From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: 05 Jan 93 11:21:28 PST

In article <1993Jan1.144516.5901@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
=In article <1hvv30INNeca@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
=
=>.... I just can't believe that people who are 
=>constantly subjected to stereotyping and negative generalizations 
=>fall so quickly into it themselves.   Everything I read here paints 
=>all Christians as gay-hating fundies, and shows no concept for how 
=>*average* christians think.  
=
=    Better sit down, Walter - I agree with you.

	"Average" Christians?  How would either of you know what consti-
tutes the "average" Christian?  Are you saying that most of the Christians
you know are timid in comparison to our dogmatism?  That they are less
fervent in the application of their beliefs?  Why wouldn't I be justi-
fied in labelling _you_ as easily frustrated proponents of homosexuality
with little or no composure, and therefore beyond my perception of the
"average" liberal mentality?  Should not one express his beliefs with
complete honesty and dedication?  I think that we Christians ourselves
are better qualified to define whom among us is "average."

=    Unfortunately, the *average* xian is a rarity in these groups - it's
=usually the hate-spewing, biblebook-quoting, self-righteous types.  Thus, I
=and others react when someone comes around using their religion to justify
=anti-gay sentiment.  Such arguments carry no weight whatsoever with me, and
=no one ever wins them anyway.

	I've seen no evidence of "hate-spewing" _or_ quoting, but we
certainly are self-righteous, just as you are.  As usual, a defender
of a liberal cause has lost his fortitude in the face of adversity,
and resorted to identifying opposition from highly confident disputants
as patent hatred.

=    My suggestion would be that xians base their discussions on tenets
=unrelated to religion, or at least don't use religion as justification for
=a view.  I'm having an email debate on abortion rights with a xian, who not
=only doesn't use the biblebook as a weapon, but even allows that it and his
=religious beliefs don't make good tactics.  Refreshing, and certainly
=affirming that there are rational xians out there.

	All right, here I will agree with your advice that we Christians
adopt a more Objectivist approach to debate.  I do it all the time and
so do my Christian friends, and it works wonders.  Rush Limbaugh himself
probes issues in this manner.  Then, when we have proven ourselves
right, perhaps you atheists and agnostics will be more inclined to ac-
cept Christianity as a legitimate and positive lifestyle just as some of
you support the practices of homosexuality and therapeutic multicultur-
alism.

=>I would have no problem being friends with someone who was 
=>gay, and talking about gay issues with them; but they (if they were 
=>most of the people who have posted on that subject here) wouldn't 
=>with me.  
=
=    Your use of the subjunctive implies that you have no gay friends.  If
=this is true, it says something to me about the attitude of acceptance that
=you project to others.  You certainly know gay people; it just seems that
=they don't want to trust you with knowledge of who they are.
=   ******************************************************************
=     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
=     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 

	You can't be serious, Howard.  By what principle of reasoning
do you deduce that, because the gentleman has no gay friends, he must
project a hostility to homosexuals?

						 _m d c_
			  Milo D. Cooper  '92   | 1992  |  mdc@crash.cts.com
						`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion