From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:11:57 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
>...Its basically utilitarian ethics...The same idea is apparent throughout 
>the Gospels, there is the great commandment as well as several passages 
>stating that helping others takes precidence over the law...Loving someone 
>of the same sex hurts no one...

I thought the underlying benchmark for this whole discussion was
[A] If there is no question about the existence of [a particular] god...
On this and on observing your above remarks, I deduce the following
possibilities:  (1) You do not know what the great commandment is in the
Gospels.  (2)  If you believe that the Christian God exists, you take it
lightly.  It does not matter to you if you hurt it.  (3)  You disregard
assumption [A]. 

I do not think this discussion is worth continuing on alt.religion if the
above are not cleared, maybe alt.ethics or somewhere else.  Otherwise, 
I will have no part of it because I do have no clue where it is heading.

>>>>>How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 
>>>>...the same way we would know that anything else is a sin.  If sin is 
>>>>a separation from god and homosexuality departs from this god's design 
>>>>specifications on us humans, if we reflect his image, then this behavior 
>>>>departs from him.  By the transitive property, it is sin.  
>>>
>>>How do you know that homosexuality wasn't part of Gods plan?
>>What plan is it a part of?  What biology course tells you that a penis 
>>doubles as a rectal thermometer?
>
>What does this have to do with homosexuality? 
It is a possible symptom of homosexuality not vice-versa.

>Do you conclude that homosexuality that doesn't involve anal sex is ok?
My only conclusion is that anything that does not help the schism in our
relationship between ourselves and God is NOT ok.  If homosexuality
that doesn't involve anal sex does not involve other things that impair
our relationship with God, than it is ok.  At present, I do not know
enough to make any such conclusion.

>>>My personal criteria is that which doesn't injure others is ok, and
>>>that that does is only ok if it prevents much greater harm.
>Its basically utilitarian ethics.
God isn't a part of your set of {others} is He?

>BTW-The same idea is apparent throughout the Gospels, there is the great
>    commandment as well as several passages stating that helping others
>    takes precidence over the law.
Correction, the greatest commandment is NOT love thy neighbor as yourself.
That or any derivative is only the *second* most important commandment.

My personal criteria is that which doesn't injure God is ok and that 
nothing else is ok.  You would disagree?
You won't get this through utilitarian [humanist] ethics even though
it is probably absolutely complete.

>>Regardless, why then, if there is 
>>no question of god's existence, do you still consistently break your 
>>own criteria?  You fail by your own standards.  Why don't you make your 
>>own criteria more obviously selfish to make the words fit the actions?  
>
>Loving someone of the same sex hurts no one...
If this means screwing with God's creations, it is an insult to God.
It certainly hurts Him.

>... Love (including sex) makes for
>the greater happiness of those involved, so not only is it not hurting
>others loving someone of either sex benefits that person. 
If there is a God [of which we are made in likeness], it hurts others, 
Him in particular.  What greater harm can you possibly cause?

>>>>...[paraphrased for brevity:]  Why are commandments issued?
>[discussion on *to whom it was issued*]
You still haven't answered the question.  I didn't ask *to whom* 
they are issued to.  I asked *why* are they issued?

>>>I hope judges arn't supposed to enforce old testement commandments, not
>>>to[o] many people [correction--NO ONE] would be left alive...
>>You think only the mass murderers should be put to death?
>I don't think anyone has the right to take a life except in self
>defense (or in direct defense of others).
not even God?  The author of a book can do whatever he pleases to
the book's characters no?  The creator of creation can likewise.

>>>Homosexuality cannot be changed, even psychologists in the 1950's
>>>realized this. 
>>What kind of psychologists would say that?  They were obviously not logists.
>Pick up a few assorted psychology texts.
like which one?  I think you take them out of context.

>>Because exceptions exist, no serious logist would make such a blanket 
>>statement like that.
>What is a logist? 
In this case, the science, theory and study part of a psychologist--the
scientist part.  Without that, you've got a psycho. :-)

>>>Your demands that someone change what cannot be changed
>>>and what should not be changed results in suicide.
>>I believe that one's persistence of straying from god results in suicide.
>
>This is a non answer, a homosexual person has three choices,
You didn't ask a question.

>1) Live the way...and love someone of the same sex.
>2) For themselves into chastity (a burden which most heterosexuals are
>   unwilling to take).
>3) Pretend to be heterosexual and pretend to love a woman while pretending
>   that a sexual act that is found utterly disgusting pleases them.
oops.
They have at least one more just like everyone else in the world.
 4) Repent and submit themselves to Christ.

>>Please learn the message of the cross.
>Its the same as the lessons of the bullets that killed Martin Luther King,
>Ghandi,and Harvey Milk.
It's the *same*?  What lesson is that?
(4) wasn't to submit themselves to MLK, Ghandi or H Milk.

Terence