On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:11:50 +0100 Dan Eumurian <email@example.com>
> In response to your use of the term "homophobia," which I believe is
> over-used (not by you), I submit the following essay. Why don't we
> to address these societal problems and agree that heterosexuality is
> paradigm in the Bible and in Nature? I suggest that this would keep
> productively occupied.
> By Dan Eumurian
> “Fear always springs from ignorance,” wrote the nineteenth century
> poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson. The Bible states in First John
> 4:18, “The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”
> If a person can be portrayed as unreasonably fearful, then, that
> person would also seem to be both ignorant and unloving.
> The term “homophobia” appears frequently in the mainstream press as
> well as in pro–homosexual literature. The supposed fear of
> seems to be placed on the same level as fear of heights, fear of
> or fear of open places–things which exhibit psychological
> genetic defects or unfortunate, atypical past experiences.
> It used to be that homosexuality was seen as a psychological
> abnormality, characteristic of children who grew up with a
> mother and a timid father. But now anyone who does not accept
> behavior as normal is considered a narrow–minded bigot––by some
> supposedly broad–minded moderates.
> Let’s consider for a moment some of the causes of homosexuality.
> with the dysfunctional family setting just mentioned, some people
> into homosexual behavior because they were molested as a child by
> someone of the same gender. Others are placed in situations where no
> partner of the opposite sex is available due to incarceration or
> military service. Perhaps some react against the exploitation of sex
> commercial purposes, macho stereotypes in modern culture, or an
> heterosexual relationship. Neuro–anatomist Simon La Vey of the Salk
> Institute in San Francisco has reported that part of the hypothalamus
> portion of the brain in homosexual men is half the size of that in
> men. Although such persons deserve love and empathy, I should not be
> labeled as a homophobe if I refuse to endorse the lifestyle to which
> these factors may lead.
> Perhaps they could just say that I have homodisagreebia.
> I do not agree that we need gay advocates telling our elementary
> school children that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle,
> equivalent to heterosexuality.
> I do not agree that we need counselors encouraging our high school
> students to adopt homosexuality, rather than helping them to face
> without fear the rewarding challenges of heterosexual relationships
> singleness. We have no business promoting premarital sex, whether
> heterosexual or homosexual.
> I do not agree that promiscuity, whether homosexual or
> should be seen strictly as a civil rights issue when it walks and
> like a public health issue.
> The standard in nature as well as in the Bible is heterosexuality,
> among humans it works best in a monogamous, committed relationship.
> a relationship constitutes true diversity.
> I must expose what the Bible calls sin wherever I see it, and must
> show Christ’s mercy and love to all sinners, just as God has
> revealed my
> sin and shown Christ’s mercy and love to me.
> If some people don’t think I should be allowed to hold this
> in disagreement with popular culture, it may be that they’re
> with a real social disease.
> © 2000, Dan Eumurian
IMO, your comment and essay are dead on. Further, I wonder about the
exercise of arguing that, since Paul doesn't mention committed
relationships, they must be OK. Has the argument from silence somehow
become valid? As I see it, in the Jewish tradition within which Paul
lived, there could never be a committed homosexual relationship for, the
instant contact was discovered, the participants would be very dead. This
was clearly not the case in the pagan world, but that was what Paul was
explicitly condemning in Romans 1.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 00:17:37 EDT