From: daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:30:21 GMT

In article <1jps8vINN8bp@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>Fundimentalists [sic] teaching that they believe that homosexual behavior
>is against their religion is fine.  (It would be nice, however, if they
>could concede that homosexual orientation is not chosen.)

Even if Fundamentalists were to make such a concession, why would this
have an impact on the debate?  Afterall,  new studies are coming out all the
time that show that a variety of behavior patterns (aka: orientations) like
serial murdering, rape (and other sex offenses), alcoholism, etc. are not
choices.  Some make the point (to which I might agree) that some who
exhibit these behaviors can't help themselves because of some genetic
predisposition.  If it is proven conclusivly that these behaviors are not a
matter of choice for the individual raping, murdering, abusing children, etc.
then, by your logic (and you're not alone), it would follow that we should
not discriminate against them.  As a matter of fact, we should make sure that
school children are taught that serial murdering is a normal lifestyle. Should
we make it illegal to disriminate against rapists in housing or make
sure that no pedaphile is prevented from getting a job as a kindergarden
teacher? 

By your reasoning this would follow if these behaviors are not "choices".

Now there may be some valid arguments in favor of your position on homo-
sexuality, but the choice vs. predisposition is not one of them.

>
>Why do fundimentalists see homosexuals as any more evil than non-Christians ?
>You dont hear any call to deny the civil rights of Jews, Moslems, Hindus,
>athiests, agnostics, etc.

So homosexuality is now protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of
Freedom of Religion?  Hmmmm...

And as usual, when discussions of Basic Christian beliefs are discussed
by non-Christians, stereotypical, broad brush strokes are often used in place
of actual valid arguments.  In reality, Fundamental Christians usually:

1. make a distinction between the sin and the sinner; and more specifically,
2. between those who commit the occasional wrong but repent (i.e. turn away),
   and those who regularly and willfully sin to the point that they don't even
   recognize their actions as sin.  
3. point out that homosexuality (along with abortion, pornography, condom
   education, etc) and other things the Bible teaches should not be affirmed.
   The only thing worse in God's eyes than sin is the teaching (or promotion)
   of sin to others.  Herein is the essence of the argument for curtailing 
   the lobbying activities of the homosexual movement. While there has always
   been sin in the world, when that sin is confined to the individual, God
   Himself takes the responsibility for dealing with that individual.  On the
   otherhand, God holds His people directly responsible for ignoring sociatal
   sins.  You may not agree with Him on this but it should help you to
   understand why Christians are so outspoken about abortion and homosexuality. 

As long as there are groups that lobby for special rights based upon
behavioral preferences (name your favorite) especially those that are
socially unacceptable, you will find condemnation from more than Fundamental
Christians.  Anyone who recognizes that unique behavior, no matter how
politically correct, should not be a qualifier for affirmative action, positive
educational awareness campaigns, job or housing protection (where the behavior
will have a negative impact on the environment), etc. should rightly stand up
and point out the injustices these special rights force on the rest of society.

This argument can be verbalized outside of the Biblical context but, as I said
before, Christians are mandated by Scripture to warn each other,
their children and, if possible, their society, of the dangers of immorality.

The Founding Fathers (um, sorry...Persons) gave the citizens of this country
the right to partake in a variety of behaviors, within certain limits.
One could argue that this would include sexual immorality (adultry, homo-
sexuality, whatever).  This doesn't mean that we should assume that we can
promote these behaviors or even approve of them.

In short, while Fundamental Christians have plenty of Biblical support for the
condemnation of the act of homosexuality (and those that disagree don't know
their New Testament) they also have a positive political basis upon which to
condemn it as well:  The Constitution does not protect behavior, NOR SHOULD IT.
If it did then we could all probably come up with one behavior or another
that we would rather die than see protected (some people get their jollies by
burning crosses in other people's front yards, should we teach that as accept-
able to our school children?)

I know this was a lengthy defense considering the brevity of Tim's allegation,
but blanket and oft erroneous statements about whole segments of the pop-
luation (i.e. Fundamentalists) serves no purpose other than to foster
misunderstanding, which I'm sure, wasn't his desire.

___________________________________________________________________________
Dan Snodgrass
Lewis & Clark College

My views are mine and not necessarily those of my employer.

>--
>Tim Fogarty  (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
>SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
>SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994