Re: RE: Gay Marriage/Homosexuality

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 17:26:49 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
To: "John W Burgeson" <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Gay Marriage/Homosexuality

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 you're missing the basic problem here. Yes, people have
free will to a certain extent - i.e., they can choose whether or not to
commit certain acts.
But they are not completely free to choose the types of people they are
sexually attracted to. Most people are, without making a conscious choice
in the matter, attracted to persons of the other sex. A small percentage
are, again without making a a conscious decision about it, attracted to
members of the same sex.
That doesn't mean that they have to have sexual relations with such
persons - which is where their free will comes in.

        But of course sexual urges are very powerful & are not easily
suppressed. Heterosexual persons don't have to suppress them because they
can get married: St. Paul's "It is better to marry than to burn" isn't the
most romantic endorsement of marriage but it's realistic. But homosexual
persons do not, within the traditional structures of church and society,
have any corresponding legitimate way to deal with their sexual urges.

        Some people will claim that persons of homosexual persons have as
much of a right to be married as heterosexual ones, that both expressions of
sexuality are equally valid, &c. I don't think such claims hold up under
serious theological scrutiny. The question is rather whether there should
be some sort of recognition of same sex unions as a way of helping
homosexual persons to deal with their condition in the best way that's
possible for them and as a way of trying to protect society from the
consequences of sexual promiscuity. That is, N.B., a real question, not a
rhetorical one.

Received on Wed Jun 9 17:41:43 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 17:41:43 EDT