RE: RE: Gay Marriage/Homosexuality

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 15:48:05 EDT

The editor of the newspaper chose the title “Unnatural Acts” not me. If following to homosexual path is not a choice, then what is it? My genes made me do it. Why can’t a criminal use the same argument? You know very well than one day our knowledge of the scientific description of a human will be so advanced that we can indicate the actions that are most likely in any individual. Does that invalidate the notion of sin and free will?


I think knowing people that do not share our views and choices will make us love each other more not eliminate the notion of what sin is. Let us not forget that we are all sinners. The sins of the flesh are not the worst. Pride is the apex of all sins. Therefore, some of us are more offensive in the eyes of God than homosexuals are.



        -----Original Message-----
        From: on behalf of John W Burgeson
        Sent: Wed 6/9/2004 1:09 PM
        Subject: Fw: RE: Gay Marriage/Homosexuality

        Moorad posted:
        "Christ indicated what love is when He said; €œA new commandment I give
        to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you
        also love one another. John 13:34. Christ’s love was essentially
        sacrificial and humans can emulate that to a certain extent."
        "Some have taken such verses to indicate that Christ had a homosexual
        relationship with the one or more of the apostles."
        I have read some of those arguments. They are quite unpersuasive.
        "Such people are trying to justify their following their natural
        tendencies so that others will find their behavior acceptable."
        You ascribe a motivation to them. I did not know that you were God and
        could discern such things.
        "However, the criminal can do the same. The criminal can say that he was
        born that way and so he is justified in following his natural
        That argument is just plain silly.
        "Note that both the homosexual and the criminal are breaking God’s law.
        God is offended by their actions. We also ought to be offended since we
        were created in His image."
        This argument is, of course, an example of the fallacy of "affirming the
        consequent." Sine the issue under discussion is the question of whether
        ALL same-gender intimacy is, ipso facto, "sin," it does not advance a
        debate by affirming loudly one's position on that question.
        "The following letter was published in The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)"
        I'll comment selectively.
        "Unnatural acts "
        Sets the tone by the title. Fallacy of the persuasive adjective.
        "In defense of "tolerance," a Feb. 14 letter-writer disparagingly
        referred to our society as "homophobic" and wrongly affirmed the
        "naturalness" of a homosexual orientation. Our nation was founded on the
        Christian faith and many of our policies, e.g., Abstinence Until
        Marriage, are based on Christian teachings and morality."
        Or on cultural teachings, often conflated with "Christian."
        "We are forewarned in Scripture, according to the New American Standard
        Bible translation, that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
        adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the
        covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the
        kingdom of God." Must we, therefore, consider all such acts as natural
        and give hearty approval to those who practice them?"
        What we MUST do is study these things seriously. This means reading
        material by people with whom we do not agree. I have a lot of material on
        my site of this nature. Have you ever read any of that material?
        The word "homosexuals" in the above is a clear mis-translation. The word
        "fornicators" in the above is a probable mistranslation.
        "Diversity is really based on knowing that each one of us is created in
        the image of God, the Creator referred to in our Declaration of
        Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. I will agree with this.
        "Tolerance and knowledge of who we are is best practiced when we "love
        the sinner and hate the sin."
        To do that, one has to be really really sure the "sin" really is one.
        Two scenarios, Moorad.
        1. ALL same-gender intimacy is a sin (your position).
        You and I die the same day and arrive at the GATE together. Joint
        God: "Burgy, your position was wrong."
        Me: "Sorry." I tried."
        God: "Yes, you did."
        God: "Moorad, your position was right."
        Moorad: "Thanks."
        God: "I was not saying that in approval. You did not try to understand;
        you just took your position on someone else's say-so.
        God: "Come on in, both of you. You are saved by my Grace."
        2. Same-gender intimacy, as performed in a loving domestic adult
        relationship, is not a sin. (my position).
        God: "Burgy, you got that one right, at least."
        Me: "I tried. I was always in doubt."
        God: "Doubt was always in my plan."
        God" "Moorad, you position was wrong."
        Moorad: "Sorry."
        God: "That's OK.
        God: "Come on in, both of you. You are saved by my grace."
        The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
        Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
        Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!
Received on Wed Jun 9 16:08:42 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 16:08:43 EDT