From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.025754.20595@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>It has been said that the only real evidence for God's existence
>lies within the heart of man - the only experiment over which you have
>complete control and intimate knowledge is that of your own life and the
>resulting thought processes.  Probing ones mind and honestly evaluating ones
>motives is the only thing you _know_ has not been tainted by outside factors.

You _don't_ really believe this, do you?  You are as much a product
of your environment (God help you) as we all are.

>With this in mind I do not think that men have been given natural
>jurisdiction over each others bodies as men have with their heterosexual
>marriage partners.

Snort.

>The "grand design" seems to have intended close personal
>relationships between all humans (social focus), but the nature of man-man
>interaction seems to advocate industrious undertakings, mutual instruction,
>upgrading the standard of living, and generally practical ends.  Men seem to
>be narrow-minded and goal oriented. They go out into the world in pursuit of
>some goal and strive to achieve this goal.  Obstacles and overcoming them are
>the story of a man's life.  When men are not trying to achieve a common goal
>(and therefore cooperating) they seem to be very competetive.

This reminds me of that Monty Python skit about "Men, men, men, men".
Listen.  Monty Python is even flakier than your interpretation
of the Bible when it comes to synthesizing a theory of sexual ethics.

>This is
>because their natural interests do not generally include submissive behavior.

Neither do mine, or the men I have sex with, for that matter.

>If this were part of their agenda they would be taken advantage of both by
>nature and each other, for each one is focusing on himself.

Can someone translate this for me?

>Women are not as narrow-minded as men.  In general they seem to go through
>life taking in a more complete _experience_ whereas men are more focused on
>the _results_.  This is not to say they do not also have goals, just that
>these goals have a broader scope of vision in mind.  For this reason they do
>not tend to step on each other (or men) and are in general more responsive to
>emotional stimuli than rational provocation.  They are not as competetive and
>as a result can accept a certain amount of domination, which uncovers their
>more generally submissive nature.

Where are my smelling salts?  Or a gun?  Do people _really_ think this way?

>When a man and a woman join together they complement each other by making up
>for the shortcomings of each other.  Thus "opposites attract".  Since they
>are essentially one person with their combined attributes they "own" each
>other in every way - or rather ownership is abolished.  They share every
>aspect of their lives, which includes the fulfilling experience of sex.

Well, you'll find many happy marriages and couplings where the partners
aren't "opposites"; I don't think that is necessary.  But, you do find
people where "ownership is abolished.  They share every aspect of their
lives, which includes the fulfilling experience of sex."

>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.

Yeah, but you haven't told us WHY you think it's "unnatural".

>So what of men who feel more like my description of a woman?  Don't they
>belong in a relationship with another man so that they may compliment each
>other?  And what about women who feel more like my description of a man?

WRONG, pal.  Gay men aren't feminized men, and lesbians aren't
masculinized women.  More ignorance.

>Shouldn't we compromise natures procreational intent and get these people
>together?

What a yenta he's becoming!  Oy!

>By cranking out feminine males and masculine females, couldn't God
>be telling us that these norms are not beneficial?  Could this be a call to
>get rid of the sexual boundaries in society?  After all God tells us that in
>Christ the roles of men and women are as one.  I forget the verse but it
>basically says that who a person is makes no difference when it comes to
>finding a place in Christ's service, including sex.

This is a remarkable step you've taken, though I have to point out
once again that we're not talking about "feminine males and masculine
females".

>However it is still very clear in the New covenant that sex is for a man to
>share with a woman.  THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE ABOVE PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE
>PUT THE FLESHLY NATURE BEHIND AS MANY HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIANS HAVE CLAIMED!!!

Um, are you sure they're claiming what you think they're claiming? :-|

>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).

Huh?

>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.

_People_ are designed for sex.  Not organs and orifices.

>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?

Because I like my partner to have a lot of body hair, a beard and a
cock.  Plus a nice personality.

>In short, wouldn't the gay male find the same character qualities in a
>lesbian female as they have found in their homosexual partners?  Wouldn't
>these people be more appealing because of the _completely_ complimentary
>nature that provide?

Excuse me?  You're suggesting now that lesbians have sex with gay men?
Now _that's_ perverse!

>[graphic deleted which once again erroneously places gay, bisexual and
>strait men and women on some ridiculous scale of "masculinity" or
>"femininity".]
>So why would one desire a (|) relationship?     
>1) It is blessed by God 

So's mine.

>2) It includes the physical compliment as well.

Complement.  Not _my_ complement.  I am not interested in having sex
with women.  I am not interested in being in a committed 1-1 relationship
with a woman.

> Is the gay person initially drawn to the same sex physically or
> emotionally?

Both, usually.

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

Um, how many times do we have to say this until you'll believe us.
Yes.  OK?  Yes.  Yes, I said, yes.

>I am only trying to better understand the sexual experience, and maybe
>homosexuals can re-think their position while we are at it.

No thanks, pal.
-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer