Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Sorry, Jeff
Message-ID: <803@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-84 05:54:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.803
Posted: Sun Jun 24 05:54:15 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Jun-84 08:16:57 EDT
References: <1497@decwrl.UUCP> <3100@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 55

I am going to address only one point in Paul Dubuc's article right now,
though there are many points which deserve a response.  But it seems to me
that this one is the crux of the matter, and the stumbling block for many
people who label themselves Christian.  I am taking up this response,
not because I feel the need to justify myself before anyone, but because
I really am trying to understand what is at the basis of what I view as
extremely irrational, unfounded behavior.

	>The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue.

I really do not understand this.  Really not.  In fact it sounds just a bit
bizarre to me.  Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue."
Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is
so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them
to being singled out for moral notice?  It seems to me that there is only
one reason for this attitude, namely, the misinterpretation of the Genesis
and Levitical texts and some of the Pauline letters adopted over the last
700 years by the Christian Church.  At least one knows where such people
are coming from: it's just a variant of "the Bible says so, so it's true."
Now, such people don't cotton well to being told about the subtleties of
the texts, and the contexts in which they appear, nor do they bother to
carry forth other Scriptural proscriptions against certain behaviors. I
always liked the one about it being easier for a camel to pass through an
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Oh--you
mean that wasn't REALLY what was being said.  You mean I need to understand
the CONTEXT of Christ's teachings.  Uh-huh.

Anyway, I want to know whether those Christians who feel, as Paul Dubuc does,
that homosexuality is a "moral" issue, feel that the moral argument lies
entirely upon what you perceive Scripture to be saying.  That is, because
you read the Bible as condemning such actions, homosexuality there, and
there alone, takes upon itself a moral dimension.  In that case, how do
you deal with a pluralistic, secular society which is not Bible-based?
What right do you have to enforce your conceptions of morality upon those
members of society who do not share your reading of Scripture?

And if you feel that there is more to morality and homosexuality than
simply the meagre, disputable allusions in the Bible, then by all means
state it!  I have never once heard an argument "against" homosexuality
that did not collapse under scrutiny, and which was not ultimately
founded upon misinformation about gay people or questionable assumptions.

As many of the readers will undoubtedly point out, this discussion is
not really necessary, since gay people will continue to exist quite happily
whether or not they receive the approbation of the Fundamentalist
religionists.  I am doing this more as a favor to them, so that they
can get their opinions stated clearly once and for all here.  It should
go without saying that this is not an invitation to inappropriate behavior
in this newsgroup, and also, the other readers should feel free to speak up
if they think that this discussion isn't worth pursuing here.  It's obviously
interesting enough to me here, right now.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA