From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:34:59 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/10/03 10:51:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> > My own view at this point is an intermediate one which, I fear, will
> > satisfy
> > very few. Homosexuality is not part of God's basic intention for creation
> > but, for
> > various reasons, it is a reality that some persons do have a fundamental
> > homosexual
> > orientation that they have not chosen. The best way for both church and
> > state to deal
> > with this is to recognize (though perhaps in different ways) the legitimacy
> > and legal
> > status of committed 1-1 homosexual relationships, though they would not be
> > considered
> > "marriage."
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually, George, your position is a reasonable one. The underlying motive
> in my arguments is to protect the sanctity of marriage in order to protect the
> primacy of procreation, not to undermine the rights of committed
> neuroendocrine determined homosexuals. I would however, still insist, that committed
> homosexual marriage, does not confer the religiosity of a committed procreating
> heterosexual marriage, nor do I believe that homosexual culture should be media
> broadcast as it is beginning to be to our children conducing them to
> opportunistic homosexuality rather than neuroendocrine driven homosexuality
> (homosexuality nurtured from without via propaganda rather than intrinsically, hormonally
> and thus inescapably natured from within). It is believed only a small subset
> of homosexuals are hormonally/genetically driven. (paper available on request)
> what is happening now is that children are being taught about homosexuality
> in the schools and it is presented as a viable life style conducing
> heterosexuals who are not neuroendocrinally motivated to mimic the taught behaviors. That
> is leading our children away from God and toward a 'chosen' life style of
> homosexuality, something they could easily avoid if it was not 'taught' in the
> schools.
> homosexuals are not deferring in this regard - they are fighting for and
> getting equality with heterosexual marriage.
Rich -
I agree that recognition of homosexual unions by either church or state should
not be considered the same as heterosexual marriage.
I would like to see the paper you refer to. I would say though that I think
this is an area where we're forced to give anecdotal evidence more weight than we do in
some other scientific investigations. If a person says (as many homosexuals of both
genders do), "I've always felt different, been attracted to members of the same sex,
tried to be heterosexual & it didn't work" &c then - if we have no evidence to the
contrary - I think we have to take them at their word (& especially so if they are
Christians). Whether or not that inclination they speak of is or is not genetic,
hormonal &c is another question.
Shalom,
George
would like to see the paper you refer to. Estimates of both the percentage of persons
who are homosexuals and the
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:34:10 EDT