Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21709
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity
Message-ID: <May.19.05.15.20.1993.1029@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 May 93 09:15:21 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 38
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.13.02.31.26.1993.1577@geneva.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

> It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.

No.  It is very relevant.  Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are
topically aranged together in the law.  This is very important.
Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality
deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there
is no proof for this.)  If the Law reveals the character of God, and 
is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then
those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts
to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.  

Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human
adult relationships?  Isn't that bordering on sophistry?  The point
we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts.
Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional
argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors.
The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.  

I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member
of the same sex.  I have them, and we all do.  The issue at hand is 
the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after.
So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation. 

And the idea that these relationships may be  emotional  relationships
between adult humans is red herring.  We all agree that it is okay 
for adults to  have caring relationships with one another.

Link Hudson.
