From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:45:53 GMT

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr15111757@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>[I wrote]:
>>>Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
>>>restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
>>>or outside of marriage?
>
>>Abortion, STD's, AIDS, and emotional scarring come to mind.
>
>Abortion occurs inside of marriage.
>STDs occur inside of marriage.
>Emotional scarring occurs inside of marriage.
>
>Also, I have had sex outside of marriage.  No abortions occurred.  No
>STDs were transmitted.  I do not believe any emotional scarring has
>occurred as a result.  So why is my having sex outside of marriage
>wrong?

Indeed.  What Christians like John Muehlhausen completely ignore is
that some people's feelings for each other are *strengthened* by
sex.  Meaning, of course, that sex in some cases may help strengthen
the union between two people to the point that they will marry for
a reason most highly regarded by this society: love.

In such a case, would sex not be regarded as a *positive* act?  That
it occurs outside of marriage in that case is at least irrelevent, and
at most a necessary precondition for it to be a positive act.

Many of the rules in the Bible are good rules of thumb.  They work a
lot of the time.  But there are definite cases (like the one above)
where they do no good at all, and some cases where obeying them would
cause definite harm.  Thus, it is my opinion that it is the height
of stupidity to treat the rules in the Bible as if they were absolute
law.

Is the case of the American judicial system not sufficient evidence
that the application of law without regard to the purpose of the
law is harmful and backwards?

I see the rules of the Bible in the same light.  They are not meant
for the benefit of God (for God can always get what he wants) or for
the benefit of man in the afterlife (for God can, and has, cleanly
separated the two stages.  There is no reason for the rules in one
domain to have any effect on man in the other).  They are meant for
the benefit of man in his life here on earth.  And if the application
of one of the rules in the Bible yields a detrimental rather than
beneficial result, then it should be obvious that the rule is invalid
in those circumstances.

You Christians consider your God to be loving and just.  Do you think
your God, being loving and just, would hand you a set of rules to follow
without arranging things such that the benefit of following those rules
would be obvious to everyone, including those who do not agree with your
religion, and that the negative consequences of not following those rules
would likewise be obvious?  Alternatively, do you think your God would
hand you a set of laws to be followed absolutely but that occasionally
have negative consequences even if followed?  Then *why* do so many
of you treat the rules in the Bible as absolute law when you *know*
that the consequences of following them are sometimes detrimental
and the consequences of not following them are sometimes beneficial?


Where are the negative consequences of someone with a tendency to
be attracted to members of the same sex acting on that tendency in
the same way that someone with a tendency to be attracted to members
of the opposite sex might act on *their* tendency?  Is it not
obvious that the benefit or harm of an action depends on the
circumstances?

The only truly absolute laws that exist are the ones that we have no
choice but to follow: the laws governing the operation of the universe
itself.  To treat any other rules as absolute law is the height of
stupidity, and the justification for the suffering and death of
countless millions: "Chust followink orders!".



		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc