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!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Christianity, sex
Message-ID: <258@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Sep-84 10:37:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.258
Posted: Thu Sep  6 10:37:55 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 05:21:38 EDT
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 63


# >>> 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?
# >[Paul DuBois]

# [Dave Martindale]
# Please, try to figure out what the other person is saying before flaming
# back.

Huh?  I wasn't flaming.  Nor, I believe, was Alan.

# 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.

Close, but not quite.  If it's simply a matter of definition (I'm
hung up because Alan defines me to be), then we are clearly at
an impasse.  (I can define Alan to be hung up.  But so what?)

I'm saying that Christians recognize sex within marriage as the
*only* proper sphere of sex, *and* the sex otherwise is, gasp, wrong,
*and* that to recognize something as wrong is not identical with to
being inhibited.  I give an example:  It is often the case on this
net that someone makes a rather intemperate remark generalizing
about some group X.  Usually a number of people write back and
inform the original poster that such remarks ought not be made.
The respondants also quite often indicate that they would never
do such a thing.  I ask you:  are said respondants *inhibited*
because they recognize a boundary between right and wrong, and
refuse to cross the boundary?  No, they are not.  They are
attempting to evince what they believe a proper mode of attitude
and behavior.  AND they will tell others to do the same.

So it is with Christians and sex.  We recognize a boundary and
refuse to cross it.

By the way, I wasn't always so "hung up".  Once upon a time
I was unrestricted and "free", too.  I would rather be hung
up but acceptable before God on His terms, than be an
abomination before Him.  That's a personal observation that
won't influence anyone around here, I know.  Clearly this
is a minority viewpoint, so you need not inform me how narrow,
intolerant, rigid, etc. I am.  I already know that.
-- 
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