Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: morals debate
Message-ID: <361@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 30-Nov-83 23:01:21 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.361
Posted: Wed Nov 30 23:01:21 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 23:07:20 EST
References: <635@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 20

My response to David Hawley was precisely in reaction against the kind
of arguments which try to link logical deduction with moral standards
and behavior.  It just happened that his arguments, presumably deduced
ex nihilo, coincided with the official teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church, and so my response was based on its more established
tenets.  I agree with your main point, the Church as a community of believers,
and not as some official organization.  (But the Roman Catholic Church
affirmed this, too, at its Second Vatican Council.)

I merely wished to put to rest the argument "Homosexuality is bad for the
following reasons, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, QED."  It is as
ethereal an exercise as the medieval discussion of angels and pins,
except that the victims of its analysis are real corporeal beings.
Yes, perhaps it's more like the old question of whether Jews or women
or blacks have souls.  It serves no purpose except to further cement the
tenacious preconceptions of its proponents.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca