From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 20:44:47 EST
The overall issue has been discussed before, and I do not know that
another discussion will progress, but a few statements in Burgy's
post (enclosed by ><) seemed ambiguous:
>the OT references to male homosexual activity are about as binding
>today as similar OT admonitions against eating pork<
I presume that you mean the laws prohibiting male homosexual
activity, as opposed to the OT references to intended homosexual rape
(including at Sodom) or homosexual prostitution, which I presume you
would classify under forbidden perversion.
Unlike the food laws or the regulations on ritual cleanliness, the
law against homosexual intercourse is neither explicitly abrogated in
the NT nor of any ceremonial function that is evident to me.
>the Sodom story is quite irrelevant to the issue.<
The claim that the men of Sodom were not intending homosexual rape is
highly implausible. Asserting that the Sodom story does not directly
address the issue of consensual homosexual relationships is much more
plausible.
>But still today, good Christian people demonize others on the
>grounds of their inborn sexual orientation, orientations they did
>not choose.<
Several environmental influences, not all of which are under the
control of the individual, as well as genetic influences, can
contribute to a predisposition to homosexual orientation. On the
other hand, individuals are relatively free to choose how they
respond to this inclination.
The fact that many influences outside the control of the individual
play a role tells us nothing about whether it is morally acceptible
or not. We have an innate tendency to sin, yet this is a bad thing.
As we all have this tendency, stigmatizing those who are particularly
tempted by a particular sin (especially one that happens not to
appeal to us) is wrong. On the other hand, endorsing sinful behavior
is also wrong.
Homosexuality does run contrary to the design of humanity as male and
female in Genesis 1-2. However, reproduction is not mentioned until
chapter 3; companionship is the reason given in chapter 2.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 09:52:41 EST