Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Huh? (Christians & Sex)
Message-ID: <235@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Aug-84 10:48:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.235
Posted: Tue Aug 28 10:48:40 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 08:26:48 EDT
References: <2736@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 25


>> Healthy: sex between a husband and wife.  Period.  No exceptions.
>> Not sex before marriage, outside of marriage, sex with children or
>> with animals.  Not homosexual sex.  Who says?  You don't really need
>> to ask, I'll bet.  [Paul DuBois]
>
>> In any event, what I object to is the idea that Christians are all 
>> hung-up and inhibited in regard to sex, an unwarranted and
>> fallacious generalization. [Paul DuBois]
>
>Alan S. Driscoll
>These two quotes are actually from the same article!

That's right.  Simply unthinkable, huh?

Especially when one fails to quote as well the parts explaining that
sex in its proper sphere (defined above) is good and proper, but
not otherwise.  (My two paragraphs above are, of course, inconsistent
if one rejects the idea that restrictions may be beneficial)
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they
are the rejoicing of my heart.
					Psalm 119:111