Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christianity and homosexuality
Message-ID: <5152@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 20:13:56 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5152
Posted: Tue Mar 26 20:13:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 00:03:57 EST
References: <202@cvl.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Distribution: net
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 71
Summary: 

In article <202@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes:
>	There are two things I would add. First, while the
>translation of some words is made more difficult because they are
>rare, or lacking in verbal context, or because the original words
>are lexically ambiguous, nevertheless we should not forget the
>apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers.
>Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition,
>and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words.
>The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of
>nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. Secondly, if either
>had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have
>been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should
>be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud.
>But this is not their complaint.

JC never mentions homosexuals in any context.  Paul, however, was not
a freethinker in any respect, and followed the Jewish legal tradition
quite strongly.  He may have been adding some these sorts of personal
prejudgements to his discourses (on totally different subjects).  That
is why such prejudgements need to reexamined periodically.

>the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately
>destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the
>consequences of such approval? However, my point is that there is
>nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality;
>it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is,
>self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong.

I question the use of most in the above paragraph.  Do you mean most
Christians?  If so, while potentially true, this is the very point
that we are pushing to have reexamined.  Do you mean most cultures?
This is not true.  Do you mean most people today?  This is the work
of the Christian Church, and demonstrates why this belief must be
changed.  As for homosexuality being self-destructive, that is an
opinion you seem to hold that has no justifications here.  Prove it.

>	I don't know of a large proportion of homosexuals who want to 
>live a different life, and generally they deny that their lives are 
>self-destructive. But, having lived in a number of major cities, this is 
>not my general impression. I realize that this is not a popular "liberal"
>opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. I might add that
>there is no morality to be found in singles bars, anymore than in gay
>bathhouses; and that there is no justification for persecution of those
>who are suffering already, whether they realize this, or say that they
>are "voluntarily" doing what is "natural" to them.

You seem to believe that all or most gays live their lives in bathhouses,
and I have to say that that belief is completely incorrect.  Unless
you had friends and/or aquaintances who were openly gay, your big city
experiences with gays have been confined to people who were out partying.
Isn't making a judgement on such a skewed sample a little brash?  I mean,
I'm involved in a relationship that has been ongoing for 4 1/2 years.
I supported my lover through school.  Many gays are actively involved
in charity efforts, upgrading their neighborhoods, politicing for
minority rights, etc.; are these self-destrutive?  I know lots of
gays in stable relationships (just to point out that I am not a strange
exception).

While I do not contend that all gays are of benefit to their communities,
I do contend that statements such as those in the above paragraph are at
best unsubstantiated dreck, and are more likely to be considered
rabble-rousing and hate mongering.  Because while you claim to be so
enlightened as to not persecute gays, it is a short step from "they
are self-destructive" to "we must protect them from themselves so
that they can be saved" to "put gay people in concentration camps so
that they don't infect our children" by people not as enlightened as
you claim to be.

-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower