sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/12/84)
[net.religioners, pardon this flaming digression. This article appeared here, so I have chosen to address it here.] >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. Lissen, Sargent, we had this discussion a loong time ago, in a newsgroup far far away (I think it was net.singles.) STOP SUPERIMPOSING YOUR OWN NEUROSES ON GAY PEOPLE, OK? It is bad enough that we have to suffer through his ruminations on childhood, divorce and his own sexual orientation, given that he dismisses serious counseling as a valid option. But it is outrageous that he should take these peculiar, private explanations for his neuroses and paint gay people with the same color. DON'T TRY TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT "GAY PEOPLE" ARE LIKE, GIVEN YOUR ADMITTED LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THE AREA. The mindless presumption of this guy seems endless. Worst of all, you'll take him to task for it, he'll allow that maybe he did overreach things a bit, but it sure won't prevent him from making the same kind of statement a few months later. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/16/84)
Read the article again. The passage: >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. > Jeff Sargent belies your charge that he was only talking about himself. Sargent has already made the claim that he isn't a "confirmed homosexual." If he limited his comments to his own peccadillos, then I would just chalk it up to good 'ol Jeff. The offensive part is that he is fearless in making claims about other people, and these claims are NOT innocent charges. The other sex is NOT an enemy to me, or to any other gay people I know, nor am I, or others, "wounded." Indeed, the only "wounds" I bear are those made by people like Sargent who persist in making careless remarks like those above. Your comments: >Oh, come ON, Steve! Gays are no more NOR LESS human than anyone else >and will have just as many (or as few) neuroses as anyone else! are pretty irrelevant to this discussion. I have never ever made a claim about the mental health of entire groups of people, in distinction to the first quoted paragraph above which makes a pretty good case for the questionable mental health of gay people. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/20/84)
From Steve Dyer, in response to my article giving my thoughts on homosexuality: > STOP SUPERIMPOSING YOUR OWN NEUROSES ON GAY PEOPLE, OK? Sorry, but I still claim that homosexuality is a form of neurosis, and neurosis is a result of sin -- holding to false beliefs about oneself and one's environment. There are many cases of homosexuals being delivered from homosexuality by the power of God. (I'll probably expand on this idea when I respond to Richard Brower's article.) > It is bad enough that we have to suffer through his ruminations on > childhood, divorce and his own sexual orientation, given that he dismisses > serious counseling as a valid option. But it is outrageous that he should > take these peculiar, private explanations for his neuroses and paint gay > people with the same color. Actually the last half of the first sentence is no longer true.... I am seeing regularly a man who is now officially a minister, but whose previous work was full-time marriage & family counseling; he is thus very helpful in helping me sort out my relationship problems. I used net.singles as a support group because it's easier to trust people at a distance than people I see regularly -- the distant ones can't do much to me, especially since by the time I see their responses, my hurting emotional state has passed. > DON'T TRY TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT "GAY PEOPLE" ARE LIKE, GIVEN YOUR > ADMITTED LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THE AREA. Perhaps in one way I am being a bit presumptive, since I've never actually fallen into homosexuality full-fledgedly. But I have had more struggles with homosexual feelings than most people I've talked to; so I'm not 100% ignorant. I do wonder why my statements provoke a flame. It has been my experience that heated denials often are a cover for a truth that the denier does not want to accept or admit. Might I suggest that you examine yourself and see if perhaps, at bottom, you really do have some -- shall we say, reservations -- about homosexuality. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/21/84)
-- >> Sorry, but I still claim that homosexuality is a form of neurosis, >> and neurosis is a result of sin -- holding to false beliefs about >> oneself and one's environment. There are many cases of homosexuals >> being delivered from homosexuality by the power of God. >> Jeff Sargent Clearly not as many as being delivered *to* homosexuality--and you don't need a revelation to see that; queueing theory will do fine. Actually, the whole fundamentalist dogma fits into a queueing model rather nicely. Until the big interrupt comes, anyway. But this "neurosis is a result of sin"--what an intriguing hypothesis. Don't stop there, Jeff. Surely other diseases are caused by sin, too. Especially the really disgusting ones like cancer of the pancreas and the black death. The so-called "germ theory" is an even more invidiously humanist plot than evolution. How do we get rid of this sin? Heh, heh (thank you, Mr. Calvin)-- we *beat* it out of them! But wait, this is the 20th Century. What are we, barbarians? We don't have to resort to *fisticuffs* any more. We can beat the odious sin out of those filthy, perverted (but otherwise lovable) sinners *electronically*. In net.religion. *EVERY SINGLE DAY*. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 20 Nov 84 [30 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/23/84)
For those who think homosexuality is learned, or a sin, the following
information presented on Tuesday's PBS program "Brain and Language"
might be interesting:
(1) More homosexual males are born of mothers who suffered severe
stress in pregnancy. Aren't unborn children supposed to be free of sin?
(2) There is a chemical test, whose nature I didn't get straight,
that reacts one way with female brain tissue and a different way with
male. The brain tissue of a homosexual male reacts like a female.
I suppose there are ways in which learning to react like a female
to male stimulation could cause this effect, but it seems a bit
unlikely.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/26/84)
>=Sargent >Perhaps in one way I am being a bit presumptive, since I've never actually >fallen into homosexuality full-fledgedly. But I have had more struggles with >homosexual feelings than most people I've talked to; so I'm not 100% ignorant. > >I do wonder why my statements provoke a flame. It has been my experience that >heated denials often are a cover for a truth that the denier does not want >to accept or admit. Might I suggest that you examine yourself and see if >perhaps, at bottom, you really do have some -- shall we say, reservations -- >about homosexuality. It's clear in Sargent's entire response to my article that he has missed the point. He still is writing out of befuddlement, amazed that anyone could possibly take offense at his bizarre generalizations. Regardless of their origin (more on that later) his comments are akin to so-called christians proseletyzing among Jews, so filled with self-righteousness that they do not see their capacity for insult. I make no comment on his last paragraph here, except to repeat it, so it can stand off by itself, as another example of the kind of ad-hominem double-talk and evasiveness we see repeatedly coming from the fundamentalist corner. I received a response by mail to my first comment on Jeff's article: > I get the impression that Jeff Sargent's problem is > that he uses introspection to understand humanity, and > (badly) generalizes from his own experiences and neuroses to > the rest of the world. It's an easy trap to fall into, > especially when one is young and lonely -- which he is. This just about sums it up. I have no problem hearing Jeff's explanations of his own mental processes, but he needs to understand that only Jeff works like Jeff, and to assume otherwise is to invite misunderstanding. To then publically propose this as the mechanism by which 10% of the population operates, is to provoke anger and flames. I speak up here against Jeff Sargent's view of gay people, not because, as he so glibly states, that I have "reservations about homosexuality", but because *someone* needs to state the contrary--a statement like his should not go unchallenged. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/27/84)
In article <1504@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >Sorry, but I still claim that homosexuality is a form of neurosis, and >neurosis is a result of sin -- holding to false beliefs about oneself and >one's environment. There are many cases of homosexuals being delivered >from homosexuality by the power of God. (I'll probably expand on this idea >when I respond to Richard Brower's article.) And I still claim that the world is flat. You show me the literature backing up your claim and I'll show you the literature backing up mine. Both are equally valid. I can think of any number of cases where homosexuals were reassured that they were 'normal' by religion as well. It works both ways. As it should, of course. Some homosexuals are neurotic, but then, so are some Christians. If we choose our studies carefully enough we can prove anything while proving nothing. chuq -- From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/27/84)
> aren't unborn children free of sin?
Not according to the so-called "Christians" they're not!
I think most schools of thought still hold that an unbaptized
baby goes to hell, or at least "limbo". Wonderful!rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/28/84)
[Once again, Jeff's response article that Steve Dyer quoted never got here. If someone (say the author) would... etc.] >>I do wonder why my statements provoke a flame. It has been my experience that >>heated denials often are a cover for a truth that the denier does not want >>to accept or admit. [SARGENT] Oh, boy. Like when, if someone accuses you of wishful thinking as the basis of your religious belief, you call him a liar. Like when, if someone exposes the fact that your analysis (of the real causes of what you subjectively believe to be the work of god) is shoddy, presuming pre-chosen conclusions, and avoiding less presumptive possibilities, you claim that the burden of proof is on THEIR shoulders to prove YOU wrong. Or you call them one of "Satan's secret agents", or victims of "Satan's propaganda". I'll stop now. I think I've summed it up. > I received a response by mail to my first comment on Jeff's article: > > > I get the impression that Jeff Sargent's problem is > > that he uses introspection to understand humanity, and > > (badly) generalizes from his own experiences and neuroses to > > the rest of the world. It's an easy trap to fall into, > > especially when one is young and lonely -- which he is. > > This just about sums it up. I have no problem hearing Jeff's explanations > of his own mental processes, but he needs to understand that only Jeff works > like Jeff, and to assume otherwise is to invite misunderstanding. [DYER] Agreed. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ltn@lems.UUCP (Les Niles) (11/28/84)
In article <nsc.1903> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) writes: >... Some homosexuals are neurotic, but then, so are some Christians. >... >chuq >-- Who says they're mutually exclusive?
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (11/29/84)
>> aren't unborn children free of sin? >Not according to the so-called "Christians" they're not! Also not according to "real" Christians (there's those funny quotation marks again, Paul!). Christians believe that all persons (from the moment of conception) are by nature sinners. Everyone inherits this sin condition as a result of Adam's fall. The only person who can claim exception to this is Jesus. >I think most schools of thought still hold that an unbaptized >baby goes to hell, or at least "limbo". Wonderful! Maybe Roman Catholic schools of thought do, and maybe even some others. But I can't be sure that *most* schools of thought do. I can only speak for my denomination, Presbyterian, which makes it very clear that infant baptism is not "magic," and that the sacrament itself conveys no saving power. The sacrament is a symbol of God's acceptance of the child into a covenant family of believers. Then thru the nurture of these believers, this child can come to a point in his/her life where he/she has to personally accept Christ to inherit eternal life with Him. At and after this point, a decision against Christ (or a lack of decision for Christ) will mean eternal separation from God (i.e. hell) upon earthly death. But what do we believe happens to a child (baptized or unbaptized) of believing parents (or even of unbelieving parents) who loses his/her earthly life before he/she is capable of making such a decision? We don't know for sure, but we do believe that God in His infinite wisdom has worked out His own way to give eternal life to those whom He has chosen, just as we believe He elected those people who are to be His since before the beginning of time. (Any theologians of Presbyterian persuasion who can confirm or deny the accuracy of my statements? If I'm wrong, please correct me.) This latter point may sound like a wishy-washy copout to some, but I believe it's the best we can do with our finite knowledge of God. The real copout, in my mind, is by those people who aren't believers in Christ, but because of certain church dogma they may remember from their childhood, feel a need to baptize their newborn "just in case." Actually, that's not a copout -- that's superstition! Carl Blesch
jeffh@brl-tgr.ARPA (Jeff Hanes ) (11/30/84)
>> aren't unborn children free of sin? Yes! >Not according to the so-called "Christians" they're not! >I think most schools of thought still hold that an unbaptized >baby goes to hell, or at least "limbo". Wonderful! When did you grow up? The Middle Ages? I've been a Christian for most of my life, and I've NEVER heard anyone seriously support such a doctrine in ANY of the half-dozen or so churches I have regularly attended (I move a lot). It must be nice to be able to accuse a whole group of ignorance and intolerance without bothering to find out what they believe first! I admit, there are Christians as hypocritical as you show yourself to be here, and they thoroughly embarass me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Fantome Straynger <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< "Insert nonsensical quote here" USnail: 508 Wheel Rd. UUCP: {seismo,decvax,unc}!brl-bmd!jeffh Bel Air, MD 21014 ARPA: <brl-bmd!jeffh@seismo.ARPA>
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (11/30/84)
Jeff Sargent: > From Steve Dyer, in response to my article giving my thoughts on > homosexuality: > > > STOP SUPERIMPOSING YOUR OWN NEUROSES ON GAY PEOPLE, OK? > > Sorry, but I still claim that homosexuality is a form of neurosis, and > neurosis is a result of sin -- holding to false beliefs about oneself and > one's environment. > If you have factual evidence to back up your claim, let's see it! If not, your claim reduces to mere unsubstantiated opinion, and you should label it as such, not proclaim it as the ultimate truth. > I do wonder why my statements provoke a flame. I don't -- extreme egocentrism very often does. -- Saumya Debray, SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs \ {amd, akgua, decwrl, utzoo}!allegra > !sbcs!debray {tektronix, metheus}!ogcvax / CSNet: debray@sbcs
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (12/04/84)
As a noted author (I can't remember who) oncce said: "Man created god in his own image so he would have something to strive for" Your inference that something is sinful must mean that you have taken the bull(####) by the horns and achieved the goal of all mankind. My condolances. Since you are now god I have a small list of things which I think are sinful. Perhaps if you would give me a call we could really clean house. Jeanette Zobjeck