Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Patricia, what a lovely note. Thanks for letting us know about the
Welcoming Congregation!


Glen

Re: Note 936.0        
POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"                    44 lines  15-JUN-1994 14:07

>>    The Unitarian Universalist Association has established a welcoming
>>    Congregation Program to build Congregations that are inclusive of
>>    divergent life styles.
  
Very good.  Jesus said that he didn't come for the healthy but for those who
are sick.  Since I am among the sick, I think this is a good ministry and
would urge you as a co-laborer in Christ to focus on repentence as Peter did
in Acts 2.
  
>>    The prime focus of the Welcoming Congregation program is to welcome
>>    Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexuals into the community of Faith.  While the UU
>>    church desire to be inclusive of all differences this is a particularly
>>    important program right now because of the nature of the oppression
>>    practiced by our society and because some of the oppression is rooted
>>    in religious traditions making it uncomfortable for some people to find
>>    welcoming faith communities.
  
Very good, but what about alcoholics?  It is said that alcoholism is a 
disease and is something one will always have.  It is natural for one to
drink from the bottle yet many alcoholics are oppressed today.
If I were an alcoholic and came to your church in a drunken stupor every 
Sunday, would you welcome me with open arms?
  
>>    THree years ago, I was on the Board of Director of my church, the UU
>>    church of Andover, when we decided to participate in this program.
>>    Initially I did not understand why this was so important to our
>>    community.  Since participating in the program I now know that the
>>    program is very important to the whole community, gay and straight.
  
In building up the body of Christ, do you offer seminars on abstinence from
adultery and fornication to both the heterosexual and homosexual 
community?  Human nature dictates that alot of us, including me, need this 
from time to time.
  
>>    Second, I have had the opportunity to attend a 8 session homophobia
>>    workshop which has allow me wonderful insight into my own homophobia
>>    and stereotypes.  We examined our own attitudes, Where we acquired
>>    those attitudes,<< what the Bible does have to say>>,and the impact of a
>>    heterosexist, homophobic society.  I found an amazing relationship
>>    between sexism and homphobia.
  
I'd be interested in what the Bible has to say about homophobia.  I do know it
says to flee from youthful lust and all that.  By the way, "homophobe" is a 
misnomer and a non-sequitur.  It implies fear due to lack of understanding.
No doubt there are homophobes out there; however, to imply all individuals
frowning on being gay as homophobes is simply wrong.  I do not fear gays, I 
fear the results of being gay.
  
>>    THird, My children benefit from a clear, consistent message about the
>>    naturalness of homosexuality before they can be thoroughly tainted by
>>    the bad jokes and remarks they begin learning in about 4th grade.
  
Naturalness?  Says who?
  
    
-Jack

| <<< Note 936.2 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| Very good, but what about alcoholics?  It is said that alcoholism is a
| disease and is something one will always have.  It is natural for one to
| drink from the bottle yet many alcoholics are oppressed today. If I were 
| an alcoholic and came to your church in a drunken stupor every Sunday, would 
| you welcome me with open arms?

	If alcoholism is a disease, what does that have to do with gays,
lesbians and bisexuals? Do you consider them diseased Jack? If not then me
thinks that you are comparing apples and oranges.

| In building up the body of Christ, do you offer seminars on abstinence from
| adultery and fornication to both the heterosexual and homosexual community?  
| Human nature dictates that alot of us, including me, need this from time to 
| time.

	Jack, if someone was in a union, would you consider it ok for sex to
happen then?

| I'd be interested in what the Bible has to say about homophobia.  I do know it
| says to flee from youthful lust and all that.  

	The Bible mentions nothing of homophobia Jack, but you knew that.
Considering the word homosexual was not around back then (but somehow made it
into the Bible) me thinks it won't say anything about homophobia.

| By the way, "homophobe" is a misnomer and a non-sequitur. It implies fear due 
| to lack of understanding.

	Jack, there is more to it than that. Add in hate and ya got it. BTW, I
do believe that someone can say homophobic things without actually being
homophobic. The things they say could be based on misconceptions. These
misconceptions COULD cause fear. But the 2 together do not make one a
homophobe.

| No doubt there are homophobes out there; however, to imply all individuals
| frowning on being gay as homophobes is simply wrong.  

	I agree with this 100% Jack.

| I do not fear gays, I fear the results of being gay.

	Jack, it's prety much the same thing, isn't it? Maybe you could share
what results you fear. This way it could help us understand if it really is the
same or something totally different.

| >>    THird, My children benefit from a clear, consistent message about the
| >>    naturalness of homosexuality before they can be thoroughly tainted by
| >>    the bad jokes and remarks they begin learning in about 4th grade.

| Naturalness?  Says who?

	Pssst..... the homosectionals...... :-)


Glen

    My daughter will be taking the UU About your Sexuality course in the
    Fall.  My son took the course two years ago.
    
    The main objective of the course is to make it safe for the young
    people to talk openly about sex particularly with their peers.
    
    The course is a value neutral course that stresses that the youngsters
    are responsible for making good choices regarding their own sexuality.
    
    The course is open and appropriate for both gay and straight youth. 
    Often there are no openly gay youth in the course.  the course assumes
    the possibility that some of the young people taking the course may be
    gay, whether they are aware of it or not.  The course discusses both
    heterosexuality and homosexuality.  The course takes into consideration
    that there are both gay and straight members of the UU Faith Community
    and teaches respect and acceptance of all. 
    
    The course teaches that all young people chosing to be sexually active
    should always wear a condom and shows the young people what a condom
    looks like and gives some level of instruction on how to use one.
    
    The course teaches that either partner has a right to say no at any
    step in the process.  The course teaches that sensitivity to each other
    is a critical part of the relationship.
    
    It has been shown statistically that young people taking this course,
    even though it does not make any judgement about teenage sex, often
    wait longer to engage in sex than young people not having access to
    this information.
    
    I have been told that an adult version of this course is also
    available.  I am not familiar with where it may be offered.
    
    The welcoming Congregation Program is not really associated with the
    AYS program.  The welcoming congregation Program specifically makes the
    point the Homosexuality is about much more than sex.
    
    My message to my daughter is that sex can be a beautiful expression of
    human love.  That responsible sex requires maturity.  That some people
    are gay and some are straight.  Sex among partners can be a beautiful
    expression of human love in both cases.
    
    Of course then my bias as a mother of a beautiful teenage girl kicks in
    and I tell her she still has to be careful about teenage boys, that
    rape does occur and can seriously affect the life of a person, and she
    has to be careful about where she goes and who she goes with.

Re: BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."                  

>>	If alcoholism is a disease, what does that have to do with gays,
>>lesbians and bisexuals? Do you consider them diseased Jack? If not then me
>>thinks that you are comparing apples and oranges.

By the standards of the American Medical Association, Alcoholism is
recognized as a disease and is treatable under most health insurance plans.
Therefore, it is a behavior that CANNOT be helped.  It is considered
a natural function until it can be treated.  Likewise, a brain tumor is a
disease, cannot be helped, and the person must live with it until it is treated.
I am comparing apples to apples here.  I am of the belief that alcoholismn is
an addiction, not a disease.  The propogation of the addiction started with
free choice; the "disease" ensued.
I was not implying that being gay was a disease, but I do believe that in
many individuals, being gay is a choice.  I also believe that there are
individuals who are indirectly conditioned to be gay.  Conjecture...?  Perhaps.
By the way, connecting sexism with homophobia is perposterous.  

>>| In building up the body of Christ, do you offer seminars on abstinence from
>>| adultery and fornication to both the heterosexual and homosexual community?  
>>| Human nature dictates that alot of us, including me, need this from time to 
>>| time.

>>	Jack, if someone was in a union, would you consider it ok for sex to
>>happen then?

Yes, if the union is sanctified by God.  God has set forth guidelines in this
area.  For example, I would not marry an ape, a cow, a dog, etc.  Crude 
illustration perhaps but I believe homosexuality does not conform to the
natural order that God brought forth.  I make no mistake in realizing that
Christianity can be a devisive faith.  Jesus told us we would be hated for His
name's sake.  

>>| I'd be interested in what the Bible has to say about homophobia.  I do know it
>>| says to flee from youthful lust and all that.  

>>	The Bible mentions nothing of homophobia Jack, but you knew that.
>>Considering the word homosexual was not around back then (but somehow made it
>>into the Bible) me thinks it won't say anything about homophobia.

Homophobia is a PC term of recent years past.  Homosexuality however, is 
absolutely NEVER condoned in any of the scriptures as a natural function of
mankind.  Regarding the Biblical authors as a band of homophobes is lame at
best.

>>| I do not fear gays, I fear the results of being gay.

>>	Jack, it's prety much the same thing, isn't it? Maybe you could share
>>what results you fear. This way it could help us understand if it really is the
>>same or something totally different.

Glen, our sitting together at the box bash is evidence in itself.  Keep in
mind I do not have an uppity attitude about sex in general.  Sex is a 
powerful force and we ALL are subject to it from time to time.  What I mean
is that as a fellow human, I am subject to the same sexual attitudes as
everybody else.  Let's face it, sex is fun, I do not pretend to be pious over
this issue.  I do acknowledge, however, that there are many ugly forms of
sex in the world other than rape and incest.  It woo's us, courts us, then 
when we least expect it, it strangles us through STD's, family breakups, etc.
I can walk in the streets of San Fran or PTown without batting an eyelash.
Ask me to go to an XRated movie and I had better get the gumption to flee 
from it right away, otherwise, I will certainly give in.  I don't believe it
is healthy for womens rights or society in general to promote these things.
(Sorry Patricia, sex even amongst consenting adults is not always 
beautiful.  It can lead to a multitude of serious problems when not used in
its proper context.)


-Jack

    I did not say sex between consenting adults.  I said sex between
    commited partners. 
    
    A huge difference.
    
    I do not believe that there is much of beauty in casual sex. 
    Particularly under the cloud of aids.

    Sorry about the mix up.  I am of the school that believes if you aren't 
    willing to make a lifetime commitment, then you aren't really commited.
    
    Like Peter's commitment to Jesus...proven superficial when he denied
    him three times.  Peter may have been completely sincere when he stated
    that he would give his very life for Him.  Feelings and pure faith can
    be a dichotomy in these cases.  
    
    You may move in with an individual and have the sincerest attempt at
    being committed.  The step of marriage is a physical and spiritual
    proof of that.  You are then forced to be even more
    committed...committed at change, giving, compromise, learning to
    overcome differences.  Living together is too convenient, IMHO.
    
    -Jack

   Re .6

  hmmmm, do i have this right?? (I suspect I'm wrong).

  > commited partners vs consenting adults...

  Does this mean that if your "beautiful teenage girl" came home from 
  school and told you that she was in love and commited sexually to her 
  60 year old married math teacher with grandchildren her own age, that
  she would have your approval?

  Hank D

    Jack,
    
    I also believe in Marriage or Holy Union as the goal of the committed
    partnership.  
    
    I think having a comfortable sex relationship is an important part
    of the union which needs to be tested before the union.
    
                                          Patricia

    Hank,
    
    No.  Adults are not allowed, legally, morally, or ethically to have sex
    with children.  13 is much to young to even know what a committed
    relationship is.  I will do what I can to discourage both my children
    from having sex until they are more mature.  Ultimately I accept that
    they themselves will decide when they are ready for that step.  I will
    make sure they have access and knowledge about sex,  birth control and Aids
    protection before that happens.  
    
                                    Patricia

    As a fellow human, I can understand the logic behind this.  At the same
    time, I also believe the sexual aspect of a relationship is something
    that will be developed in time.  The learning starts physically during
    the Honeymoon.  This is the ideal situation I believe.  Did it happen 
    this way for me?.....no comment!!
    
    See, I do have a humble side..ya know!!
    
    -Jack

    Comment that was spurred by your comments to Hank.
    
    This can tie in because I believe the church IS the proper place for
    sex education.  The public schools are the place for biology.  
    
    Our esteemed attorney general thinks the "religious right" is evil for
    trying to squelch the freedom of information in our public schools.
    This is not true.  Many Christians are for sex education.  However,
    what she is a proponent of is conformity and the tendencies toward
    behavioral attitudes that will become the demise of this country.
    
    This is what the "religious right" is fighting against.  It is 
    incorrect for her to say that the religious right is bad because they
    do not espouse to her way of thinking.  This is perposterous.
    
    -Jack

    I want my daughter to be expose to a similiar discussion about sex
    education as often as possible during these years when she is making
    her choices.  Most of her friends are in school with her so I like her
    getting sex education in school.  I also know that the schools have to
    respect the values of many different parents in offering their courses. 
    There are some issues that cannot be discussed fully enough in the
    public school courses that I think are important messages for my
    children to receive.
    
    The messages about homosexuality being natural is a critical messages.
    The message that the young people themselves are responsible for their
    own decisions is another.
    The emphasis and reemphasis on Condoms is critical. 
    
    
                                 Patricia

    The message of personal responsibility is critical.
    
    The message of condoms, a very sad commentary on society.  I trust
    nobody on that one, especially liberal NEA members.
    
    Patricia, you have no basis for saying that being gay is natural. 
    Could you please expound on this.  I hate to keep resurrecting this 
    but the act of Pedaphilia is just as normal to a pedaphile and sex is
    to any man or any woman.  Biologically, it is quite an unnatural act 
    as biology determines function, man having a function and woman having
    another function.  I think we can agree on that as it is exclusively
    scientific.  If you cannot prove or refuse to prove that homosexuality
    is a natural exchange of affection, then homophobia will continue and
    people like me will still believe that homosexuality is something that
    needs to be repented of,
    
    -Jack 

  Re .10  Children and adults...

  I was relatively certain of your answer.

  Personally, as a father, I discourage my children from any intimate activity 
  at all until they marry. I understand your position and realize that one, 
  some or all my children may very well make that decision against the desires
  of their parents (and such is the case with two of our adult children).

  We allow our adult children who are "involved" to visit whenever they want
  we show them our undimished love and affection. If they bring their 
  "signifigant other" we do require them to sleep in separate rooms.

  Also, as a father (I must admit), I do want them to practise those 
  things which would keep them alive and disease free, should they choose 
  what I would call a "sinful" life style. 
  
  For me this is a painful dilemma.

  Hank D

    Jack,
    
    If the information from Topic 91 has not convinced you, I cannot
    convince you.  What we are discussing I believe is the role of the
    schools and the role of Faith Community in sex education.
    
    This is an example of something that I think is very important to teach
    my children and my Faith Community does a good job of doing that.  My
    guess is that your Faith Community might have different priorities of
    what to teach.
    
    Patricia

    Hank,
    
    I respect your delimma in your decision making and respect your
    compromise position of allowing your adult children to make their own
    decisions even if you disagree with them.
    
    Patricia

Taken from Gaynet, fyi.

The New Republic, July 11, page 8

(reprinted without permission)

"THIS JUST IN FROM MARS: "The openly heterosexual former football player,
O.J. Simpson, was arrested today and charged with the murder of his
former wife and her companion.  The arrest sent shock waves throughout the
heterosexual community, as one of its most popular icons revived old
stereotypes that surrond the heterosexual lifestyle. "Wife-beating is not
equivalent to being heterosexual," said Joe Eightpack, a spokesman for the
Straight Alliance Against Defamation. "While it's true that some
heterosexuals engage in spousal abuse, it's still no more common among
straights than among gays." But opponents of heterosexual rights seized
on the incident.  "Every year, hundreds of thousands of women are victims
of this immoral subculture," said the Rev. Donald Gaylord, spokesman for
the Concerned Homosexuals of America.  "There appears to have been a
heterosexual ring in Los Angeles, including the police force, that
covered up this depraved activity for years. I'm particularly concerned
about saving our children from this kind of example." Statistics suggest
a large minority of heterosexual males are involved in some kind of
domestic violence: one in four heterosexual relationships involves
violence, with 2 million to 4 million women affected each year.
Researchers who claim that heterosexuality is a choice and not, as some
believe, involuntary, argue that this makes it even more important not to
give social sanction to the activity.  "It's not heterosexuals that we're
opposed to," argues Gaylord. "It's their self-destructive lifestyle."

    I think I read about twenty replies once from that string.  Do you by
    chance have a pointer to one of your replies..I truly am interested.
    
    -Jack

    Peter,
    
    That's great.  I like it.
    
    Patricia

    Help me out here.   .18 was meant to be a humerous piece...right?

    .21
    
    Hi Jack,
    
    It was sarcastic Jack, which is often used as humor.
    
    It was funny.

    RE: .14

    > Biologically, it is quite an unnatural act as biology determines 
    > function, man having a function and woman having another function.  

    Oh come, Jack.  You aren't really going to argue that every function 
    human beings are capable of is determined by biology, are you?  Humans 
    have various appendages that we use for a variety of purposes - and some
    appendages that we have no use for at all.  Are you prepared to itemize 
    the "natural" biological functions of the index finger?  The earlobe?  
    The appendix?  Human "private parts" in case you hadn't noticed, actually 
    are "designed" for more than procreation.  By what form of logic do you
    arrive at the conclusion that any activity beyond that which is strictly
    necessary for survival, is unnatural?

    Science, by the way, has absolutely nothing to say about whether using 
    one's right toe to scratch one's left ankle is an "unnatural act."  
    Likewise, neither does science make any such claim about homosexuality.  
    In fact, science has shown us that homosexuality occurs in many species.

    In short, it occurs in nature and therefore it is natural.

    I think what you are doing is trying to define natural in terms of
    what you consider "moral" - but that is an entirely different topic.

    /Greg

    .23
    
    If you wish to equate morality and/or naturalness based on the mating
    ritual of animals outside the homosapiens, then by all means let's take
    our clothes off and run wild in nature! [I hear a few YEAH LET'S DO ITs
    out there :-)].
    
    I mean why not perform the rituals of the chicken lets say just for
    example, one cock to many hens...and by george, let's see those
    roosters fight it out over those 30 hens too.  They don't share
    readily.
    
    or
    
    How about the beautiful betta fish, where he becomes the caretaker of
    the live born babies after he beats the female fish to near death
    during her labor and delivery.
    
    or
    
    What about the mating ritual of the Black Widow spiders... where she
    kills her man after she's been impregnated.
    
    or
    
    How about the gorillas, to whom most scientists say we are most closely
    related.  I don't recall any same sex relations going on between them
    in recent study of this species.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 936.5 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| >>	If alcoholism is a disease, what does that have to do with gays,
| >>lesbians and bisexuals? Do you consider them diseased Jack? If not then me
| >>thinks that you are comparing apples and oranges.

| By the standards of the American Medical Association, Alcoholism is
| recognized as a disease and is treatable under most health insurance plans.
| Therefore, it is a behavior that CANNOT be helped.  It is considered
| a natural function until it can be treated.  Likewise, a brain tumor is a
| disease, cannot be helped, and the person must live with it until it is treated.
| I am comparing apples to apples here.  I am of the belief that alcoholismn is
| an addiction, not a disease.  The propogation of the addiction started with
| free choice; the "disease" ensued.

	Jack, you just took what the medical field says alcoholism is, and are
applying it to your own version of it. So it would appear, anyway, that you are
on a word according to Jack. This is NOT the way it is Jack. Yer comparing
apples to oranges.

| I was not implying that being gay was a disease, but I do believe that in
| many individuals, being gay is a choice.  I also believe that there are
| individuals who are indirectly conditioned to be gay.  Conjecture...?  Perhaps.

	Warping is a better term.

| By the way, connecting sexism with homophobia is perposterous.

	Who did that?

| >>| In building up the body of Christ, do you offer seminars on abstinence from
| >>| adultery and fornication to both the heterosexual and homosexual community?
| >>| Human nature dictates that alot of us, including me, need this from time to
| >>| time.

| >>	Jack, if someone was in a union, would you consider it ok for sex to
| >>happen then?

| Yes, if the union is sanctified by God.  God has set forth guidelines in this
| area.  For example, I would not marry an ape, a cow, a dog, etc.  Crude
| illustration perhaps but I believe homosexuality does not conform to the
| natural order that God brought forth.  

	According to your beliefs, correct? I can live with that. BUT, when I
draw the line is when you tell me how to live my life. Remember, you already
changed the definition of alcoholism, what else have you changed?

| Homophobia is a PC term of recent years past.  Homosexuality however, is
| absolutely NEVER condoned in any of the scriptures as a natural function of
| mankind.  Regarding the Biblical authors as a band of homophobes is lame at
| best.

	Effeminate is not gay as men can and are effeminate and are NOT gay.

| >>| I do not fear gays, I fear the results of being gay.

| >>	Jack, it's prety much the same thing, isn't it? Maybe you could share
| >>what results you fear. This way it could help us understand if it really is the
| >>same or something totally different.

| Glen, our sitting together at the box bash is evidence in itself.  Keep in
| mind I do not have an uppity attitude about sex in general.  Sex is a
| powerful force and we ALL are subject to it from time to time.  What I mean
| is that as a fellow human, I am subject to the same sexual attitudes as
| everybody else.  Let's face it, sex is fun, I do not pretend to be pious over
| this issue.  I do acknowledge, however, that there are many ugly forms of
| sex in the world other than rape and incest.  It woo's us, courts us, then
| when we least expect it, it strangles us through STD's, family breakups, etc.
| I can walk in the streets of San Fran or PTown without batting an eyelash.
| Ask me to go to an XRated movie and I had better get the gumption to flee
| from it right away, otherwise, I will certainly give in.  I don't believe it
| is healthy for womens rights or society in general to promote these things.

	So it is all based on sex? What results from people who will never have
sex with you bother you? This doesn't make sense. 



Glen

| <<< Note 936.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| Patricia, you have no basis for saying that being gay is natural.
| Could you please expound on this.  I hate to keep resurrecting this
| but the act of Pedaphilia is just as normal to a pedaphile and sex is
| to any man or any woman.  

	VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM! The child is a VICTIM! There is your difference.



Glen

Re: Note 936.23     
TALLIS::SCHULER "Greg - Acton, MA"                   26 lines  28-JUN-1994 17:26

    > Biologically, it is quite an unnatural act as biology determines 
    > function, man having a function and woman having another function.  

>>   Oh come, Jack.  You aren't really going to argue that every function 
>>   human beings are capable of is determined by biology, are you? 

No, I am not.  By the same token Greg, you are quite incapable of having a 
baby, correct?  My statements are strictly on a biological plane, not a moral 
one.  Women are born with a vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and the cursed
menstral cycles.  Men are born with a penis, gonads, scrtum, and develop sperm 
on a continual basis.  It is biologically impossible for the two genders to 
change these functions at will, plain and simple.  To put it in Glens words,
to compare the sexual parts with a toe is comparing apples to oranges.  
Toes were created for many purposes, i.e. balance, support, kicking, etc.
A penis has two general functions...sexual satisfaction and pee pee!!!
Keep in mind I am only talking about the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION here.  Two
homosexuals cannot procreate, there must be two different genders.  It is
biologically unnatural from a biological standpoint for two gays to engage in 
sex.

-Jack

    RE: .24
    
    > If you wish to equate morality and/or naturalness based on the mating
    > ritual of animals outside the homosapiens, then by all means let's take
    > our clothes off and run wild in nature! 
    
    Don't get your hopes up :-)
    
    I think you will find that I do not wish to discuss morality and 
    "naturalness" as if they are one in the same.  My whole point, in fact, 
    is that to describe something as "unnatural" just because you believe it 
    to be immoral, is absurd.   
    
    When I argue that homosexuality is natural, I am saying nothing
    about whether or not it is moral.
    
    /Greg

    RE: .27

    Jack, there are several flaws in your argument.  First of all, if I 
    follow your logic to the letter, it would be biologically unnatural for 
    a sterile male to mate with a fertile female because it would be 
    biologically impossible for them to have a baby.  Are you willing to tell 
    all the infertile (straight) couples out there that their sexual activity 
    is unnatural?

    Second, your argument depends on the sex act being "natural" only when 
    it is used for procreation.   Well not only do you contradict your own
    argument by saying that (one of) the general function(s) of the penis is 
    sexual *satisfaction* (as opposed to sexual procreation), but I would 
    argue that sexual acts, while necessary for procreation in many species, 
    serve multiple purposes and takes many natural forms.

    It also occurs to me that, taking your position, all sexual foreplay
    would be unnatural, regardless of the gender of the participants.  It
    is biologically impossible for a woman to become pregnant via oral
    sex, so therefore it must be unnatural.  Is this your view?

    /Greg

    Glen:
    
    ...You're correct, My version of alcoholism is just that.  Alcoholism
    can be avoided from the outset.  It is an act of free volition to pick
    up the bottle from the start.  The whole point of this suffice to say
    is that alcoholism is something that needs to be repented of.  If AA
    does the trick...GREAT!  AA holds the premise that one needs to admit
    their need.  This is the first step to recovery.  Jesus call us to
    confess our sin.  This is also the first step to spiritual recovery.
    
    Now to address the old broken record of the pedaphilia argument.  Yes
    Glen, I understand the victimization of the child.  You and I are in
    total agreement on that.   However, I am not talking about the criminal
    aspect of this.  I am talking about the victimizer here.  Please try to
    remove the victim then maybe you will see my point.  Let's ASSUME for a 
    moment that I am one of these victimizers.  To me, it is a NATURAL
    tendency to be drawn to children.  I simply cannot help it.  I know it
    is wrong but the compulsion is simply too great.  I know in my heart
    that I need to be locked up and have the key thrown away.
    
    So again we get back to the question, what makes their compulsion 
    unnatural while homosexual tendencies are natural?  I realize their 
    is a victim in one but not in the other.  However, there are no doubt 
    countries in the world where child sex and kiddie porn are quite
    acceptable.  This leads me to conclude that naturalness and
    acceptability are two very different things.
    
    Biologically, the unnaturalness of homosexuality cannot be disputed.
    Same goes for oral sex, masturbation, etc.  This is really a non issue
    and not an area of contention.  The drives are natural, the acts are
    biologically unnatural.  I'm a guy too ya know.
    
    As far as being a mode of closeness, pleasure, etc., again it is the 
    MORES of society that determine the acceptability of these matters. 
    Prostitution is openly accepted in Vietnam, Malaysia and by the way,
    AIDS is rampant, I rest my case there.  Abortion is freely accepted in
    Scandanavia, etc.  Don't confuse the natural order of life with the
    acceptability and freedom to deprave one's self.  We do have the
    freedom, just don't parade it down the street with the in your face
    attitude, (Not you Glen, I don't mean you).  I don't parade my sex life
    down the street, I expect the same courtesy from others in this
    country. 
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack  

This weekend a guy I will refer to as KU signed onto an Internet list I read.

Some time ago KU signed onto the list "Practical Christian Life"
<[email protected]>.  The first thing he wrote was something like:
"I love God, and I believe that God loves everyone: men, women, Christians,
Jews, atheists, boy-lovers, rich, poor, black, white, everyone in the world."

Well, of course, he's right.  But why was "boy-lovers" thrown into the list?
As his later messages became increasingly explicit, he announced himself as
a member of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

His political agenda is the repeal of all laws which establish a minimum
age of consent for sexual intercourse, so that a 30-year old man who has
sex with a 4-year-old boy cannot be restrained by the law unless it can be
shown that the boy was unwilling and was subject to physical coercion.

When signing on to the list I read, KU announced himself as the "listowner"
of the Y-RIGHTS list.  I've never read anything on that list myself, but I
have been told that the most important right this list proclaims is the
right of young children to have sex and not to be curbed therein by the
law or by their parents or guardians.  Parents who prevent their children
from associating with pedophiles shall be considered to be abusive parents.

KU proclaims that children have the right to do whatever they want.  They
are not lacking in rights just because they are under a certain age.  It is
oppressive and discriminatory to prevent them from making for themselves a
choice that almost all adults regard as one of their most fundamental rights.

He further proclaims that love is a beautiful thing, and no one with any
decency would be against love in any of its forms.

And he goes on to say that God loves everyone.  (Correct, so far.)  Therefore
God loves men who have sex with young boys.  (Be careful, here.)  Therefore,
anyone who says that it is wrong to have sex with young boys is rejecting and
demeaning those whom God loves, and will answer to God for this cruel, hateful,
and insensitive behaviour.  (Just crossed the line into idiocy, Mr. KU.)

Of course, I've seen this same argument used to justify other immoral acts.
It is as idiotic in those cases as in this one.

/john

    Greg:
    
    In biological terms, don't look at "unnatural" in the perjorative
    manner.  I am not talking about emotions at all here, strictly physical
    make up.  I am from a biological sense as guilty of as many unnatural
    acts as anybody else.  Emotionally and developmentally, it is a
    personal thing determined by your personal mores.  Convincing others
    that homosexuality is natural has been far from adequately explained!
    
    Talking bluntly, the anus serves the purpose of elimination.  It is the 
    cesspool for the body, leech bed not included!!    
    
    -Jack

    >Are you willing to tell all the infertile (straight) couples out there 
    >that their sexual activity is unnatural?
    
    No this is not unnatural.  Why?  Because God created man for woman and
    woman for man.  Their infertility does not preclude God's creation.
    
    God did not create man for man or woman for woman.
    
    This argument comes up all the time when the subject of naturalness or
    morality is discussed regarding homosexuality.
    
    Now, God says that he gave them over to reprobate mind.. those whom
    were having sexual relations within their own gender.  Once you remove
    God from the picture nothing is natural.
    
    Does that mean that God doesn't love the homosexual?  No... when the
    Bible editors take out the "whosoever" in John 3:16, then someone will
    build a theology around it...  but God wrote whosoever and I believe
    that all the Bible editors in the world cannot change the Truth of God.
    
    I truly believe that while there is some merit to trying to use logic
    to support opposite gender relationships, the bottom line is do you
    believe God's Word and His creation.
    
    Logically this may not appeal to you...  But by Faith it means much.
    
    

    We all know that sin is natural right?  Our first tendency is to
    rationalize our sin.
    
    We are getting confused here because we are using the term "natural" in
    two different ways.  Some claim that homosexuality is a sin against
    nature.  That the homosexual act is unnatural.  That is what I argue
    against when I state the homosexual act is natural.  It is not a sin
    against nature.  Modern society is not at the point of extinction where
    we have to preserve every male sperm for child bearing.  Sex for
    pleasure,  bonding, and intimacy is a natural and beautiful thing.
    
    There needs to be both personal sexual ethics and societal sexual
    ethics.
    
    Societal sexual ethics must prohibit sexual acts that are oppressive. 
    No one can be forced to have sex.  Children cannot have sex imposed
    upon them.  The mentally ill should not be sexually victimized. 
    Caretaking professionals must not have sex with their clients.
    
    Each one of us are responsible for our own personal sexual ethics.
    I personally break that personal distinction down into two pieces.
    
    1.  There are those sex act which I deem immoral.  For me immoral sex
    acts are not really about the sex act but our about trust and
    committment.  I believe that it is immoral to have sex with someone who
    is in a committed relationship.  I believe that it is immoral to be in
    a committed relationship and have sex outside that relationship.  Both
    of these are based upons our trust and responsibility to our partners.
    
    2.  The second catagory is around what is healthy and what is not
    healthy.  THis catagory for me is more flexible.  more relative so to
    speak.  I personally don't think casual sex is healthy.  It does not
    lead to intimacy or bonding.  I also don't think it is unethical
    either.  It is a matter of personal choice between adults. 
    
    Each of us is responsible for our own personal ethics around our
    sexuality.  Jack if you feel homosexual activity is wrong, don't engage
    in it,  if you feel masturbation is wrong, don't do it.  If you feel
    Oral sex is wrong, abstain. It sounds real simple to me.
    
    The flip side of this is that none of us has a right to decide what is
    right or wrong for someone else, as long as what someone else does does
    not victimize others.  We all have the responsibility of protecting the
    weeker members of our society and of supporting the oppressed.  
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 936.27 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| To put it in Glens words,

	At least I know what that ringing in my ears was.... :-)

| A penis has two general functions...sexual satisfaction and pee pee!!!

	And one can have sexual satisfaction with a woman, a man, by themselves.
So this really does not strengthen your position.

| Keep in mind I am only talking about the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION here.  Two
| homosexuals cannot procreate, there must be two different genders.  It is
| biologically unnatural from a biological standpoint for two gays to engage in
| sex.

	You are adding another part to the equation Jack. Procreation CAN be a
function of a man. But do all men want to procreate? Nope. Some don't want kids
at all. Is there something biologically unnatural about these men who are
straight and do not want to have babies? Nope. Not a thing at all. How do you
justify it with them but not for gays? 



Glen

| <<< Note 936.30 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| Now to address the old broken record of the pedaphilia argument.  Yes
| Glen, I understand the victimization of the child.  You and I are in
| total agreement on that.   However, I am not talking about the criminal
| aspect of this.  

	Neither am I. I am talking about the effects it would have on the
child. If the age of consent was 10, this would mean people could have sex with
kids of that age. There would be no criminal aspect. Is the child still a
victim? Yup. A 10 year old is not old enough to know what is best in this
situation. They could easily be manipulated. Think about when a child has a
crush on a teacher. Would it be good for the teacher to take her/him up on that
offer? No. So it goes MUCH deeper than the criminal aspect of it, it goes to
the childs welfare ONLY.

| Let's ASSUME for a moment that I am one of these victimizers.  To me, it is a 
| NATURAL tendency to be drawn to children.  I simply cannot help it.  I know it
| is wrong but the compulsion is simply too great.  I know in my heart that I 
| need to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

	Why do you know it is wrong Jack? It comes back to manipulation and the
victim thing. You can not dance away from it.

| So again we get back to the question, what makes their compulsion unnatural 
| while homosexual tendencies are natural?  I realize their is a victim in one 
| but not in the other.  

	Then how can you ask the question? Two consenting adults is one thing.
An adult and a child is totally different. Using your scenerio about being the
victimizer clearly shows that it is wrong. 

| However, there are no doubt countries in the world where child sex and kiddie 
| porn are quite acceptable.  This leads me to conclude that naturalness and
| acceptability are two very different things.

	I agree with what you have said here. But try to remember something,
kiddie porn and child sex are still wrong as it involves kids. I know you
realize this, but you keep trying to dance around it. Yet on the other hand you
also say that with homosexuality there is no victim. And lastly, you say that
you don't see the difference between them as far as one being natural and the
other not. How about if you compare it to something that is very similar to it.
Heterosexuality. Is it natural for a het to be het? Yup. Is it natural for a
het to be gay? Nope. Now switch it around with using gay for het. It's the same
thing Jack. I do not expect you to think being gay is natural... for YOU. But
please don't tell me something that is natural for me is unnatural period.

| Biologically, the unnaturalness of homosexuality cannot be disputed.

	If you are heterosexual, it is unnatural. If you are gay, it is
natural.

| Same goes for oral sex, masturbation, etc.  This is really a non issue
| and not an area of contention.  The drives are natural, the acts are
| biologically unnatural.  I'm a guy too ya know.

	Yer a het guy Jack. there is your difference between you and me. 

| As far as being a mode of closeness, pleasure, etc., again it is the
| MORES of society that determine the acceptability of these matters.

	Jack, if society believes that abortions should happen, are they right
or wrong in your eyes? See how weak societies view really is?

| freedom, just don't parade it down the street with the in your face
| attitude, (Not you Glen, I don't mean you).  I don't parade my sex life
| down the street, I expect the same courtesy from others in this country.

	Jack, we don't parade our sex lives down the street. I have yet to ever
see sex performed at any parade.



Glen

| <<< Note 936.31 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| This weekend a guy I will refer to as KU signed onto an Internet list I read.

	John, the guy is sick. No if's ands or buts about it. But if you would,
please explain the following:


| Of course, I've seen this same argument used to justify other immoral acts.
| It is as idiotic in those cases as in this one.

	What immoral acts John?

| <<< Note 936.32 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>




| Talking bluntly, the anus serves the purpose of elimination.  It is the
| cesspool for the body, leech bed not included!!

	Jack, is that what they are calling Steve Leech now? I'll have to
remember that! :-)  It's a good thing you excluded him from the stuff above!



Glen

| <<< Note 936.33 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| >Are you willing to tell all the infertile (straight) couples out there
| >that their sexual activity is unnatural?

| No this is not unnatural.  Why?  Because God created man for woman and
| woman for man.  Their infertility does not preclude God's creation.

	What about the procreation issue Nancy, or does this not come into play
with heterosexuals?

| Now, God says that he gave them over to reprobate mind.. those whom
| were having sexual relations within their own gender.  Once you remove
| God from the picture nothing is natural.

	Nancy, I love the way you sling this stuff around! These were
heterosexuals who were lusting after each other. LUSTING Nancy. These were not
homosexuals. How do we know that? Because it also said (which you did not
include), "they gave up what was natural and had sexual relations with their
own gender". Well, it would appear that natural for these people would have to
be heterosexuality. 

Glen

    As I stated in the past, I believe we all have the choice to do as we
    deem fit.  My bone of contention is as follows.
    
    1. Propogandizing gayness as an acceptable lifestyle, in our schools,
       workplaces, etc.  This subject is morally relative and its 
       acceptance is based on individual mores.  Subjecting my children to 
       the teachings of liberal thought put forth by our national
       leadership is violating my space as an individual and a parent.
    
    2. Glen, it is paraded down the street.  The gay lobby both nationally
       and statewide is pushing to be recognized as a class segment of
       society.   If I were a local business owner and somebody applied for
       a job, and said they were a lesbian or gay, I would consider that
       highly inappropriate.  I would put that in league with somebody
       saying, my sexual preference is 18 year olds because they are spry
       and the youngest I can legally get them.  Tasteless at best.  
       Sexual orientation is a private matter and is inappropriate to be
       used as a tool for equal rights.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack
    
    Sexual orientation is a private matter and it is inappropriate to be
    used as a reason for "discrimations".
    
    The "propaganda" about the naturalness of homosexuality might in fact
    save the lifes of many fundamentalist children who discover that they
    are gay.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Re: .34, well thought out and well written.  There were many points
    I tended to agree with or at least give food for thought.  
    
    You are right in the sense that we are far from extinction.  That is 
    a biological point of view.  The unnatural argument is biological
    but is just one act of unnatural, (procreative purposes).  I think we
    have all engaged in certain activity for non procreative purposes.  I
    personally have no issue with that.  I believe sex has a God given
    purpose other than procreation.  
    
    Again, the emotional aspect, the closeness of it or the spiritual act
    of sex is good or bad, determined by your personal mores.  Now I 
    seguay into the moral/spiritual aspect, no problem with the biological
    aspect.  
    
    You see some of the Patriarchs and Apostles as sexist and homophobic,
    I do not.  Our perspective opinions are molded by this very thing.  
    This, I'm afraid, is an area that only the Holy Spirit can change as 
    we cannot convince one another on our own knowledge.  Like others,
    I believe the Bible to be the Jewish/Christian source for Godly living.
    Do I ignore it from time to time?  No doubt!  But that is where
    confession comes in.   This is the key and this is why I asked you if
    your church focuses on repentence.  
    
    It is none of my business if individuals are gay.  All's I'm asking
    is to please not make it my business.   Lobbying Congress for class
    status is inappropriate.  I don't care if somebody's eyes are on
    Steve...or Eve!!!   
    
    I know I have gone off the topic here and I won't rat hole this any
    further.  I think it is important however, that our children are
    exposed to the fact that God's Word does not condone homosexuality.  
    To not acknowledge this is pure PC and politics.
    
    -Jack  

        So, can anybody tie this back in to the topic of "UU
        Welcoming Congregation Program"?

        (This has become another discussion of homosexuality --
        please take this to the appropriate topic.)

        Bob

re:  Note 936.27 by Jack

>My statements are strictly on a biological plane, not a moral 
>one.  Women are born with a vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and the cursed
>menstral cycles.  Men are born with a penis, gonads, scrtum, and develop sperm 
>on a continual basis.  

Jack, You're not on terribly firm ground here.  Approximately 10% of the 
population is born "somewhat inbetween" male and female.  The midpoint is a 
hermaphrodite.  For most babies, the predominate sexual makeup is readily 
apparent and quite often "routine surgery" is performed to make these children 
more socially acceptable as 100% male or female.  I believe I read that in an
article in _Newsweek_ a year or so ago. 

Peace,

Jim

    10% is not exactly a norm... 
    
    To base morality, sexual roles on 10% or less then the population is
    ludicrous.

re: Note 936.45 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    10% is not exactly a norm... 
>    
>    To base morality, sexual roles on 10% or less then the population is
>    ludicrous.

It appears to me that you completely missed the context of my reply to Jack.

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 936.40 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| 1. Propogandizing gayness as an acceptable lifestyle, in our schools,
| workplaces, etc.  This subject is morally relative and its
| acceptance is based on individual mores.  Subjecting my children to
| the teachings of liberal thought put forth by our national
| leadership is violating my space as an individual and a parent.

	Jack, the same could be said about some Christians by a large portion
of the population. That you are pushing your lifestyle in schools, workplace,
etc. If you want a world where everything is your way, go start one. There is
good and bad in this world. Not everything we deem as good/bad actually is
that. If it is bad to you, fine. 

| 2. Glen, it is paraded down the street.  

	Jack, this is different from what you said. I think you used sex lives,
or something like that. Can you now see the difference?

| The gay lobby both nationally and statewide is pushing to be recognized as a 
| class segment of society.   

	Yeah, human.

| If I were a local business owner and somebody applied for a job, and said they
| were a lesbian or gay, I would consider that highly inappropriate.  

	But if you asked about their personal life, like if they are married or
not, would you look at it the same way if they said no, but I am in a
relationship with a <insert same gender> Now how would you look at it if you 
asked the same question and they responded with, "I am in a relationship
with a <insert oppisite gender>. If you look at them differently, the question
has to be asked why?

| Sexual orientation is a private matter and is inappropriate to be used as a 
| tool for equal rights.

