From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 15:58:56 GMT

In article <1jppekINNic5@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:
>gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>> I see you advocating the idea that homosexuals are breed apart, who
>> follow a sinful lifestyle which distinguishes them from ordinary,
>> decent people.

>A "breed apart"?  I don't see it that way.  If anything,  those who 
>claim homosexuality is an inherent part of them, that cannot be 
>changed, are making a case for the "breed apart".  I don't see it 
>that way.   

How do you see it?  If you say it is a choice, then are you saying
that people have deliberately chosen to go against the way God made
them?  Would that not be saying that homosexuals are a "breed apart"
in a much more significant way than some slight difference in the
hypothalamus, or whatever?
 
>> In the attempt to free themselves from this, I forsee that
>> they will tend to abandon any attempt at a spiritual life.

>So instead you want to dictate what religions can teach, so 
>that people won't be turned off by them?  

Where have I advocated dictating what religions can teach?  I reserve
the right to criticize any religious idea which I think is mistaken in
a dangerous way.  Since so many religious ideas qualify, I pick and
chose here.  But if you think other people's beliefs should never be
argued with, why are you arguing?  Do you think your religious beliefs
deserve a kind of protecting and respect which mine do not?

>Come on!  You talk about openmindedness and tolerance, and the root
>problem seems to be that you don't want anyone saying homosexuality is
>not OK.

You imply you want to say that homosexuality is not OK.  Why?
Let us reflect on this question.

I am more concerned myself with people who seem to think that
*homosexuals* are not OK.  Some people seem to be able to hold the
belief that homosexual behavior is not the ideal without it throwing
them out of balance morally; it seems to me that most people are not
up to the task.  This is just a symptom of a more general problem,
which is that people do not realize that it is best not to judge or to
condemn.  Since this idea is found in the New Testament, Christians in
particular should be ready to attempt it.  But if you equate morality
with condemnation, how can you attempt it?

Not condemning people does not mean that we aren't able to think that
some things are mistakes, as I think many of your ideas are mistakes.
But it should mean that you don't leap into such a judgment without
any basis.  It is hard to see what basis heterosexual people can have
for their opinions, or what use they can have for their judgments.  If
your judgment that homosexual behavior is a mistake serves no purpose,
why make it?

If you think homosexual behavior is a bad idea, then you are not
intending to change your own behavior, because that is heterosexual.
If you want to give moral advice to homosexuals, on what basis can you
give it?  It would seem that only homosexuals know enough to offer
meaningful advice on this subject, and such advice can hardly be
heard, because it would be confused with the chorus of condemnation
issuing from those who know nothing about it.  If you want to
influence people in general against homosexuals, why would you want
to?

>they may say, that I guess it's time for all the churches to forget
>about teaching their view of morality, and just go with the flow of
>'anything goes'?

Saying you should have both a reason and a purpose in any conclusion
you may draw that something is a mistake is not the same thing as
saying anything goes.

The whole anything goes philosophy is in part a reaction against
tradition for its own sake.  If you presume to give a judgment on
values, but your only basis is tradition, people will doubt you.  If
they see that your basis in tradition has led you into doing or saying
things that seem hateful, they will hold you in contempt.

If people see no credible spokesperson for certain ideas about what is
good, many will reject these ideas, even if that rejection is in part
mistaken.  And those who accept your moral compass because they have
none of their own are quite likely to embrace the worst in what you
tell them.  This is the problem of the blind guide.

>> I forsee that heterosexuals will tend absorb the idea that here there
>> is a group of people who are different and evil.  This will tend to
>> lead to violence and hatred, just as it has with the Jews.

>Different, yes.  And if they read some of the stuff posted here, 
>they'd certainly question the morals; I still can't get over the 
>comment about people's sex life being no more private than their 
>golf score.  But violence and hatred?  I don't think so.   

Being the target of violence and hatred is a part of the "gay
lifestyle."  When you see people holding signs up at the Republican
convention saying "God hates gays", what do you think?  Whose thinking
and teaching do you think this reflects, and what do you imagine the
outcome is likely to be?

>An attempt was made to make a point, the attempt fell well short of 
>its mark.  Excuse me if I choose not to 'argue' against a non-point. 

This is also not an argument.  I repeat, you don't rebut an argument
by failing to answer it.  If my attempt fell so obviously short in
your eyes, it should be an easy thing to do to explain what is wrong
with what I said.

>> This is clearly false, since Levitical prohibitions against certain
>> types of sexual activity *are not* followed by Christians, and
>> *are not* taught as a requirement my any major denomination.

>Still wanting christians to follow the Mosaic Law, huh?  Keep saying 
>it over and over, maybe someone will actually think arguing the Law 
>makes sense...

If you don't think arguing the law makes any sense, don't use
Leviticus to support your ideas.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton