From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab) 
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:15:10 CST
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>Excerpts from catholic: 8-Nov-92 Haig Kasab@LUTHER.CHE.WI (3561)
>> In article <...> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>> >What Gorden I think neglected to mention is that homosexuality leads one
>> >into _further_ sin.  Take Jeffrey Dahmer.  A man who struggled with
>> >homosexual inclinations, though he probably felt guilt for them.
>> >Nevertheless he indulged in them.  It is very possible that it was by
>> >this indulgence that he because more and more depraved, so that he
>> >desired to kill and eat his victims.  One seemingly minor sin led him
>> >into other sins, which eventually caused his downfall.
>
>> Eric, your argument is wrongheaded.  Jeffery Dahmer is an abberation of
>> the human personality.  Jeffery Dahmer is a VERY SICK MAN.  [...]
>> I am very angry with you for even insinuating that your "average"
>> homosexual is like Jeffery Dahmer.  *Very* angry.
>
>Note that I _explicitly denied_ that I was making a generalization about
>homosexuals.  

You *were* implicitly making a generalization about homosexuals, and a
monstrous one at that.  

>I am saying that in Dahmer's case, I believe that homosexual behavior
>was partially responsible for inciting his sociopathic behavior.
> 
>Therefore homosexual behavior has dangerous consequences.

I still think your argument is wrongheaded and I still think you are
making the same monstrous generalization about homosexuality.  While
Dahmer's sexual orientation may have affected the manifestation of his
sociopathic personality, it was by no means the cause of his behavior,
nor did it incite his behavior.  Had Dahmer been heterosexual, would you
still claim that his struggle with his heterosexual tendencies "was
partially responsible for inciting his sociopathic behavior?"  I think not.

>> Eric, it sounds to me as if you are quoting the early versions of the
>> DSM, in which homosexuality is listed as a clinical psychological
>> disorder.
>
>No, I am basing this on personal experience and the teaching, including
>the recent letter from Rome, of the church on homosexuality.

This is the letter from Rome in which Pope John Paul II says that
discrimination against homosexuals is to be approved, at least tacitly?
That it is just dandy to kick homosexuals (and presumably, suspected
homosexuals) out of their jobs as priests and teachers?  That it is fine for
landlords to boot probable homosexuals out of their property?  Is this what
Jesus *really* calls the Church to do, Eric?  Is this what God calls *you*
to do?

>This [Eric's attitude on the state of homosexuality]
>is based on personal experience and contact with homosexuals.
>Believe it or not, not all homosexuals believe that homosexuality is
>natural and to be encouraged.  Some homosexuals actually agree with me
>here.  Some homosexuals have given these matters a great deal of thought
>and do not agree with the more liberal, activist homosexuals.

Oh, I believe that you know homosexuals who feel very guilty about what they
are.  I would not have expected much less, really.  I agree that some
homosexuals, because of societal pressures, feel bad about themselves for
something they have no control over.  IMHO, the world would be a happier
place if everyone else could accept homosexuals for who they are, and not
throw on a lot of emotional baggage.

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.