Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Huh? (Christians & Sex)
Message-ID: <3047@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 13:46:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.3047
Posted: Sat Sep  1 13:46:43 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 07:35:51 EDT
References: <2736@allegra.UUCP>, <235@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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]
>>
>>These two quotes are actually from the same article!
>>[Alan S. Driscoll]
>
>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]

Please, try to figure out what the other person is saying before flaming back.

I believe that Paul is saying that Christians are not hung-up and inhibited
in regard to sex WITHIN MARRIAGE.  Alan is saying that anyone who believes
that sex is proper only within such narrow circumstances IS hung-up
and inhibited about sex, by [his] definition.  So the two of you are
arguing about different things - one about sex within marriage,
and the other about sex in general.

From the point of view of an impartial [ :-) ] observer, Paul has supported
Alan's claim, while Alan has said nothing directly about Paul's claim.