From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:43:26 GMT
Hi Rick:
> Thanks for your interesting responses. I've carved this post into two
> parts, just for clarity (which I know how you love)...
Well done. One can't be "too clear." :-)
> I. Family, Marriage and Homosexuality
> As I read you (and please correct me if i've misrepresented your
> thoughts), you're saying that it takes a man and a woman to "naturally"
> make a baby and that babies are ideally raised by their natural parents.
> You believe this pattern is valuable and that it must be encouraged by
> society in order to secure its own survival.
Clearly stated and accurate.
> What I don't understand is why you believe that allowing gay marriages
> would weaken this pattern.
Because gay couples can't make babies.
> Especially given that you don't see anything
> intrinsically immoral about homosexuality and you agree that when the
> natural parents aren't available to raise the baby, an adoptive homosexual
> couple is a viable option.
Why is marriage necessary for adoption?
> I'm curious as to what you believe the legal
> status of homosexual couples has to do with heterosexual mating habits?
Making babies is what heterosexual mating can do.
> Do
> you believe that less heterosexuals would choose to get married and raise
> children if homosexuals were also allowed to marry?
No
> It seems to me that the only way your thoughts about encouraging the
> patterns of heterosexual coupling are related to the topic of gay marriage
> is if you think that reserving the legal status of marriage to
> heterosexuals is some kind of "incentive" to making them marry and raise
> children.
Yes. The benefits of marriage are conferred by society on heterosexuals
because society needs them to make and raise babies.
>That is, you think that if gay marriage were not illegal, some
> people who otherwise would have been heterosexual would instead choose to
> marry members of the same sex.
No. I don't think that.
> This leads me to inquire whether you believe that homosexuality is the
> product of nature or nurture. Or in MoQ terms, do you believe
> homosexuality a biological pattern or a social pattern?
I think it's a biological pattern. Now let me ask you: Why are you so hip
on legalizing gay marriages?
> II. The Principle of Human Equality
>
> PLATT
> > The context for Pirsig's statement about equality was slavery. I have no
> > idea if he meant to exempt homosexuals, senior citizens, aliens,
> > intellectuals, whatever.
>
> RICK
> To be perfectly clear, the context for Pirsig's statement about
> equality
> was whether or not it is scientifically moral for society to kill a human
> being (see Lila ch13 p184-185). He first tackles the question in the
> context of a clash between biology (brigands) and society, telling us that
> society is justified in killing said brigands for its own protection
> because the society is a higher form of evolution.
> Next, he tackles the same question in the context of a clash between
> two
> societies (the North and the South). In this scenario, there are no
> biological "brigands", both the North and South are full-blown societies.
> Now Pirsig tells us that the North would have had no moral justification
> for destroying another society (South) except for the fact that the (North)
> respected the principle of human equality, which is a higher form of
> evolution than a nation, and the other society (South) didn't. Slavery,
> offered in this context, is an example of one way to violate this
> principle, but Pirsig gives us no reason to believe he meant to limit the
> principle to slavery.
> As for whether or not he meant to exempt homosexuals, senior citizens,
> aliens, intellectuals, red-headed-lefties, albinos with green-eyes, etc...
> You don't think Pirsig meant that it would have been okay if the south
> enslaved homosexuals... do you?
No. I just hesitate to attribute thoughts to Pirsig not explicitly stated. On
the other hand, I know I've freely interpreted Pirsig's words when I
needed a boost to my argument. :-)
> PLATT
> Do you think, for example, that the principle of
> > human equality demands that everyone in the world should have the
> > same income?
>
> RICK
> No I do not. I've always thought of Pirsig's 'Principle of human
> equality' as being relatively coextensive with the U.S. Constitution's 14th
> amendment guarantee to Equal Protection under the law. This reading makes
> sense in light of the fact that Pirsig mentions his principle while
> discussing the Civil War. The 14th amendment was introduced by the
> Reconstruction Congress after the war, it was one of the amendments that
> was supposed to make sure it never happened again.
You may be right in guessing what Pirsig had in mind.
> Personally, I think Pirsig's 'principle of human equality', like
> Justice or Quality itself, is difficult to precisely define. However, if I
> had to take my best shot at it, I think it's something like: The rights of
> all law abiding people should be as similar as the notion of ordered
> liberty allows.
That's a good shot. But legitimate differences can occur over the
meanings of human equality, rights, law abiding people and ordered
liberty. Wouldn't you agree?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:44:41 GMT