From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:35:47 GMT

In article <1jpiecINNeuv@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > In article <1jpb13INNlje@transfer.stratus.com>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> > 
> >   What a suprise. "Oh, Oh, somebody is challenging my irrational
> > beliefs, and, and, I don't have a rational response to it!" So
> > what happens? Does he check his premises and correct contradictions
> > in his beliefs? No. He becomes "increasingly intolerant and hostile."
> > And where does the blame lay for his bigotry? The victims of course!
> 
> Sounds remarkably like Tim Pierce's blaming his attitude on his being 
> repressed, eh?  Just your wording shows what complete disregard for 
> OTHERS views that don't match yours you have: " somebody is
> challenging my irrational beliefs".  To you they seem irrational,
> so they must be, eh?  What's that about open-mindedness?  Oh, it's 
> only for those who agree with you, I see.  

  Wrong. I've seen plenty of opportunities for you to defend your
beliefs in a consistant and rational way, and thus far you have
merely changed the subject when the argument wasn't going well.
This is eminently typified by your non responses to Gene Ward Smith's
posts. He asked direct questions, you evaded them.
  The only thing that I've seen you produce is a round-the-mulberry-bush
argument style which circles around the new and old testaments,
between literal and interpretive readings and rationalizations where
it doesn't suit your needs. You and Christiansen are rightfully
being called upon to produce a logically consistant model which we
can all view as a model of morality. We need some ground rules
in which we could base interpretation of it upon. You have not
provided these, or even attempted to.
  You are doomed. Just as Aquinus was doomed. The bible requires
faith and mysticism to cement the contradictory parts of it together.
Just admit that your dislike of homosexuality is irrational just
as the bible is not rational and be done with it. You are not
going to "prove" anything.

> As for Melinda/Robert/Evelyn/ etc challenging religious beliefs, 
> if these silly arguments about polyester and diapers seems 
> challenging to you, you might want to learn a little more about 
> the subject.  You might find just how silly those arguments 
> are.  Try hopping over to soc.religion.christian. The only 
> arguments I've seen on this subject that come close to dealing 
> in an intelligent way with it have been by "Hot Young Star".  
> Melinda/Robert/Evelyn sound more like they should be talking 
> to someone who is Jewish, instead of Christian. 

  Like how many angles can reside on the head of a pin? 
No thanks.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:18:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: ZOE BAIRD:  ATTORNEY GEN.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA