From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 13:16:59 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
The reason I quoted "a religious defense of homosexuality" is because in your
earlier post you said "There is no religious defense of homosexuality unless you're a
partisan and have a vested interest in promoting one." Apparently you're ignoring
yourself.
I ignored the authors you quoted? Gee, I wonder why! How could I have
been so dense as to fail to see the relevance of the number of Jewish butchers in Poland
in the 18th century to my question about bisexual behavior?
I see no point in continuing this exchange.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 13:17:09 EDT