Re: Questionnaire

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 17:04:57 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Paley and Pascal"

    Dan Emurian wrote, in part: "Dr. Rochlin's "questionnaire" is of some
    value in exposing shallow
    arguments against homosexuality, but speaking as a fellow satirist, I'd
    have to say it's pretty shallow itself. Of the gays and lesbians I have
    known, dysfunctional family upbringing, failed heterosexual
    relationships, childhood molestation and poor self-image have sometimes
    been factors, and sex roles have seemed to be rather stereotypical."

    Anecdotal stories, such as that, are a weak argument. To the extent I
    know about such things, the lesbians I know all had happy and satisfying
    family upbringings, no "family molestation," and siblings who developed
    heterosexually. Nor do they have, at this time, "poor self-image."

    Whether the questionnaire is "shallow," or not, I'll make no judgement.
    It was meant to "catch" a person who reads it and had no other particular
    goal. It certainly "caught" me. < G >

    Dan continued: "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."

    True, I do not accuse those who disagree with my position on this issue
    of homophobia. Too many people do that; it is sad.

    However, "keeping productively occupied" is not an option for me on this
    issue. To do so I must overlook wrongs being done to a specified minority
    group "in the name of Jesus." And that I cannot ignore by "keeping
    productively occupied" with other issues.

    I like your "homodisagreebia" piece; it makes some good points. When you
    say "But now anyone who does not accept homosexual behavior as normal is
    considered a narrow–minded bigot––by some
    supposedly broad–minded moderates," I am in your corner.

    But then you say: "Let’s consider for a moment some of the causes of
    homosexuality. Along with the dysfunctional family setting just
    mentioned, some people fall 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 for
    commercial purposes, macho stereotypes in modern culture, or an abusive
    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 other

    I'd observe that the study above is really scant evidence for anything in
    particular. What I object to in the above is your listing some of the
    (alleged) causes of homosexuality as if that list were an inclusive one.
    It is not. The causes listed may indeed be causal for sexual promiscuity,
    although I'm not sure even then it is a very complete list. But my claim
    is ONLY for those committed relationships which would be dignified with
    the term "marriage" if the state and church recognized same-sex domestic

    Dan continues "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'd probably observe that not to do so is to stigmatize those children in
    the schoolroom who happen to be part of a family with "two dads" or "two
    moms." Do you really wish to do this?

    Dan goes on: "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 or
    singleness. We have no business promoting premarital sex, whether
    heterosexual or homosexual."

    I'd go along with that.

    Dan: "I do not agree that promiscuity, whether homosexual or
    heterosexual, should be seen strictly as a civil rights issue when it
    walks and talks like a public health issue."

    I agree.

    Dan:"The standard in nature as well as in the Bible is heterosexuality,
    and among humans it works best in a monogamous, committed relationship.
    Such a relationship constitutes true diversity."

    I'd agree, although I don't know what the second sentence means.

    Dan: "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."

    The issue I pose is, of course, whether a domestic monogamous same-sex
    relationship IS sin, as far as the scriptures are concerned. If it is
    not, and I claim that it is not, then to tar persons who are not in sin
    with the "sin brush" is a serious affront to our Lord. My position
    statement (below) defines this claim as well as I can do that.

    Best, in still friendly (I hope) disagreement.

    John Burgeson (Burgy)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 30 2001 - 17:08:34 EDT