From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 11:59:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.230322.914@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.193113.24679@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>If the excess rate of suicide among gay teens does not
>>come from societal disapproval, where do you imagine it does come
>>from?  

>You must show evidence for this alleged causuality.  

I didn't allege causality, I asked a question.  The point of the
question is indeed that there is an answer which seems obvious.  Like
any other obvious answer, it is the answer which needs to be shown
wrong before there is much point in even discussing alternative
theories.  

Of course, if Jesse Helms and Company are so distressed by asking such
questions that they got the NIH study on teen suicide suppressed when
it suggested that there was a much higher rate of teen suicide, and
that this was due to societal disapproval, it becomes more difficult
to answer this question.  I suggest that people like Helms, and I
suspect you, already think they know the answer to this question, and
that is what is bothering you.

>Do you really want alternate reasons?  How about the theory that
>homosexuality is a mental abnormality (as perhaps indicated by the
>hypothalamus size study)?

Homosexuality is not a mental abnormality, and homosexuals have the
same size of hypothalamus that heterosexuals do.  If differences in
one tiny sexually dimorphic region of the hypothalamus are the cause,
we would expect that women would have a much higher suicide rate than
men.  Moreover, we would expect any causally relevant difference to
occur in a region having to do with mood.

This is not a real counter-theory.  This is a smokescreen to avoid the
real issue.  Naturally, it is always possible to come up with
alternative and implausible theories.  But to do so merely to avoid
having to think about a real issue is pointless.  This becomes a moral
issue when the problem you are thus avoiding raises a moral question.

In short, your tactic is reasonable only if the hypothesis you are
employing it against is not reasonable, and your alternative theories
are really just as sensible.  This isn't the case here.

>>If societal disapproval does not come in part from religious
>>ideas, where do you suppose it does come from?

>This is an ill thought-out question.  To illustrate this, let me use an 
>alternate example:  If societal disapproval (of minorities) does not come 
>in part from religious ideas, where do you suppose it does come from?

This is an ill-thought out reply.  Societal disapproval of some
minorities clearly does stem in part from religious ideas--e.g. the
Jews in primarily Christian countries.  In both the case of the Jews
and of gays and lesbians, we can find grounds for this disapproval in
the New Testament.  Therefore, to conclude that this does not play a
role seems to me to be deliberate blindness to the obvious.  I suggest
you read a little history.

>>My own opinion is that the teen suicide is an
>>outgrowth in large part of the delusion that God hates homosexuality,
>>which I regard as bad theology (being more or less blasphemy) and
>>worse psychology.  Sow hate and that is what you reap.

>Thank you for admitting that it is your opinion.  Do you honestly believe 
>that the rampant anti-christianity apparent in your post is not hate?

I am not clear why my statment of an opinion constituted an "admission".
If it did, what precisely was I admitting?

Moreover, I am not clear why my expression of my theological views
constitutes rampant anti-Christianity, unless you define Christianity as
being the same as fundamentalism.  

Finally, I am not clear why my theological views are hate, whereas
yours are not.  My view as stated is that hate and bigotry are bad
things.  I think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit view them as mistakes
which can and must be corrected.  If this is true, would it follow
that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also anti-Christian (I am by no
means discounting this possibility?)

>I don't know that, but I do know what the average Christian should think 
>about gays and lesbians.  It is found in the Bible.

There are lots of things in the Bible which the average Christian does
not agree with.

>EVERYBODY grows up being beaten and called names.  I am not in favor of 
>it, but most of us grow up and end up ok.  Perhaps the gay problem is 
>oversensitivity.

Perhaps the straight problem is a complete lack of sensitivity.  If
you have ever heard of a straight person murdered or even beaten up
for being straight, tell us about it.

>>As far as projection goes, it seems to me that the whole anti-gay
>>thing is mostly projection.  A person has some sort of religious
>>experience or upbringing, or in some way is faced with the idea of a
>>God who is good.  By comparison, they feel bad, especially to the
>>extent that they identify with the ego, which seems to be rejected
>>in some sense by this goodness.  They therefore feel that God must
>>hate them and want to attack them.  

>No more than any other sinner.

Nonsense.  Did you even read what I wrote?  An atheist does not have
this problem, as he or she is dealing with the God question in another
way.

>Perhaps the problem is that the gays you are describing have an
>innacurate view of God and do not realize that He hates their sin, not
>them.  Homosexuality is no worse than private hate, nor better than
>mass-murder in God's eyes.

I wasn't describing gays, I was describing religiously-oriented
straight people.  You seem to be having difficulty reading what I
wrote, which makes it more or less impossible to respond to it.

If God hates the "sin" of homosexuals, then God is not love, and
therefore God is not God as God has defined himself to be.  This would
mean that we have the power to change the nature of God, and have done
so.  If we think things like this it is no wonder that thinking about
God makes us fearful.

>Please, document this idea that you seem to have that Christians hate 
>gays.

You said above that if we look in the Bible we find what Christians
think of gays.  If we do, we do not find a message of love.

Moreover, history has documented this for me.  Or are you unaware of
the history of Christian persecution of gays and lesbians?

>If you checked further, I believe that you would find that Christians
>hate homosexuality, but love the homosexual. 

Can you describe in concrete terms how you have demonstrated love for
homosexuals?  All I can recall you writing are angry denunciations.
In this very article, you have tried to ignore the problem of teen
suicide rather than deal with it, which does not sound like love.

>>This is the same blasphemy which has been killing all kinds of people
>>in the name of religion all along.

>Please, state the name of one Christian who has killed a homosexual.

You could read the history of the Inquisition, or the recent post giving
the name of a Church of Christ pastor who advocates killing homosexuals.

But more to the point of what I meant when I wrote this, think about
the question of why gay people are beaten up and killed for being gay,
and why gay teenagers commit suicide in such numbers.  Then think
about why you have been putting out such a heavy torrent of denial
over the connection between these realities and the hatred of
homosexuality which you espouse.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13538 alt.politics.clinton:20013