[net.religion] homosexuality and sin

crm@duke.UUCP (11/09/83)

The statement that "x is a sin is proved because the Bible says so" is miserable
logic and not very convincing at all!  First of all, it has as a (hidden) assu
(oops) assumption that if The Bible says it is so, it must be so.  What about
rest of us?  We Buddhists beleive that meat-eating is a sin (at least many of
us do.)  Should we exclude meat eating from being mentioned on the net too?

beyond that, what LOGICAL reason exists for some act which is a) pleasurable
and b) not possibly damaging to anyone that doesn't choose to participate not
to be "good"?

This is a quick flame, but I think the article that set it off points out a
particular problem in most religious discussion -- fallacious argument passed
off as if it had meaning.  Specifically, this is an examplke of the fallacy
of "appeal to authority".  Don't expect ME (at least) to take your arguments
seriously until they are presented in a manner NOT FALLACIOUS and NOT CIRCULAR.

Charlie Martin
...!duke!crm

djhawley@watmath.UUCP (djhawley) (11/21/83)

Let me inject a ?new? idea on why God would consider homosexuality a sin:

Sexuality in the bible is legitimized only in a marriage('till death do us..)
type of relationship.  Genesis quotes manking being created in two modalities,
which complement and complete each other (at least potentially ). Anything
that subverts this image/instruction on human sexuality hurts us
(in our communal aspect), and so is condemned.

More to the point, marriage is also used as a metaphor for the Jewish
nation's relationship with the Creator, and in the New Testament
as a metaphor for the relation of Christ and His Church (true believers).
Hence, it is my speculation that behaviour that defaces this metaphor
is wrong, in that it detracts from God's revelation of Himself.

In summary, sexuality is treated as important to our understanding
of ourselves. To misunderstand our sexuality is ultimately self-damaging.

    Comments ?
         David Hawley

PS : I think that the "natural" argument is specious too.
     Natural is what IS is what is RIGHT is what is Natural is ....

sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/22/83)

I think that David Hawley has expressed, fairly succinctly, the sum of
the Roman Catholic Church's arguments against proscribed sexual
behavior, which would include, but not be limited to, homosexuality,
masturbation, extra-marital sex, remarriage after divorce, and
contraception.  If you accept the Church's metaphor--mixing marriage,
the individual, Christ and His Church--then everything falls neatly into
place; a set of Thomist axioms describing the physics of souls and
salvation.

A problem arises when you try to apply this rigid theory to human beings
and their daily situations.  Immediately, the brittle beauty of its
logic begins to clash with human reality, to the point that to many
believers the law (lower case) becomes sadly irrelevant.  It is for this
reason that most Catholic couples in the U.S. practice contraception
despite the official teaching of the Church, and, in fact, are supported
by their confessors.  Likewise, the Party Line against masturbation is
considerably toned down these days, simply because a more strident
approach would appear ridiculous.  Of course, homosexuality is still an
acceptable whipping boy, simply because the majority of the Congregation
of the Faith has not measured the teaching against this reality.

I am not saying that public opinion does (or should) drive dogma.
Rather, I am saying that many people have grappled with official
teaching, and have resolved the issue with their conscience.  What does
one do with the argument that David Hawley presents, if you cannot
accept his premises?  What about a Protestant who agrees, in general,
but does not accept the inclusion of contraception and divorce?  What
about the homosexual who perseveres in both his membership in the Church
and his lifestyle?  Who sets up these axioms, and who will judge?

I tend to shy away from "X is a sin because..." arguments for precisely
these reasons.  They are exercises in human reason and human
justification.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca

djhawley@watmath.UUCP (David John Hawley) (11/25/83)

For clarification of my previous article, and Steve's response :

  1) I am a Protestant, and my "religious" background/thinking
     is garnered from that position
  2) I don't see how proscribing contraception is a necessary
     outcome of the principles I claim are biblical. I can see
     why masturbation might be ( narcissistic sex? ). Homosexuality
     seems a more obvious contradiction of the biblical imagery.

  I wholeheartedly agree that saying "X is sin because ..." is
valuing my reason above God's revelation; my thoughts on the subject
are ?"thinking God's thoughts after him"?, not corrective, normative,
or supplementary. For similar reasons, I don't see that appealing
to "real-life" is normative either, although our experiences force
us to reevaluate our dogma. I think that our moral stances evolve
from a number of sources, weighed by the authority we cede to each
source, and by our evaluation of how well we understand what each
source tells us. I trust my understanding of certain things in the
bible more than I do my understanding of certain "real-life"
situations.

     Sorry I ran on so long,
        David Hawley