From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 22:27:37 EDT
Sondra Brasile wrote:
>
> For the record; I don't "get" the part about the Christian's being displaced
> as butchers, etc... But I "get" the rest of Rich's post. Although I think
> his argument is a bit weaker than the obvious quotes in the Bible where it
> explains homosexual behavior word for word and follows it with "is an
> abomination to the Lord" and others that lump homosexuals with liars,
> murderers, idolaters, etc, etc...that will not be permitted into heaven and
> whatnot. I do think Rich has a point though if you want to get down to the
> basics and show even without "religion" if possible. I think (sorry if I'm
> wrong Rich) what he is talking about is that (homosexual) union is NOT
> profitable, not prolific, not "blessed" with children therefore not even in
> the simplest, most basic (nitty gritty) sense is it "ok". You seem to be
> taking everything he's saying to the furthest possible extreme, on purpose,
> just to be argumentative.
>
> George; sorry, but talk about two wrongs not making a right, your reply
> sounds more like a pot shot. How could a homosexual union be made "ok" by
> adding on another sexual sin ("fornication")? I don't really see the
> connection from what Rich said to that response. What you were supposed to
> be talking about is "sin" right? So how could you possibly suggest a
> "remedy" that includes more sin?
>
> Sorry if I'm missing the point guys, but this is just the way it seems to
> me.
Sondra -
I'm sorry but you have missed my point. I repeat - & I'm sure you can
understand this though some apparently can't - that I am NOT arguing here that
homosexual activity is OK. Nor am I arguing that "2 wrongs make a right." My point is
rather that "fruitfulness" is not an adequate basis upon which to judge homosexual
activity sinful.
The argument is quite simple. If the ONLY thing wrong with homosexual behavior
is that it does not lead to offspring, then there is nothing wrong with it as long as
the person who engages in such behavior also has heterosexual intercourse in order to
have offspring. I do not agree with the conclusion because I don't agree with the major
premise. But the argument itself is very clear.
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 - 22:28:58 EDT