From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:19:05 GMT



[Note: I've stayed out of this up to now, but I truly think there are some
points here that need adressing.]

In a previous article, daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) says:
>
>Even if Fundamentalists were to make such a concession, why would this
>have an impact on the debate?  Afterall,  new studies are coming out all the
>time that show that a variety of behavior patterns (aka: orientations) like
>serial murdering, rape (and other sex offenses), alcoholism, etc. are not
>choices.  Some make the point (to which I might agree) that some who
>exhibit these behaviors can't help themselves because of some genetic
>predisposition.  If it is proven conclusivly that these behaviors are not a
>matter of choice for the individual raping, murdering, abusing children, etc.
>then, by your logic (and you're not alone), it would follow that we should
>not discriminate against them.  

There are two problems with this arguement, Daniel.

First, all the "orientations" you list above (save homosexuality) do intrinsic 
harm to self and others.

Second, and more importantly, you are not a rapist, nor a murderer, nor
a child molestor until you accually rape or murder or molest. (the scientific
community is still out on whether alcoholism is the result of excessive
drinking or the cause of it, but seeing that many many alchoholics can and
do abstain from alchohol forever makes the arguement moot) 

A person can be homosexual, however, having NEVER demonstrated a
"Patern of behavior" which can be labeled as such.

You make the mistake of equating homosexuality, which, even when demonstrated
by a "Patern of behavior", does no harm to those who concent to it in a
responsible, mature way, with what is accepted in all quarters as sociopathic
behavior.

Your making these comparisons in both unfair and untruthful.  Would you
concider it OK if I condemned christianity in general, and its followers 
in paricular, if I compared it to the henious actions of Jim Jones, who
professed himself to be Christian, or to the attempted genocide of Adolph
Hitler, who claimed to be doing the Lord's work, or even the KKK who feels
it finds justification for its actions in the bible?  You would not. You 
would be indignant, and rightfully so.  What those people did and do have
nothing to do with what is generally accepted as christianity, but are
a perversion of this sublime philosophy.

So, too, you do a disservice by making equally unjustified comparisons
between homosexuality and the various pathologies you listed.

If you have problems with homosexuals and homosexuality on a religious
basis, that's fine, don't enguage in it.  But don't condemn it out of hand
by comparing it to what is TRULY perverse.


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************