From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 12:24:00 EDT
In a message dated 7/8/03 8:10:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes:
> If the sinful character of homosexuality is due to lack of reporduction
> then it _isn't_ sinful if homosexuals _do_ reproduce. You can canter around
> the track on your hobby horse all you wish but it doesn't answer that challenge.
>
> Again I repeat - though you probably will again ignore - that I am not
> engaged
> in a "religious defence of homosexuality." But I know a faulty argument
> when I see one.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
>
The idea of religious prohibitions is personal and communal (religious)
discipline - you don't impregnate a woman so you can run off and have sex with men,
which is essentially what you are saying is the behavior that would take the
sinfulness away from homosexuality.
The idea is not to do your physical will, but God's will. The prohibition
against homosexuality is one among a matrix of such prohibitions in Leviticus
geared to population increase and population cohesion. An intro to SIT would
help you or a reading of Colinvaux's Fates of Nations, A Biological Theory of
History would orient you to the most recent understanding of such prohibitions
such as in MacDonald or Hartung (on the Ten Commandments).
and - No, - you don't know a faulty argument when you see one. Simply saying
so, does not MAKE IT SO. You've given your personal opinion, no scripture, no
scholarly quotes, nothing...
Nor do you quote me correctly or address the main points I make or any of the
authors I quote or even the scripture I quote. You ignore it all.
and that's fine.
are there any population biologists or ecologists on this list?
Why did you quote "a religious defense of homosexuality?" I specifically
wrote homosexuality is not religious. You ignored that.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 12:24:25 EDT