Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Imposing Christian morality on nonbelievers Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 04:48:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 25 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This continues the discussion of whether homosexuality is a basic character trait, and if so what it implies. > This is where your analogy breaks down. Some Christians *choose* > celibacy, but the church, if it accepts a homosexual orientation, often > *requires* celibacy from homosexuals. I think that homosexuals should be > free to choose whether or not to be celibate. --clh] They may choose whether or not to be celibate, just as any single person has the choice about whether or not to be continent. In both cases, if they choose not to accept continence, they have made a choice that goes against historic Christianity. They have the right to do so. However, they should not try to distort Christian dogma by saying that their behavior is Christian behavior. If they wish to start their own religion, that is their business--but it unjust for them to try to warp historic Christianity. Orientations are not all good. Some people, for whatever reason, have a sadistic bent. The Gospel requires that they not act on this bent. I am not trying to compare homosexuals to sadists, but only to call into question the premise that if a person has a certain orientation, it is always right to act on that orientation. Dan