From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 02:57:54 GMT


Following are some new angles which I have tried to approach in a calm,
rational, and non-assuming manner.

In article <1992Apr10.222921.5250@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>Let me just say that if I were a non-believer, I would still feel that
>>homosexuality was inherently _wrong_,
>
>Now you're getting somewhere.  WHY would you think it is inherently wrong?
>What is it that makes it so, and what implications does that have for
>hetrosexual couples?  I believe you said before that hetrosexual oral
>sex was equally unnatural and perverted; but I don't recall a clear
>explaination as to why, except the implication that it was over-indulgent.
>But if one married couple has "normal" sex 3 times a week, and that
>isn't overly indulgent, than why would a couple who has "normal" sex
>once a week, and oral sex once a week, be indulgent?  

I would feel it is wrong because it is not natural.  Before we restrict
"natural" to procreation though I would like to say that God has made himself
evident in all creation, which is why I think Christian ethics generally make
the best sense.  If God really made all that is then there should be
_strong_ evidence of his purposes throughout it.  Much of this evidence, when
dealing with personal matters (which sex is) is going to have to come from
within.  It has been said that the only real evidence for God's existence
lies within the heart of man - the only experiment over which you have
complete control and intimate knowledge is that of your own life and the
resulting thought processes.  Probing ones mind and honestly evaluating ones
motives is the only thing you _know_ has not been tainted by outside factors.

With this in mind I do not think that men have been given natural
jurisdiction over each others bodies as men have with their heterosexual
marriage partners.  The "grand design" seems to have intended close personal
relationships between all humans (social focus), but the nature of man-man
interaction seems to advocate industrious undertakings, mutual instruction,
upgrading the standard of living, and generally practical ends.  Men seem to
be narrow-minded and goal oriented. They go out into the world in pursuit of
some goal and strive to achieve this goal.  Obstacles and overcoming them are
the story of a man's life.  When men are not trying to achieve a common goal
(and therefore cooperating) they seem to be very competetive.  This is
because their natural interests do not generally include submissive behavior.
If this were part of their agenda they would be taken advantage of both by
nature and each other, for each one is focusing on himself.

Women are not as narrow-minded as men.  In general they seem to go through
life taking in a more complete _experience_ whereas men are more focused on
the _results_.  This is not to say they do not also have goals, just that
these goals have a broader scope of vision in mind.  For this reason they do
not tend to step on each other (or men) and are in general more responsive to
emotional stimuli than rational provocation.  They are not as competetive and
as a result can accept a certain amount of domination, which uncovers their
more generally submissive nature.

When a man and a woman join together they complement each other by making up
for the shortcomings of each other.  Thus "opposites attract".  Since they
are essentially one person with their combined attributes they "own" each
other in every way - or rather ownership is abolished.  They share every
aspect of their lives, which includes the fulfilling experience of sex.

My official stance on heterosexual sex in marriage has devolped into the
following:  As long as the lovers keep their relationship in mind and not
self-gratification, and act on convictions honestly formed through
discussion and prayer, then whatever they decide is OK.  Personally my
conviction is that oral sex is wrong, simply because it is not natural.  That
is just my opinion - take it or leave it.

So what of men who feel more like my description of a woman?  Don't they
belong in a relationship with another man so that they may compliment each
other?  And what about women who feel more like my description of a man?
Shouldn't we compromise natures procreational intent and get these people
together?

I am no longer going to hold dogmatically that the anser is "no", because
that answer is offensive in that it denies without new hope, and I cannot see
into other people.  Instead let me present an alternate that is socially
acceptable and would fulfill the nature of each person involved without going
against what _I feel_ to be a given in God's creation: that "men shall not
sleep with men".

Since individuals display great diversity, and some have a nature that goes
against their sex's norm, doesn't it make sense that these people belong
together?  By cranking out feminine males and masculine females, couldn't God
be telling us that these norms are not beneficial?  Could this be a call to
get rid of the sexual boundaries in society?  After all God tells us that in
Christ the roles of men and women are as one.  I forget the verse but it
basically says that who a person is makes no difference when it comes to
finding a place in Christ's service, including sex.

However it is still very clear in the New covenant that sex is for a man to
share with a woman.  THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE ABOVE PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE
PUT THE FLESHLY NATURE BEHIND AS MANY HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIANS HAVE CLAIMED!!!
I think that most gay couples today would say that they are together in order
make each more complete as I described above.  I feel that this is true as
far as the spiritual, emotional, and loving aspects of them are concerned.
However, God designed the bodies of men and women for the physical bonding as
well (procreation, increased tolerance of the vaginal canal to penetration,
etc).  If you pry the sexual (physical) away from the rest, I think it is
clear that what was designed for sex must be the most fulfilling way to have
a fulfilling sexual encounter.  In other words, if a gay persons lover had
the exact same personality but was of the opposite sex, why should this
decrease the attractiveness at all?  In fact I should think it would increase
it many times over because the "missing link" to being complimentary in the
physical sense as well would be present?

In short, wouldn't the gay male find the same character qualities in a
lesbian female as they have found in their homosexual partners?  Wouldn't
these people be more appealing because of the _completely_ complimentary
nature that provide?

Could it be that the homosexual male, as he is growing up, finds that the
personalities he is most attracted to just happen to be found attached to
other males, so he conditions his sexuality in this direction in order to be
able to find a partner that compliments him as far as the spiritual,
emotional, and loving aspects are concerned?

Why not go for the sexual compliment as well?  Instead of searching for your
complimentary personality where it is normal to find it (which is for the gay
male other males) start looking in the community of "abnormal" persons of the
opposite sex.  The following visually demonstrates:

(line feed - usually ENTER - until this line on top of screen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           "normal"                "bisexual"        "gay"
Male     MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm0000fffffffffffffFFFFFFF  
         ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||****|||||||||||||||||||| 
Female   FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfffffffffffffff0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMM
           "normal"                "bisexual"      "lesbian"

         norm  <-------------diversity------------->  "abnorm"

M = Strong masculine  F = Strong feminine  0 = Nonsexual  * = Godly focus
m = Weakly masculine  f = Weakly feminine  | = Natural healthy relationship

I proffer that the natural healthy relationship can (and should) exist for
the people that are "more diverse", but it is easier to look to the higher
occurence of the compatible personality, which lies within ones own sex.  For
example, the (F) male sees more (M) males than (M) females, but they exist.
Why would the (M) male prefer the (F) male to the (F) female? <- problem?

So why would one desire a (|) relationship?     | Is the gay person initially
1) It is blessed by God                         | drawn to the same sex
2) It includes the physical compliment as well. | sexually or emotionally?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this idea clear?  Do most gay men *honestly* find other men *sexually*
more fulfilling?  To start with?

I am only trying to better understand the sexual experience, and maybe
homosexuals can re-think their position while we are at it.

John M.