From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:49:56 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr11.025754.20595@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>I would feel it is wrong because it is not natural. 

Well, you've absorbed some of the "natural law" theology which
permeates Western thinking about sexuality. Have you thought out the
details and the implications? What does "not natural" *mean*, and how
do you decide something is "not natural"? What is your position on
birth control? And so forth...

>Before we restrict "natural" to procreation though I would like to say
>that God has made himself evident in all creation, which is why I
>think Christian ethics generally make the best sense.

Well, I think that supposing we can deduce what God wants from what
appears to us to happen in nature is a dangerous notion. But accepting
it as true, and as the correct departing point for understanding the
"natural" in "natural law", we must be intellectually honest about it.
We must, I mean, look at nature as is, without importing a belief as
to what nature ought to be. Otherwise, our argument becomes circular.

>Probing ones mind and honestly evaluating ones motives is the only
>thing you _know_ has not been tainted by outside factors.

How do you know this, and what is a taint from an outside factor in
any case?

>When a man and a woman join together they complement each other by making up
>for the shortcomings of each other.  Thus "opposites attract".

You are assuming your anthropology of what men and women "really" are like
is not simply another cultural artifact, but an invariant of nature.
This is not clear, but let us assume it. Your conclusion still does not
follow, because we do not allow the same sort of reasoning to lead to
a moral duty in any other case. You are invoking a principle which
no one, including you, really believes in.

To see this, note that one could argue that any kind of similarity of
age, condition or intellect could be considered grounds for assuming a
relationship immoral on applying your principle. But in fact, people
are not horrified when two persons of the same age marry, but more
when we have a May-December thing. And so on in all other classes of
similarity, aside from consanguinity--whether social class, or
education, or interests, or beliefs, or what have you. We believe that
similar belongs with similar in practice--and we certainly *do not*
regard it as immoral.

Moreover, it is not clear why this would not apply to non-sexual
friendships as well, leading to even more preposterous conclusions.

>Personally my conviction is that oral sex is wrong, simply because it
>is not natural.  That is just my opinion - take it or leave it.

Your "not natural" is neither explained or defended in this.

>However it is still very clear in the New covenant that sex is for a man to
>share with a woman.

This is what we are talking about. You can't just say "it is clear" if
it doesn't seem to be.

>THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE ABOVE PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE PUT THE
>FLESHLY NATURE BEHIND AS MANY HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIANS HAVE CLAIMED!!!

Who are you talking to? I hope it isn't me--I never said I had left
my fleshly nature behind, nor that I was any kind of man-woman or 
woman-man either.

>However, God designed the bodies of men and women for the physical bonding as
>well (procreation, increased tolerance of the vaginal canal to penetration,
>etc).  If you pry the sexual (physical) away from the rest, I think it is
>clear that what was designed for sex must be the most fulfilling way to have
>a fulfilling sexual encounter.

Well presumably if "God made X gay", as some have been saying, then
that would be most fulfilling to them. If you are talking about purely
physical sensations, how to you know raw yak liver or a hole bored
into a roast watermelon isn't best of all? In fact, you know very well
without having to test this that the answer would be irrelevant
anyway.

>In other words, if a gay persons lover had the exact same personality
>but was of the opposite sex, why should this decrease the
>attractiveness at all?

You said you were heterosexual, so just ask yourself this question in
reverse and you will find your answer there.

>In fact I should think it would increase it many times over because
>the "missing link" to being complimentary in the physical sense as
>well would be present?

If this argument were correct, it would show that homosexuality does
not exist. Since it does, clearly your reasoning is flawed. This
is not surprising, since we have seen numerous weak links in this 
particular chain already.

>Could it be that the homosexual male, as he is growing up, finds that the
>personalities he is most attracted to just happen to be found attached to
>other males, so he conditions his sexuality in this direction in order to be
>able to find a partner that compliments him as far as the spiritual,
>emotional, and loving aspects are concerned?

It could be, but in fact it isn't. So why worry about it? Why not try
to *learn* what life is really like before indulging in such unfounded
speculation?

>Is this idea clear?  Do most gay men *honestly* find other men *sexually*
>more fulfilling?  To start with?

Of course. If you don't understand this, you don't have any idea what
gay men (and the same goes for women) are all about. Do you honestly
think when I have a sexual dream, it is or ever was about women?
People differ in their degree of sexual feelings for both sexes.
Some are attracted only to one. This is the data from which we began
the discussion, if we are deciding to be rational, simply because
this is the way it is.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6350 rec.arts.comics:12316