel you would
>> have to demonstrate that an "animal lover" actually believes there is
>> no significant difference between her/him and the animal they are
>> with.
>
>Strange reasoning.
>
>Heterosexual sex is ok, I think. But, following your logic, to prove
>this you would have to demonstrate that an "women lover" actually
>believes there is no significant difference between him and the women
>they are with. In other words, it would be ok only for bisexuals, not
>for pure heterosexuals who believe that there is a difference to have
>sex with men or women. Funny.

Ilja, you took that paragraph out of context.

We were discussing how interracial marriages relate (or more
accurately do NOT relate) to bestiality.

To extend the logic to heterosexuality, a man would have to think that
a woman is not just another sex of human but a radically different
species in order for his heterosexual acts to become bestiality for
him. A normal heterosexual male realizes human women are humans, just
like him.


+----- Peace & Love, ----+- Magenta (dash) 7 (at) JUNO (dot) com ----+

| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"Pray look better, Sir. those things yonder|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| | are no giants,but windmills." |
|_________ _/ __________|_____________--Sancho Panza to Don Quixote_|

DAVID ALLEN TORNHEIM

unread,
Aug 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/17/97
to

: * If it is acceptable to use animals for our gustatory pleasure (as is

: * generally accepted to be the case), without any regard for their consent
: * and well being, why is not acceptable to use them for sexual pleasure, if
: * one is so inclined? After all, if it is acceptable to keep a chicken in a
: * tiny cage where it can barely move for its entire life, why would sexual
: * intercourse with a goat be any less acceptable?

A good analogy. Both involve power relations over an animal. There
is something troubling about an animal being forced to suffer, when it
has no power to escape, just as it is for a child.
(If the animal or child enjoyed the sex, that complicates things. A
good example is the Marquis de Sade's story "Eugenie de Franval").

A side note: I think part of the reason for concentration camps for
animals is that people are far more concerned about the price of the
meat than how the animals are treated. Manufacturers under the
competition of a free market system can only survive if they do what
is cheapest, which is to create concentration camps. Ridiculously
cheap meat at McDonalds should not be looked at as a success story,
but rather as a horror story.

-David


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages