Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church Message-ID: Date: 8 Apr 91 03:02:08 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) writes: What I was objecting to was the all-emcompassing nature of the term "homosexual thought." I'm not claiming that *all* "homosexual thoughts" (or "heterosexual thoughts" for that matter) are virtuous; I'm simply claiming that the term is sufficiently broad to include some things which are clearly *not* sinful. Joe's broad condemnation of *all* "homosexual thoughts" is a condemnation of *being* homosexual, since even the thought, "I am attracted to members of the same sex," is an example of a "homosexual thought." I meant thoughts resulting from a will acting contrary to Divine law. Everyone has their primary temptations, of course. Someone's may be homosexuality, I suppose. The temptations have to be resisted, is all I'm saying. Sin is in the will, the body is just following suit. As to why *I* put the issue in this context -- As some folks here know, up until eight months ago I worked for an commodity options trading firm. The subculture of trading is pretty groty, and has been described as a cross between a locker room and drunken frat party. (I'm still trying to shed the prodigious vocabulary of obscenities which I acquired there! :-) ) Now these guys are pretty homophobic (it's part of the adolescent macho posturing), and I was regularly subjected to graphic descriptions of the violence and mayhem which they wanted to do to gays. (Fortunately most of these guys were smart enough to avoid discussing plans for violence against women when they were around women, so I was spared that...) So yes, I've vehemently defended homosexuals many times over the last five years, and I rather hope Joe would have, too. I wouldn't defend homosexuality, but I have no use for foul langauge, that's for sure. [I think Cathy's hope was not just that you would object to foul language, but that you would also object to violence and mayhem against homosexuals. --clh]