From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:20:06 GMT

In article <17883@umd5.umd.edu> urgent@roissy.umd.edu (gen) writes:
>Alright, I know now that I should just give up. My intent was for distillation
>of what Yamanari wants, because his intent seems, well, not bad. Here's what
>_I_ think he's asking/stating:
>
>	1. Xtians have a consitant view (not neccesarily a valid view)
>	that reflects the morality of this here country (at least). Or,
>	perhaps this country reflects the morality of xtians (unclear
>	to me).


		Morals in this country reflect those of christianity, 
		for the most part.  It is unlikely that xtianity reflects
		this country, since it preceded the USA by a good 1700 years
		(a lot more if you cound Judaism).


>	2. Morality here is defined as  What the majority considers
>	appropriate behavior. (Note: this is a definition I don't agree
>	with, but I'll adopt it for the moment).


		I have heard this complaint a number of times.  I have
		also asked for a better definition.  No one has volunteered
		one, so we'll just have to go with that one.  Otherwise,
		please provide a better definition if you don't
		agree with that one, one that prevents facist control
		of morality by a self-selected group of elites.


>	3. These majority based morals say:
>		a) help the sinner
>		b) homosexuals are sinners
>
>											4. Please provide an argument based on xtian morals that homosexuality
>	is not wrong.


		No.  That's _NOT_ what I'm asking.  I am asking for 
		an argument that can be given to xtians, based on their
		own philosophy, that would force them (if they are going to
		be consistent about their beliefs) to cease anti-homosexual
		discrimination.  

		I will not accept arguments in the forms of:

		1.  I do not need to do so.  
		Why:  This is a pointless and useless response.  The whole
		point of what I'm getting at is to change the situation at
		hand.  You cannot just say that you don't need to justify
		something and then expect their behavior to change.  Obviously,
		it wont.  (and hasn't--if anything, gay bashing is on the rise)

		2.  It's not wrong/deviant/whatever.
		Why:  This is also pointless/meaningless.  Saying it's not
		wrong is not going to change the beliefs of these people any
		more than their saying it IS wrong is going to change yours.
		Answers like #1 and #2 accomplish nothing whatsoever.

		3.  "The bible says not to judge others"
		Why:  The Bible says nothing of the sort.  Claiming that 
		John [8:7]  ("So when they continued asking him, he lifted 
		up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin 
		among you, let him first cast a stone at her.") has this
		implication is halfwitted.  

		People can argue whether something is good or bad til the
	cows come home.  It doesn't accomplish anything, and I am really not
	interested in a moral discussion of that sort because it's empty and 
	pointless.  Basically, it comes down to individual opinions, and 
	IMHO, no single persons opinion outweighs any other, so it's kind
	of pointless (^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ w/o _real_ evidence).

		So,I'm trying to *accomplish* something.  If anyone can come
	up with an internally consistent argument against violently 
	anti-homosexual behavior, that appeals to the christian mindset, it
	will do a lot more good than all of the empty slogans and stupid
	marches in the world.  



>	5. Go to 1.
>
>Sorry, parsing error. Infinite loop detected. Won't compile. I have
>to show an inconsistancy in xtian morals, but their morals are consistant.

	That's right they are.  And there should be an argument that
	uses it against them.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush