From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:42:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.220213.24154@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>How about different positions?  Is it OK for the woman to be on top?
>>How about "doggie" style, or "on the edge", etc.??
>
>See above.

I didn't quite understand you.  Could you be more explicit?
No $#@% please.

>What makes it sinful is that it is a lifestyle that revolves around sex.

Huh?  Sez who?  Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions
if you're going to discuss this with someone other than yourself.

>You say "No it doesn't - there are many gay couples who are not dwelling on the
>sex act..."  This is precisely my point:  these people are not the homosexuals 
>of todays society, and should not "come out" as such.

I'm a gay man.  I am happy to have "come out as such".  To claim that I,
or most of the gay men and women I know, "dwell on the sex act" (to the
extent I can understand what that means), is absurd.

Sex plays as much of a role in gay people's lives as it does in
most people's lives.  Which is to say that's it's really all over
the place.  Most of us aren't getting as much as we'd like.  A lot
of us aren't getting anything.  Some people are celibate by choice,
others by fear, others by situation.  Some are in perfectly happy
monogamous relationships.  Some are in perfectly happy non-monogamous
relationships.  Some are in perfectly happy celibate relationships.
And some gay people are real sluts and love sex.  It's all over the
map.  You simply can't describe a group as varied as gay people
as "revolving around sex" anymore than you can describe all straight
people as "revolving around sex".  Most people would punch you in
the nose if you said that to them, and you know what?  You'd deserve it.

>If loving other men
>means being gay, then by golly I'm the gayest person you ever met (kinda
>makes one long for the old definition).

No thanks.

>It does not though, and those people
>who are sexually enslaved _are_ homosexual in societies view.

Er, no.  This is your own twisted definition.  NOT society's.

>To those who are not, why bother with the stereotype?

Not what?  And what stereotype?

>You are merely good friends (or
>"pure lovers") in my view and this is where the sin comes in.  To jump on the
>homosexuality bandwagon and fight for something that has no substance is
>_not_ what God has planned for your Christian life, making it a sin.

What nonsense are you spouting?  You know, I can't even figure out
what you're saying anymore.  Listen here, and listen good, you deluded,
ignorant little gnat:  You don't get to tell me that my attempts to
ensure that I don't get fired, or ensure that my head not get bashed
in on the street, or my insistence on being treated with dignity simply
because I have a "good friend" has "no substance".  This is justice,
pure and simple.  God's justice.

>In the
>same way fulfilling fleshly desires is not in the plan for the new you in
>Christ.

Sez you.  You have a lot of stuff to work on, pal, before you
presume to spead your "good news" to others.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc