From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 07:29:27 EDT
In a message dated 7/22/03 8:52:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rjschn39@bellsouth.net writes:
> A propos the on-going discussion on homosexuality, the Bible and moral
> theology, there is a most informative piece in the Sunday NYT on-line on the
> historical development of legal strictures against any form of
> non-heterosexual intercourse in America, beginning with the colonial era.
>
You must be very careful reading the NY Times.
Snips from the article:
The notion that Western society has held a consistent view about what
constitutes sodomy, and that the practice of it by same-sex couples, in particular,
deserved punishment, was one that a group of nine historians "knowledgeable
about the history of the treatment of lesbians and gay men in America" decided to
challenge.
rich remarks:
Western society HAS held a consistent view - but note that there is no
mention of Leviticus 19 as the origin of that consistent view. Homophobia is an
evil of Christianity alone.
Article:
In California in the 1950's, notes one historian, the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board "collapsed the difference between homosexual status (a state of
being) and conduct (behavior) and suggested that any behavior that signified
homosexual status could be construed as an illegal act. Simple acts such as random
touching, mannish attire (in the case of lesbians), limp wrists, high pitched
voices, and/or tight clothing (in the case of gay men) became evidence of a
bar's dubious character" and grounds for closing it. . . .
rich remarks:
There is no acceptable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a state of
being though notice the NY times embraces the non-existent science here and
invokes it without the caveat that even if it were true it would not account
for the majority of homosexual behavior which is opportunistic.
article:
Such forms of discrimination, harassment and stigmatization were so pervasive
and well established by the 1960's that it was widely imagined that they were
the inevitable "residue of an age-old, unchanging social antipathy toward
homosexuality."
rich remarks:
could it be that the discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization "well
established" by the '60s could also be the backlash to the homosexual agenda
which also began organizing during the sexual revolution of the '60s?
article:
Puritan leaders in the New England colonies were especially vigorous in their
denunciation of sodomitical sins as contrary to God's will, but their
condemnation was also motivated by the pressing need to increase the population and
to secure the stability of the family.
rich remarks:
The Puritans obviously understood Leviticus - population increase and family
stability are the products of the Levitical prohibitions.
But where is the mention of Leviticus, the origin of these prohibitions?
Perhaps that would be indiscrete. After all, the Sulzbergers, Times owners, are
married into the orthodox Ochs family and it is Christianity we want portrayed
as the backward, evil religion, not Judaism.
I have quoted Maurice Lamm's The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, a recent
Harper & Row book in whose acknowledgments appear the president of Yeshiva
University. That book clearly shows modern Jewry rejecting homosexuality. Why does
the Times miss the continuity since Leviticus? Why did the court miss it?
==========
You have to be able to recognize agitprop when you see it, particularly in
the NY Times.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 07:30:05 EDT