> Dan Eumurian writes:
> [in reply to Burgy...]
> >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 agree
> >to address these societal problems and agree that heterosexuality is the
> >paradigm in the Bible and in Nature? I suggest that this would keep us
> >productively occupied.
> Using 'nature' as a standard is fraught with problems. It's an often
> seen problem of confusing 'is' with 'ought'.
> Tim Ikeda (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fair enough. Yet a guest author on Jean Feraca's Wisconsin Public Radio
program some time ago tried to make the point opposite to mine by coming
up with examples from 'nature."
I would agree with Thomas Howard, who, as I recall, wrote in
Christianity Today magazine back in the 1980s that male and female
bodies were obviously designed for one another, and not for extraneous
objects or activities. Even Redbook magazine, in the late 1970s, ran an
article entitled "What men really want in a woman." The author asked,
"Who would want to go to bed with a carbon copy?"
I'll mention three resources and then will be happy to drop the subject
unless anyone wants to continue online or offline.
1. <exodusinternational.org> which has a wealth of information from a
Christian perspective on attaining freedom from homosexual involvement;
2. A book entitled _Friends_, which I ran across in the Wheaton College
library in the 70s, which described notable man-to-man friendships which
were not complicated by sexual involvement;
3. _Getting the Love You Want_, by Harville Hendrix, Ph.D. (Henry Holt &
Co., 1988; pb. Harper & Row, 1990, ISBN 0-06-097292-0), which argues
that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the best environment for
personal growth. My wife and I--"total exact opposites"--would agree.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 25 2001 - 15:58:29 EDT