Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu (William Gardner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Christian Homosexuals Message-ID: Date: 30 May 89 02:41:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: Academic Computing Center, University of Va. Lines: 32 Approved: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu The moderator criticizes a too simplistic argument for the acceptability of homosexual relationships. Briefly, you can't simply point to the love in a gay relationship, since there is often love in adulterous relationships. He points out that you can love someone else's spouse, but you can't let the relationship develop in certain ways. Right. You are injuring both partners in that marriage and, if married yourself, betraying your own spouse. In violating your vows, you inflict grave harm on yourself. These damages aren't limited to specific persons: a christian marriage involves the whole community of faith, so we all lose. But I don't see how this clarifies our thinking about gay relationships. I can't distinguish faithful gay partnerships from childless heterosexual marriages except anatomically and I don't perceive any damage to anyone. I think the moderator was right the first time: there isn't any reason to question gay relationships except a disputed reading of scripture. -- [][][][][][][][][][][] William Gardner [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] [] /_ o / / Department of Psychology wpg@virginia.edu [] [] /__) / / / University of Virginia 804-924-0669 [] [][][][][][][][][] Charlottesville, VA 22903 FAX: 804-924-7185 [][] [At least one person has misinterpreted my response as being in opposition to homosexual activity. I see that implication here as well. In fact, I specifically disavowed any intention of commenting on homosexual activity. I am trying to allow that discussion to die down. I believe I have already made my views clear. My concern was that the argument being used to support it was wrong, and if taken seriously could lead to other conclusions that everyone agrees are damaging. I can reject an argument even if I agree with its conclusion. --clh]