2008/10/19 Averthan D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CRIMINALITY AND MORALITY.
1: Prof. Morris Ginsberg draws our attention to the Kantian view 2: The advocates of "decriminalization" of homosexuality talk about sexual "orientation" in the same illogical fashion. It is obvious that "orientation" like "preference" connotes conscious choice. 3: Let us not relegate all of humanity to the level of animals just because we sympathize with the genuine problems which some people have of adjusting to social norms. 4: We certainly need to sympathize with them and to help them adjust. 5: But this cannot extend to justifying behaviour which is clearly classified, even by clinical and social psychologists, as deviant behaviour. 6: If homosexual behaviour is "natural" then all heterosexual behaviour is automatically "unnatural." 7: The two are simply irreconcilable. jc's opinion: The above post by Averthan D'Souza smacks of societal Paternalism. I submit that IF Averthan had fully read Kant and Miils instead of merely referring to a reference to the Kantian view (alone), he would not have written this post in a manner which undermines the basic precepts of individual autonomy (the caveats for absolute autonomy in a community having been noted). Rather than sympathising with the "genuine problems which some people (homosexuals) have of adjusting to social norms", I'd suggest that we ourselves UNDERSTAND that a: we are all created equal but not necessarily the same. b: there might be more homosexuals than we (the others) might be aware or care to know about. c: the the "social norms" we talk about, may not really be norms. d: we (the others) are the people who might need to do some adjusting to reality. and remember that once upon a time, it was the social norm that e: the earth was flat f: individuals could be 'quite justifiably' burnt at the stake for disagreeing with certain religious holdings (after a farce of an Inquisition). g: 14 year old girls could 'quite justifiably' be forced to marry 50 year old men and further forced to jump (alive) into his funeral pyre to become a Sati (which in technical terms can be explained as "being relieved of any familial property:) Averthan's argument of irreconcilabilty (vide #6 supra) makes zero sense. It does however speak volumes of our own prejudices and intolerance towards other we perceive to be 'different'. It is time we understand and fully accept that We are all ONE people with individual personalities, preferences and rights to autonomy. As long as we ALL do no harm to the other by way of heterosexual or homosexual behaviour and actions, or with our intolerance of another's peaceful personal lifestyles, religious beliefs or non-beliefs - we will be fine. jc