rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/19/84)
> In retrospect I realize that "filthy people" looks like a put down. > In no way do I intend to suggest that *persons who practice > filthiness* (in this case homosexuals) are without the love of > God or incapable of breaking with filthiness (*repenting*). > Homosexuals can certainly repent (in which case they would no > longer be homosexuals) and attain to the same measure of prosperity > and dignity as anyone else who loves God with his whole heart. [BRUNSON] As usual, you fail to explain, even in your "reductionist" argument ("I didn't mean that gays were filthy, I meant that they are practicing filthiness") the basis for referring to homosexuality as filthiness, instead simply referring to it as such for no logical reason. (Which is what Ken Arndt has done ad infinitum throughout his history with the net, adding random statistics and "informed opinions" to give his rambling a "scholarly tone".) What frightens me is that people seem to be saying "Wait, Arndt may be obnoxious, but look at those statistics and opinions. No, he has no fundamental logic behind what he says, he just calls what he doesn't like a derogatory term and expects us all to agree. Still, those statistics and opinions he quotes... Hmm...." No wonder Reagan is going to be elected again! It seems people will believe anything clouded cleverly enough in figures and noise. As far as Arndt's scholarly opinions and statistics, for any informed opinion or statistic you provide, I can dig up ten that contradict them, and you can in turn dig up another 100, and so on. The point is: Arndt and Brunson assume that we agree that the following questions are either rhetorical or the answers are obvious: Why is homosexuality filthiness? Why is practicing it wrong? Why do gays (and the rest of us as well) have to justify their beliefs and actions based on YOUR opinions of their rightness/wrongness, especially when you don't back up those opinions with logical reasons? If you can't argue any of those things and support the arguments clearly, then you have nothing to say. Scholarly opinions and quotes and figures are useless without the logic to back those opinions up. >>Until that wonderful day, however, conscientious citizens should >>do all they can to prevent persons who practice filthiness from >>gaining power in government, forcing employers to hire them, or >>bringing economic sanctions via legislation against those who >>would discriminate against them in business. > Note that this paragraph in no way suggests that people should > be turned out on the street hungry, penniless, pitilessly oppressed > by the *mighty Christians*. Rather, it states that the right of > citizens to hire whomever they desire (allowing recognized *legitimate* > minority protection) should not be infringed upon. What's a legitimate minority? What's legitimate protection? I've said it before, I'll say it again: The reason for fighting for the rights of oppressed groups is not to liberate that group, but to end oppression against all groups for all time, and to make the very act of oppression wrong rather than just the particular oppression of a given group, now a "legitimate" minority. I'll wait for Arndt and Brunson to offer cogent rational responses documenting the validity of their viewpoints. ("Homosexuality is filthiness, isn't it obvious? And here are some figures..." doesn't cut it!) I'm not holding my breath (though Ken might wish that I would...) I'm beginning to agree with those who believe that Arndt and Brunson are just trying to make those who emit irrational arbitrary viewpoints look foolish. If this is so, boys, please stop. Such people do a better job of it than you ever could. (NO SMILEY INTENDED) -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!