[net.religion] reply to Richard Brower

david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/01/85)

Reply to a reply:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christianity and homosexuality
Message-ID: <5152@fortune.UUCP>

In article <202@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes:
>	There are two things I would add. First, while the
>translation of some words is made more difficult because they are
>rare, or lacking in verbal context, or because the original words
>are lexically ambiguous, nevertheless we should not forget the
>apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers.
>Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition,
>and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words.
>The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of
>nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. Secondly, if either
>had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have
>been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should
>be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud.
>But this is not their complaint.

JC never mentions homosexuals in any context.  Paul, however, was not
a freethinker in any respect, and followed the Jewish legal tradition
quite strongly.  He may have been adding some these sorts of personal
prejudgements to his discourses (on totally different subjects).  That
is why such prejudgements need to reexamined periodically.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i. Paul's 'personal prejudgments' were, rather, traditional.
ii. It is 'personal prejudgment' to have Paul say what he plainly
	does not.
iii. Paul was 'freethinking' for his time, but this does not mean
	he would agree with anything we would like. Although he was
	formerly the student of a famous Pharisaic teacher, his
	understanding of Scripture and human psychology is remarkably
	'modern'; certainly his interpretations of Scripture are very
	figurative, instead of simply literal. Also, he did set aside
	many rules of traditional Jewish ritual Law, which he believed
	were less important ethically and theologically, which might
	cause non-Jews to stumble, so that they might listen to the
	Gospel. Finally, Paul said that while Christians had been
	set free by Christ, still not all things were good for them.
iii. Jesus cites Scripture that man and woman were created by God
	for each other. This is the traditional Jewish view, which one
	can misconstrue only if one is very obstinate.
iv. Jesus was not condemnatory of any sins, but merciful, so that
	all men, being sinners, might come to repentance. It is
	mercifulness, rather than vengeance, which leaves open the
	possibility of repentance. Vengeance hardens our hearts.
v. The primary point is that if Jesus had approved, even privately,
	of homosexuality, no matter what is recorded in the NT
	writings, this would have been so scandalous to the
	contemporary Jewish society, notably to the religious leaders,
	that we would certainly be informed about it according to
	orthodox Jewish tradition. I stand on this.
vi. I should say that my purpose in making these observations is
	to make clear that no one can plausibly suggest that Jesus,
	or Paul, approved of homosexuality. However, Jesus certainly
	did not persecute anyone. And those who do are not like him.
vii. Faith is said to be a gift of God, but for those who would
	desire it. Jesus could only heal the spiritual afflictions
	of those who sought his help, who would desire faith, as in
	the saying, "Lord, help my unbelief," and the ultimate
	petition of Mass, based on the faithful petition even of a
	Gentile centurion, "Lord, I am not worthy to recieve you, but
	only say the word, and I shall be healed."
viii. I believe that the churches should help to secure the human rights
	of all individuals, including rights to assembly, speech, religion,
	voting, employment, and housing. I believe that homosexuals should 
	not be excluded from congregations, anymore than are sexually
	promiscuous persons. And although they may elect to exclude them-
	by a sort of self-excommunication, the consequences of enforced
	separation may be harmful to someone who would otherwise change
	in the course of time and fellowship. We should be patient, rather
	than condemnatory; by excluding or persecuting others, we are
	condemning them, since therefore they cannot not come to change.
viii.Most Christians simply believe that God has created mankind with the
	intention of heterosexuality; one may not believe in the divine
	creation, but our anatomy and reproduction alone suggest very strongly
	that evolution has selected for phenotypic heterosexuality -- other-
	wise we would suffer self-extinction very quickly. For someone who
	does believe in creation by God, he must also faithfully believe 
	that the means of this creation, including our heterosexual
	reproduction, is good, even if we cannot forsee yet what is the 
	fulfillment of creation. My point is that a religious view of nature 
	is religious, and not purely existential as if the only purposes
	were our own.
ix. I believe that you must surely understand what I've said, even if 
	you disagree with my views, or with those of Jesus or Paul, so 
	that there is no reason to falsely characterize what I have said.
	What I object to is a view which misrepresents the ethical teachings
	of the NT for the sake of a prejudice, and furthermore expects that
	the churches should approve of behavior which is considered to be
	a sin according to Christian as well as precedent Jewish tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately
>destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the
>consequences of such approval? However, my point is that there is
>nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality;
>it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is,
>self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong.

I question the use of most in the above paragraph.  Do you mean most
Christians?  If so, while potentially true, this is the very point
that we are pushing to have reexamined.  Do you mean most cultures?
This is not true.  Do you mean most people today?  This is the work
of the Christian Church, and demonstrates why this belief must be
changed.  As for homosexuality being self-destructive, that is an
opinion you seem to hold that has no justifications here.  Prove it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	As you already first observe, and as the context suggests,
"most" means "most of the living body of Christians."
	Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live
as a large proportion of homosexuals do?
	I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual
individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised
discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is
that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection,
and death are considerably higher among this population than among non-
homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and
happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them.
The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why?
	If you do not believe me, then ask your doctor to recommend 
unbiased physicians at a medical school who are expert in public health.
Then report this survey to the Net.
	You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual,
not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further-
more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from
ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is
not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. 
Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, 
accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to 
pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are
very mistaken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	

>	I don't know of a large proportion of homosexuals who want to 
>live a different life, and generally they deny that their lives are 
>self-destructive. But, having lived in a number of major cities, this is 
>not my general impression. I realize that this is not a popular "liberal"
>opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. I might add that
>there is no morality to be found in singles bars, anymore than in gay
>bathhouses; and that there is no justification for persecution of those
>who are suffering already, whether they realize this, or say that they
>are "voluntarily" doing what is "natural" to them.

You seem to believe that all or most gays live their lives in bathhouses,
and I have to say that that belief is completely incorrect.  Unless
you had friends and/or aquaintances who were openly gay, your big city
experiences with gays have been confined to people who were out partying.
Isn't making a judgement on such a skewed sample a little brash?  I mean,
I'm involved in a relationship that has been ongoing for 4 1/2 years.
I supported my lover through school.  Many gays are actively involved
in charity efforts, upgrading their neighborhoods, politicing for
minority rights, etc.; are these self-destrutive?  I know lots of
gays in stable relationships (just to point out that I am not a strange
exception).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	I said what I meant: here I am addressing the general problem of 
promiscuity, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. Of course, I am
not commenting on where you can find it.
	Like you also, I believe that all of us are capable of doing good,
and of responding to the needs of others. But we do this because we
are human with conscience, not because we are gay or not, perfect or
not. You are saying that gays are human beings capable of good, and I
completely agree that none of us should forget this.
	If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really
representative of most homosexuals?
	We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question
is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended
to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While I do not contend that all gays are of benefit to their communities,
I do contend that statements such as those in the above paragraph are at
best unsubstantiated dreck, and are more likely to be considered
rabble-rousing and hate mongering.  Because while you claim to be so
enlightened as to not persecute gays, it is a short step from "they
are self-destructive" to "we must protect them from themselves so
that they can be saved" to "put gay people in concentration camps so
that they don't infect our children" by people not as enlightened as
you claim to be.

-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	There are two points made in my article, one about Christian 
tradition, the other about my opinion. You dislike my opinion, which
is that homosexuality is self-destructive, that it should not be
approved by the churches, but that no one should persecute anyone,
but treat everyone as an individual who has fallen short, but is
capable of change for the better.
	I've found good qualities in almost everyone, but I would
certainly not recommend everyone's life to others.
	I am not speaking to rabble -- I am speaking to you, without
compromise but also without aspersion. Those who would persecute
others will find no encouragement in what I say, unless they would
distort what I've said. We should always keep in mind what Jesus
said about the adulterer: consider that you who would condemn
this one are also sinners; I have not condemned this one; the one
should stop sinning. This was the new, more merciful commandment
which, it is said, he stooped to write on the earth with his
finger, even as it is said that the Lord God descended at Sinai to
write with His finger on the stone tablets of men's hearts.
	Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very
'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not
mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is
said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are
living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for
'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to
refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion,
or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian 
Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you
on your way?  But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment'
has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and
is generally confused with a quality of opinion.

brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/03/85)

In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes:
>	Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live
>as a large proportion of homosexuals do?
>	I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual
>individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised
>discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is
>that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection,
>and death are considerably higher among this population than among non-
>homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and
>happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them.
>The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why?

As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people,
evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather
than being intimately connected to homosexuality.  As for how I can live
"this way", I cannot live any other way than gay.  "Why?" you ask, so that
the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit.  Finally,
a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement
on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously
most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention
it.

>	You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual,
>not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further-
>more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from
>ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is
>not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. 
>Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, 
>accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to 
>pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are
>very mistaken.

You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you
forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside.  You are right about
the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due
to Christian spread intolerence* however.  I don't even recommend it, if one
can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being
gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots.

>	If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really
>representative of most homosexuals?

Yes.

>	We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question
>is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended
>to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended?

15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual.  Is it healthy
to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc?
No.  Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the
rest of their lives?  Yes.  Will it change their orientation to tell them
such things?  No.  Will some of the larger percentage of children that
aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going
out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights.  Yes.
Do you wish to continue the cycle?

>	Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very
>'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not
>mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is
>said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are
>living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for
>'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to
>refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion,
>or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian 
>Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you
>on your way?  But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment'
>has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and
>is generally confused with a quality of opinion.

	enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc.  2.  to
		inform, instruct.   enlightenment n.
			_Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_

Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened.  Some
Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those.
Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as
*the* definition.  What enlightened me, by the way, was having to
live with prejedice every day of my life.  Since one of the major
teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral
code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself.  Since I do
not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't
either.  Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in
need of enlightenment.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower

david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/05/85)

In reply to a reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: brower@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Trisell
Message-ID: <5166@fortune.UUCP>

>	Then you ask why did not Jesus say something against it.
>Paul did plainly say something against it, despite the far-fetched
>interpretations of Boswell. Recall that Paul was addressing Romans
>and Greeks (Corinthians), not Jews.
>	What about Jesus? First of all, as I've already observed, homo-
>sexuality was not accepted or common among the Jews, no matter whether
>it was accepted by the Emporer or other Gentiles of the time. It was
>absolutely condemned (by stoning). Jesus preached to the Jews, not to
>the Gentiles, and he criticized their hypocrisy, not that of the others-- 
>they (Jews) were ones who should know better. To begin with, it is very
>probable that Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there
>were so few.

Stoning was only done for a very few and specific acts.  As far as I have
been able to determine homosexuality was not one of these.  If you have
other information please define its source (chapter and verse of the
Bible will be sufficient).  By all of the studies, 6% to 15% of all men
are homosexual *irreguardless of race, religion, or time in history*.
Thus your above arguement is bogus horseshit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	(I definitely do not agree with punishment of homosexuals; I am
rebutting your contention about Jewish law; I have consulted an Orthodox
friend who is a rabbinical student.) Translation from NEB.
	Lev.18.22. You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is
an abomination (an expression for a most grave sin).
	Lev.18.29,30. for anyone who does any of these abominable things
shall be cut off from his people. Observe the charge, therefore, and follow
none of the abominable institutions customary before your time.
	Lev.20.13. If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they
both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be
on their own hands.
	There are four punishments by death, according to the offense: stoning
to death is considered to be the least severe.
	You should consult an Orthodox authority concerning the interpretation
of Jewish Law, if you want to understand their tradition.

	I did not say what you would have, but said "it is very probable that
Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there were so few."
I said nothing about estimates of proportions of homosexuals in various
cultures; besides, this is very speculative. What I said is that it was
considered to be an 'abomination' among the Jews, punishable by death. Jesus
was very probably a public figure for one year (and no more than three years);
as I said, in this repressive society, Jesus very well might not have met
a public example of 'a persecuted homosexual Jew' during his ministry. Recall
that disciples who knew about his ministry wrote the Gospels; he did not
write anything himself. They do report the account of the adulterous woman,
which gives his attitude toward both sexual sins and toward the Law: he
reminds us that we have all sinned; he does not condemn her; he tells her
to stop sinning. That is, he rejects the mercilessness of the old law, and
the hypocrisy of those who would condemn others with punishment.
	(I have never met 'a persecuted homosexual', as such, even in this
fairly open society. I've seen them on television, but I've never met one.
I have demonstrated in Austin, Texas against proposals of housing laws 
which discriminate against homosexuals. There was no TV in Jesus day, his
society was repressive, and he seems to be very busy with those who sought
him out or whom he encountered.)
	As for your contentions about modern foreign cultures, you seem to
be very uninformed by their members. I work in a research institute in which
we have literally dozens of visitors every year from all over the world:
China, Taiwan, India, Australia, Italy, Israel, East Germany, Finland,
Japan, France, Iran, from all over the world. I have been informed that
homosexuality is very uncommon and unaccepted among the very largest cultures.
You may say that is because they are repressive, so that homosexuals do not
disclose themselves publicly, but that is not my point: it is not publicly
common or even privately accepted in these cultures. It is here and in some
more tolerant countries. But their 'repressiveness' has nothing to do with
Christianity, and you are denigrating their cultural values if you insist
upon this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>	As for his other attitudes about sexuality, they are very clear.
>First, he says marriage may interfere with ministry, but does not insist

You seem to be confusing Jesus and Paul (Saul) here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	Of course not. 
	Paul does make some recommendations. But read Matthew where Jesus
says some are celibate for the sake of the kingdom of God, but he does not
insist upon this. (see a commentary) By the way, apparently the contemporary
Essene monks were celibate, while the Pharisaic rabbis were married of course.
But this, as well as his own unmarried state, may have prompted this exchange.
(The Essenes were extremely ascetic and pious; however this may be, they were
not merciful to sinners, and their ethical teachings were not like those of
Jesus.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>	The most revealing thing Jesus says, quoting scripture in Genesis,
>is that man and woman were made by God for each other, therefore, no man
>should break this bond (marriage). You may draw your own conclusion about
>his tacit presuppositions, if you are sincere.

I've never been married to a woman.  Does this mean that I shouldn't break
up with my lover of five years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	Of course not; do you reason like this all the time? He presupposes
the divine provision of heterosexual mating, period. There is no provision
for homosexuality at all; this would undermine the sanctity of the other.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>	There is no room for the persecution of anyone, especially of
>those who suffer. This is what the Gospel teaches. But there is no
>recommendation of homosexuality either; it is clear that Jesus accepted
>the Jewish tradition that men and women were made for each other according
>to the purpose of God. However, he rejected the merciless cruelty shown to 
>sinners, who after all were suffering anyway, and who might come to
>repentance if only we were more merciful, as God would have us be.

-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	On this, I suppose we are agreed.
					
From umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower 
Article 6126 of net.religion:
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: cvl!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower
>From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Brower
Message-ID: <5168@fortune.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 85 02:07:13 GMT
Date-Received: 4 Apr 85 13:05:54 GMT
References: <237@cvl.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Distribution: net
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 87

In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes:
>	Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live
>as a large proportion of homosexuals do?
>	I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual
>individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised
>discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is
>that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection,
>and death are considerably higher among this population than among non-
>homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and
>happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them.
>The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why?

As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people,
evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather
than being intimately connected to homosexuality.  As for how I can live
"this way", I cannot live any other way than gay.  "Why?" you ask, so that
the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit.  Finally,
a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement
on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously
most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention
it.

>	You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual,
>not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further-
>more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from
>ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is
>not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. 
>Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, 
>accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to 
>pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are
>very mistaken.

You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you
forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside.  You are right about
the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due
to Christian spread intolerence* however.  I don't even recommend it, if one
can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being
gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots.

>	If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really
>representative of most homosexuals?

Yes.

>	We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question
>is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended
>to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended?

15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual.  Is it healthy
to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc?
No.  Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the
rest of their lives?  Yes.  Will it change their orientation to tell them
such things?  No.  Will some of the larger percentage of children that
aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going
out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights.  Yes.
Do you wish to continue the cycle?

>	Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very
>'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not
>mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is
>said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are
>living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for
>'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to
>refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion,
>or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian 
>Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you
>on your way?  But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment'
>has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and
>is generally confused with a quality of opinion.

	enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc.  2.  to
		inform, instruct.   enlightenment n.
			_Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_

Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened.  Some
Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those.
Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as
*the* definition.  What enlightened me, by the way, was having to
live with prejedice every day of my life.  Since one of the major
teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral
code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself.  Since I do
not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't
either.  Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in
need of enlightenment.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower