Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: 'Gay Rights':  A conflict of values
Message-ID: <299@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 10:41:57 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.299
Posted: Thu Nov 29 10:41:57 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:22:13 EST
References: <283@haddock.UUCP> <1464@pucc-h>, <4634@fortune.UUCP> <1519@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 45

>>I think that you assume one hell of a lot.  I do not look on any women as
>>being in any respect my enemy, nor do any of the other gay people that I
>>associate with.  Also, since God's love is for all, I think you make another
>>large assumption in assuming that gays do not have His power and support
>>throughout our entire lives (we particularly need His help to deal with
>>the homophobes misusing His name to oppress us). [BROWER]

> I will admit that once a gay man explained his homosexuality to me as
> follows (approximate quote from memory):  "If you are like most straight
> men [as distinct from comedians? :-)], the idea of having sex with a man
> just doesn't appeal to you.  Now imagine feeling that way about women."
> I will try to remember to refrain from trying to make sweeping judgments
> about the source of sexual preference, though I do still invite you to
> examine that of yours more closely.  But I still call it a "preference".
> [SARGE]

Amazing how Jeff gleaned from such an account that women would be perceived
as enemies by gays.  I would assume that this means that Jeff thinks of all
men as HIS enemies, by this same logic.  (After all, he wouldn't want to
have sex with them, would he?)

> I have several times read accounts by homosexuals who came to the point
> where they hated their homosexual lifestyle (e.g. because it provided
> virtually no genuine human contact), and by giving themselves to Christ
> they were able to become happy, fulfilled heterosexuals.  If you actually
> like being homosexual, and have actual human contact (soul touching soul
> and spirit touching spirit, not just body contact) in that lifestyle, then
> Christ may have a hard time convincing you that there's something better.

There are a lot of people of all sexual (and other) persuasions who live lives
with virtually no human contact; that's one of the tragedies of our modern
society in many ways.  Unfortunately, I see many heterosexuals (and
homosexuals) being quite accepting of this, which is perhaps sadder.  Such
non-contact may not be the status quo, but to varying degrees it permeates all
strata of society.  Jeff's last sentence sounds so strained, as though he
doesn't believe the parenthetical could ACTUALLY be possible.  What is this
"something better" than "actual human contact"?  I surmise that it is "better"
only by your own subjective perspective and presupposition about what SHOULD
be "best", such as when you made your statement about "sex is intended as a
total union":  who told you the intentions of the intender, and what's more
where do you get off assuming that there IS an "intender" and that it has the
same motives that you have?
-- 
"Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty *knife*!"
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr