From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.233022.7722@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>>>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>>>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>>>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>>>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.
>> 
>>QED.  Duh.
>> 
>>Only troglodytes with axes to grind (on the necks of gay people)
>>would choose to describe being gay as a ~physical defect".
>>Perhaps Jesus was left handed, too?  Naaah!
>
>The point about homosexuality being a "defect" follows from gays' own 
>definition of their condition as "sexual orientation" rather than 
>"sexual preference."  It is not a choice, they say, but an in-born 
>fact about themselves.

What "gays" have you been talking to?  First, both phrases are in
common use.  Their point (assuming there's a "they" to talk about)
is that "they" didn't "choose" any more than you did.  Your "fact"
is their "fact".  A comment like this coming from a gay person
is not an apology; it's an existential statement.  People like you
don't make statements like that regarding your heterosexuality because
you're not hounded by idiots demanding that you justify yourself,
calling you immoral and trying to get you fired from your job and
evicted from your apartment.

>While this is still a matter of dispute, I accept it for the purpose 
>of discussing the morality of homosexuality because it doesn't affect 
>the Christian's case against it.  Gays would have us believe that, 
>because it is something over which they have no control, it cannot be 
>an object of moral disapproval.

You contradict yourself in the paragraph below.  No one (other than
an idiot trying to use this as an argument) would claim that people
don't have control over having sex or not.   Lesbian and gay people
who happen to be Christian would simply say that their affectional
orientation and expressing the sexual component of that within a
committed relationship (a "marriage" where Church and civil laws
permit) is not a moral issue.

>This is not so, any more than the modern notion of alcoholism as a 
>disease cancels the Bible's injunctions against drunkenness.

Strictly speaking this is an issue of moral culpability and
responsibility.  But just as drinking is morally neutral and
need not imply drunkenness, gay Christians would not identify
their orientation or behavior as necessarily leading to
"immorality".  That is, no more than your interest in women
is "immoral".

>We must distinguish between the _condition_ and the _behavior_.  It is the 
>behavior that the Bible condemns, not necessarily the condition; the 
>only way that the condition itself could be condemned would be if it 
>were chosen.

Like a really stupid Biblical literalism, for example.
Or would you plead that you were just born that way?

>The condition of homosexuality--like that of alcoholism--is a defect 
>in the sense that it is an in-born propensity toward immoral behavior.  

Only because you define it so.

>It makes one more susceptible to the temptations that lead to the 
>actions.  If sin is separation from God (and therefore a bad thing), 
>and a certain condition tends to lead one to sin, then I would call 
>it a defect--a physical defect to the extent that the condition is 
>physically based.  QED.

You mean: QED -- Duh.

No more than your heterosexual orientation leads you to feel
immoral urges towards women you're not married to.  Is this a
"defect"?  It's fine with me if you'd like to label yourself
as defective.  Just don't expect agreement when you try labelling
others.

>Ted the Troglodyte

Admitting your problems is the first step towards a solution.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc