jimc@haddock.UUCP (11/01/84)
#R:usfbobo:-20900:haddock:21800002:000:1031 haddock!jimc Oct 31 14:37:00 1984 It seems apparent to me that you hold the indivdual personally responsible for the sexuality he/she has as if it were the individual's choice whether or not to be gay. The logical reason I offer against your simple refusal to associate with homosexuals is this: sexuality is not a matter of taste, and just as you did not sit down and decide to be heterosexual (which I am assuming you are), homosexuals did not make the decision to be gay either. I consider it against my religion (Catholic) to blame anyone for something which he/she cannot control. In fact, recent scientific findings suggest that one's sexuality is determined before birth. In other words, whether or not you or the entire heterosexual community decides to refuse homosexuals the rights they deserve, homosexuality will go on, either openly or "behind the closet door". The best thing to do, as I see it, would be to accept this and confront the fact that many people will not act in accord with our personal prejudices. Jim Campbell
Pucc-H:aeq@CS-Mordred (11/09/84)
From Jim Campbell (haddock!jimc): > It seems apparent to me that you [Brunson] hold the individual personally > responsible for the sexuality he/she has as if it were the individual's > choice whether or not to be gay. The logical reason I offer against your > simple refusal to associate with homosexuals is this: sexuality is not a > matter of taste, and just as you did not sit down and decide to be > heterosexual (which I am assuming you are), homosexuals did not make the > decision to be gay either. I consider it against my religion (Catholic) to > blame anyone for something which he/she cannot control. In fact, recent > scientific findings suggest that one's sexuality is determined before birth. In a sense, an individual's sexuality is indeed a matter of choice. But the choice is between believing that the other sex is a friend or an enemy. There may be variants on this; one time when I had to battle some strong homosexual feelings was a time when I felt that God would (for reasons of His own) never allow me to have an intimate relationship with a woman -- the result of which would be that if I tried, God would ensure that I got badly hurt; so a woman would be, in a way, an enemy. (Mind you, this is one of several aspects of my view of God that have been mellowed out in the last couple of years.) My thesis is that confirmed homosexuals became convinced very early on -- in early childhood, perhaps -- that the other sex was somehow an enemy, and that being intimate with an other-sex person would be extremely threatening. However, the mere fact that their belief is very deep-seated, and probably based on very deep wounds, does not mean that it can't be changed. Having God's love and power to assist helps a lot. In other words, homosexuals and heterosexuals both decided their sexuality, probably not consciously, but decided nevertheless. I don't blame homosexuals for their choice; given the data presented to them, that undoubtedly seemed the best choice at the time, the one that reflected their perception of reality. But they can be given different data, about reality the way it actually is, and enabled to choose differently. This could even be done without God, but why do that when He's available and wants to help? -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (11/14/84)
> > In a sense, an individual's sexuality is indeed a matter of choice. But the > choice is between believing that the other sex is a friend or an enemy. There > may be variants on this; one time when I had to battle some strong homosexual > feelings was a time when I felt that God would (for reasons of His own) never > allow me to have an intimate relationship with a woman -- the result of which > would be that if I tried, God would ensure that I got badly hurt; so a woman > would be, in a way, an enemy. My > thesis is that confirmed homosexuals became convinced very early on -- in early > childhood, perhaps -- that the other sex was somehow an enemy, and that being > intimate with an other-sex person would be extremely threatening. However, the > mere fact that their belief is very deep-seated, and probably based on very deep > wounds, does not mean that it can't be changed. Having God's love and power to > assist helps a lot. I think that you assume one hell of a lot. I do not look on any women as being in any respect my enemy, nor do any of the other gay people that I associate with. Also, since Gods love is for all, I think you make another large assumption in assuming that gays do not have His power and support throughout our entire lives (we particularly need His help to deal with the homophobes misusing His name to oppress us). Richard Brower Fortune Systems
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/27/84)
>> = Jeff Sargent > = Richard Brower (fortune!brower) I promised in a response to Steve Dyer that I would respond to Richard Brower's article, so here goes.... >> In a sense, an individual's sexuality is indeed a matter of choice. But the >> choice is between believing that the other sex is a friend or an enemy.... >> My thesis is that confirmed homosexuals became convinced very early on -- >> in early childhood, perhaps -- that the other sex was somehow an enemy, and >> that being intimate with an other-sex person would be extremely threatening. >> However, the mere fact that their belief is very deep-seated, and probably >> based on very deep wounds, does not mean that it can't be changed. Having >> God's love and power to assist helps a lot. > I think that you assume one hell of a lot. I do not look on any women as > being in any respect my enemy, nor do any of the other gay people that I > associate with. Also, since God's love is for all, I think you make another > large assumption in assuming that gays do not have His power and support > throughout our entire lives (we particularly need His help to deal with > the homophobes misusing His name to oppress us). I will admit that once a gay man explained his homosexuality to me as follows (approximate quote from memory): "If you are like most straight men [as distinct from comedians? :-)], the idea of having sex with a man just doesn't appeal to you. Now imagine feeling that way about women." I will try to remember to refrain from trying to make sweeping judgments about the source of sexual preference, though I do still invite you to examine that of yours more closely. But I still call it a "preference". I have several times read accounts by homosexuals who came to the point where they hated their homosexual lifestyle (e.g. because it provided virtually no genuine human contact), and by giving themselves to Christ they were able to become happy, fulfilled heterosexuals. If you actually like being homosexual, and have actual human contact (soul touching soul and spirit touching spirit, not just body contact) in that lifestyle, then Christ may have a hard time convincing you that there's something better. Your last sentence does make an interesting point. God is merciful enough to help those who do not give themselves to him 100% (else who would ever be helped?); He may also help those who have not experienced faith in Him at all. (I'm not sure which category you fit in.) -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Clearing /tmp
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/29/84)
>>I think that you assume one hell of a lot. I do not look on any women as >>being in any respect my enemy, nor do any of the other gay people that I >>associate with. Also, since God's love is for all, I think you make another >>large assumption in assuming that gays do not have His power and support >>throughout our entire lives (we particularly need His help to deal with >>the homophobes misusing His name to oppress us). [BROWER] > I will admit that once a gay man explained his homosexuality to me as > follows (approximate quote from memory): "If you are like most straight > men [as distinct from comedians? :-)], the idea of having sex with a man > just doesn't appeal to you. Now imagine feeling that way about women." > I will try to remember to refrain from trying to make sweeping judgments > about the source of sexual preference, though I do still invite you to > examine that of yours more closely. But I still call it a "preference". > [SARGE] Amazing how Jeff gleaned from such an account that women would be perceived as enemies by gays. I would assume that this means that Jeff thinks of all men as HIS enemies, by this same logic. (After all, he wouldn't want to have sex with them, would he?) > I have several times read accounts by homosexuals who came to the point > where they hated their homosexual lifestyle (e.g. because it provided > virtually no genuine human contact), and by giving themselves to Christ > they were able to become happy, fulfilled heterosexuals. If you actually > like being homosexual, and have actual human contact (soul touching soul > and spirit touching spirit, not just body contact) in that lifestyle, then > Christ may have a hard time convincing you that there's something better. There are a lot of people of all sexual (and other) persuasions who live lives with virtually no human contact; that's one of the tragedies of our modern society in many ways. Unfortunately, I see many heterosexuals (and homosexuals) being quite accepting of this, which is perhaps sadder. Such non-contact may not be the status quo, but to varying degrees it permeates all strata of society. Jeff's last sentence sounds so strained, as though he doesn't believe the parenthetical could ACTUALLY be possible. What is this "something better" than "actual human contact"? I surmise that it is "better" only by your own subjective perspective and presupposition about what SHOULD be "best", such as when you made your statement about "sex is intended as a total union": who told you the intentions of the intender, and what's more where do you get off assuming that there IS an "intender" and that it has the same motives that you have? -- "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty *knife*!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (12/11/84)
> = Jeff Sargent >> = Richard Brower (fortune!brower) > >> I think that you assume one hell of a lot. I do not look on any women as >> being in any respect my enemy, nor do any of the other gay people that I >> associate with. Also, since God's love is for all, I think you make another >> large assumption in assuming that gays do not have His power and support >> throughout our entire lives (we particularly need His help to deal with >> the homophobes misusing His name to oppress us). > I will try to remember to refrain from trying to make sweeping judgments > about the source of sexual preference, though I do still invite you to > examine that of yours more closely. But I still call it a "preference". > I have several times read accounts by homosexuals who came to the point > where they hated their homosexual lifestyle (e.g. because it provided > virtually no genuine human contact), and by giving themselves to Christ > they were able to become happy, fulfilled heterosexuals. If you actually > like being homosexual, and have actual human contact (soul touching soul > and spirit touching spirit, not just body contact) in that lifestyle, then > Christ may have a hard time convincing you that there's something better. Actually, much of the problem with being a homosexual has to do with the fact that the oppression of gay people has been an American rallying point for generations. Many more gay relationships would be successful if we were not told by all you "good" folks that all we are into is 'body contact'. Your relationships are 'blessed by God' and good... my relationship is banal? There you go with another assumtion. Why doesn't my life partener qualify for company health insurance... he is the wrong sex. Well, I'll get by, but it is more difficult... and compared to a few years ago, things are easy today. > Your last sentence does make an interesting point. God is merciful enough to > help those who do not give themselves to him 100% (else who would ever be > helped?); He may also help those who have not experienced faith in Him at > all. (I'm not sure which category you fit in.) As for the above paragraph, it is yet another example of intolerance. Not only are the mainstream prodestant denominatins (of which you are fairly obviously not a member) currently reaching out to the gay community, with the understanding that gays are not automaticly doomed, but several Christian groupings are being formed by gay people. Gays have often been good Christians, although 'straight' churchs have had a great deal of trouble dealing with us. For some real Christian spirit, join your local Metropolitan Community Church, even if only for a few services. Communion is open to all believers and everyone is invited to participate. Yours in Christian love, Richard Brower Fortune Systems