Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Fundaphobia Message-ID: <3127@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 18:45:55 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.3127 Posted: Mon Jun 25 18:45:55 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 02:03:07 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 168 A response to Steve Dyer (et. al.) } }I am going to address only one point in Paul Dubuc's article right now, }though there are many points which deserve a response. But it seems to me }that this one is the crux of the matter, and the stumbling block for many }people who label themselves Christian. I am taking up this response, }not because I feel the need to justify myself before anyone, but because }I really am trying to understand what is at the basis of what I view as }extremely irrational, unfounded behavior. } } >The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue. } }I really do not understand this. Really not. In fact it sounds just a bit }bizarre to me. Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue." }Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is }so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them }to being singled out for moral notice? "Eating oysters" is not grounded in the moral arena. The only thing that singles out homosexuality for moral notice here is the fact that this is net.motss. Human sexual relationships have an inherently moral fiber. }... It seems to me that there is only }one reason for this attitude, namely, the misinterpretation of the Genesis }and Levitical texts and some of the Pauline letters adopted over the last }700 years by the Christian Church. At least one knows where such people }are coming from: it's just a variant of "the Bible says so, so it's true." }Now, such people don't cotton well to being told about the subtleties of }the texts, and the contexts in which they appear, nor do they bother to }carry forth other Scriptural proscriptions against certain behaviors. I }always liked the one about it being easier for a camel to pass through an }eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh--you }mean that wasn't REALLY what was being said. You mean I need to understand }the CONTEXT of Christ's teachings. Uh-huh. It's amazing how offering a dissenting opinion on homosexuality and quoting a favorite Bible reference in your .signature file gets you labeled as a fundamentalist and a bigot. (I am not just addressing Steve's article here, but also some of the nice mail I received from people containing an equal amount of the ad hominem with a little peronsal vituperation thrown in.) No where in my article did I support my opinion with biblical references. Yet the all opposing response I have seen argues against such supposed reliance on biblical doctrine. I suppose you don't view this as being "irrational and unfounded" behaviour? I thought I would be sorry in posting my opinion here (even trying to be reasonable in doing so) and I haven't been suprised. I have been trying to discuss the issue apart from religious doctrine (which I don't assume to be irrelevant, however, even in a secular society) but it seems that many find it easier to stuff me into that category anyway and deal with that "straw man" instead of considering the argument on face value. No Steve, you haven't hit on the crux of my article at all. You have inferred one of your own. My article dealt with the supposed "science" behind the assertion that sexual preference is an inherent trait rather than having a significant learned moral element. My main contention was against the intent of the Gay Rights movement to put the sexual prefernce thing in the same category with Women's and Black's rights. There is no question of morality behind being a woman or being black, they just *are*. From what I percieve of Gay Rights, it trys to get us to view homosexuality in the same way. My contention was that this position has no empirical, scientific support. I don't care how many psychologists you get to vote on it. Apart from my religious convictions, I feel sexual preference to be a moral issue because: 1) The contention that homosexuals "just are" does not carry the weight of empirical fact (as the fact that women or blacks "just are" that way). 2) Sexual behaviour involves intimate human relationship (not like eating oysters) and therefore has a moral impact on individuals and society. I believe that the moral impact is generally detrimental to individuals and society. I think that homosexuality ( like other things considered morally "wrong" ) contributes, to the extent of its pervasiveness in society, to the instability of human relationships in society. I view homosexual relationships as generally unstable and insecure. Therefore I do not have any confidence in the ability of homosexual relationships to accomplish things important to the continuance of a healthy and stable society. (i.e. raising children well). Of course, this belief will fall apart "upon scrutiny". That is because it is based on my general observations and involve an assessment of complex social interaction, not empirical scientific data. That is what social "science" is and, in that respect, it is not science at all. To prove my convictions in any real scientific way would require an impossible experiment. e.g. to raise the level of homosexual practice in society (or some microcosm of it) to a strongly influencial level while trying to remove other "detrimental" factors that could be blamed for the society's demise, and see what happens over a few generations. Even if I could conduct such an experiment and it supported my view it would be no real consolation. Proving I'm right in this way involves bringing about the results I want to avoid. Anyway, that is the real crux of my argument. The conclusion that gay is OK has no scientific support or disproof. The conclusion is based on moral conviction. As I see it, the object of the Gay Rights Movement is to place the sexual preference question in the realm of emperical fact, above debate, only having to do with "what is" and nothing related to questions of "what should be". With that done there is good justification for imposing a "gay is right" mentality on the public through leglislation. The views of groups that actively promote Chauvanism or Racism are actively suppressed and opposed because women and racial minorities "just are". There is no question of the rightness or wrongness of gender or race. But is sexual preference really in the same category? I think not. And if Gays want to put it there they need to demonstrate empirically that sexual preference is a matter of genetic makup. That would even make it possible to predict the sexual preference of an individual. But, as I see it, the "scientific" conclusions psychologist make about "intrinsic" sexual preference is based largely on post hoc assumption. } }Anyway, I want to know whether those Christians who feel, as Paul Dubuc does, }that homosexuality is a "moral" issue, feel that the moral argument lies }entirely upon what you perceive Scripture to be saying. That is, because }you read the Bible as condemning such actions, homosexuality there, and }there alone, takes upon itself a moral dimension. In that case, how do }you deal with a pluralistic, secular society which is not Bible-based? }What right do you have to enforce your conceptions of morality upon those }members of society who do not share your reading of Scripture? I want to stress here that you have read Scripture into this argument, not me. This discussion is beside the point of my original article, and perhaps belongs in net.religion, but I do have a few comments to make on the basis of Scripture. Your comments here imply either that the Bible does not *really* proscribe homosexuality (i.e. that those who think it does read it wrong) or that the Bible saying is irrelevant to moral issues in secular society. Contesting the first implication would require a Bible based discussion, such as I have *not* been trying to invoke here. My own position is that the Bible plainly proscribes homosexuality, however. I have examined some of the biblical interpretation for the justification of homosexuality and think it to be stretched to a desired conclusion. I responded to an article by Robert Wahl in net.religion some months back that was apparently based on Boswell's interpretation of the difficult passages regarding homosexuality. Maybe he didn't see it. The second implication seems to take it for granted that the Bible is wrong, that in a "secular society" only secular values are right. Blindly accepting the Bible as an unquestionable authority may be foolish, but is doing the same for a different authority (secular values), or rejecting Scripture prima facie as untrue, any less foolish? Enough said. It is apparent to me that submitting a dissenting view to this group is only inviting trouble, no matter how reasonable you try to be. I don't wish to be viewed as an enemy, or hater, of homosexuals but it seems hard to avoid here. I have already been told by one letter writer that my views should not even be heard. I recognise the right of anyone to reject any moral standard or adhere to any one they want to. I do not advocate forced imposition of my standard on anyone. I do, however, claim the right to believe it, teach it to my children without interference, reccomend it to others willing to consider it, and to be able to do so on an equal basis with others who do the same with their moral beliefs. But since that bothers so many here I'm going to go away. Again, though, if you want to better insure that I will see any response to this, please mail it as well as post it. If you only want to vent your spleen at your own additions to my argument don't bother mailing it. Thanks. Pardon my .signature file. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)