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