Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo; site apollo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!apollo!nazgul
From: nazgul@apollo.UUCP (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: Re: Observations on net.motss - homosexuality is a sin
Message-ID: <173@apollo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Nov-83 11:53:19 EST
Article-I.D.: apollo.173
Posted: Fri Nov  4 11:53:19 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 02:57:16 EST
References: <598@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 31

**
    I'm afraid I have to comment on this:

 >
 >   1.  It is not natural.  The process of evolution has determined that
 >to procreate the species a man and a woman are required.  Homosexuality
 >defeats this purpose.
 >
   
I find  this logic rather interesting.  It seems to read:
    "Homosexulity is a sin because it is unnatural (ie. defeats the purpose of
    evolution)."

    1)  (side point) I don't recall the bible talking about evolution, as
        natural or unnatural; creationists certainly could not use this
        logic!

    2)  (main point) The implication seems to be that anything that prevents
        procreation is a sin.  If you're a Catholic I suppose this is actually
        some of the points that the Church wants you to beleive.  On the other
        hand, if that is the case, why don't priests have lots of children?
        Is it a sin to be a bachelor? a spinister? sterile?  Furthermore,
        where in the defintion of homosexuality does it say that being gay
        means never being heterosexual?  Clearly being homosexual is not
        related to procreation, but one can hardly argue that it "defeats
        this purpose"!

    -------------
    From the keyboard of "the devil's advocate"     -nazgul

P.S. Actually, my login name is rather appropriate for that role!