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."
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