	Jack, let me ask you 2 questions:


1) Do people get denied housing because others perceive them to be gay?

2) Do people get denied jobs because others perceive them to be gay?


	If you answer yes to either one of these questions, then you can see
that equal rights are not happening towards gays. Remember the Cracker Barrel
incident? They were legally able to fire employees who they perceived to be
lesbian or gay. Tell me that the laws as they exist now legally protected them.
Now tell me and mean it. :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 936.42 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>




| It is none of my business if individuals are gay.  All's I'm asking
| is to please not make it my business.   

	Didn't you just get done telling us all about your beliefs as a
Christian? Why are you making it my business? 

| Lobbying Congress for class status is inappropriate.  

	I suppose you will not even try to get abortions stopped, or prayer
entered into schools, right Jack? Are you really willing to do this or is it
that you are supposed to go out and preach to the world? You can't have it both
ways Jack. Either you and your friends keep quiet (which means no more 700
club) or understand that others will also be vocal. And I guess you'll also
know that the tax protection churches have now will end, right? BTW, aren't you 
a protected class already? 

| I think it is important however, that our children are exposed to the fact 
| that God's Word does not condone homosexuality.

	Errrr..... it really doesn't say that Jack.....but I do know it is your
belief.



Glen

| <<< Note 936.45 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| To base morality, sexual roles on 10% or less then the population is
| ludicrous.

	To base morality on what any % of the population thinks is ludicrous.



Glen

    
    
    FLANAGAN
    
    > We all know that sin is natural right
    
      Huh?
    
    David

    
    
    Glen,
    
      Pay really close attention to what I am about to say. It is unnatural
    for male/female intercourse to not result in pregnancy ( tubes,
    tumors,etc etc). It is natural for gay men to NOT be able to procreate.
    
    
    
  

| <<< Note 936.51 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| It is unnatural for male/female intercourse to not result in pregnancy 
| ( tubes, tumors,etc etc). 

	David, if you believe this, then would you also state that sex between
a man/woman should not happen if the intent to have a baby isn't in place? In
other words, no rythem method, no protection or pulling out of any kind can be
allowed. Otherwise you can't possibly really believe what you wrote above. Oh,
why do I ask for the, "intent to have a baby" clause? Because you have said
homosexual sex is unnatural and one should not have it.

| It is natural for gay men to NOT be able to procreate.

	Depends David. Do you consider sex between a man and woman as the only
way allowed for a woman to get pregnant? No turkey basters allowed? 



Glen

re: Note 936.51 by David

>It is unnatural for male/female intercourse to not result in pregnancy.

In other words, it is natural for every act of male/female intercourse results
in pregnancy?

This is patently not so.

Peace,

Jim

#| It is none of my business if individuals are gay.  All's I'm asking
#| is to please not make it my business.   

>>	Didn't you just get done telling us all about your beliefs as a
>>Christian? Why are you making it my business? 

Glen, you can hit next unseen here.  This is a voluntary forum.  I cannot 
stand at the State House and make the likes of Governor Weld stop paying
for sex changes with state funds.  My money catering to the depravity of
    a gay individuals private choice.

| Lobbying Congress for class status is inappropriate.  

>>	I suppose you will not even try to get abortions stopped, or prayer
>>entered into schools, right Jack? Are you really willing to do this or is it
>>that you are supposed to go out and preach to the world? You can't have it both
>>ways Jack. Either you and your friends keep quiet (which means no more 700
>>club) or understand that others will also be vocal. And I guess you'll also
>>know that the tax protection churches have now will end, right? BTW, aren't you 
>>a protected class already? 

Glen, all organizations are made up of tax paying individuals.  You will
find most civic organizations have tax exempt status, not just churches.
I've never protested at a clinic but certainly reserve the right to peaceful
assembly, for gays also.  As long as your pleas don't effect my wallet...which
they do, we're all set.  700 Club is a private organization that funds 
themselves.

>>| I think it is important however, that our children are exposed to the fact 
>>| that God's Word does not condone homosexuality.

>>	Errrr..... it really doesn't say that Jack.....but I do know it is your
>>belief.

It's my belief because it does explicitly say this.  The Romans 1 speech was 
a condemnation toward lust, yes.  However, It also says they gave up the
natural function of the man/woman, which is unbecoming.

>>| 1. Propogandizing gayness as an acceptable lifestyle, in our schools,
>> workplaces, etc.  This subject is morally relative and its
>>| acceptance is based on individual mores.  Subjecting my children to
>>| the teachings of liberal thought put forth by our national
>>| leadership is violating my space as an individual and a parent.

>>	Jack, the same could be said about some Christians by a large portion
>>of the population. That you are pushing your lifestyle in schools, workplace,
>>etc. If you want a world where everything is your way, go start one. There is
>>good and bad in this world. Not everything we deem as good/bad actually is
>>that. If it is bad to you, fine. 

Once again, same old argument.  Schools were initiated by the local church.
Schools became unionized and infiltrated with 1960's thought.  Schools were
the pivotal point to social engineering, failed dismally.  Schools are now
ghastly places in the inner city.  Unions have prostituted the school systems,
making them inefficient and business oriented.  I would be glad to forego 
the rights to use our public schools if you would please lobby your congressman 
to stop making me pay for these ghastly places.  I can educate my child alot 
better than they can with 20% of the money.  As far as the workplace, I never
proslethyze unless in a forum such as this.

>>| The gay lobby both nationally and statewide is pushing to be recognized as a 
>>| class segment of society.   

>>	Yeah, human.

Glen, statistics show that a majority of the gay population in this country are
better educated and more wealthy than non gays.  There are many people that 
dislike me because of Christianity but I consider that their loss.  Please
relinquish the victim horse.  

>>| If I were a local business owner and somebody applied for a job, and said they
>>| were a lesbian or gay, I would consider that highly inappropriate.  

>>	But if you asked about their personal life, like if they are married or
>>not, would you look at it the same way if they said no, but I am in a
>>relationship with a <insert same gender> Now how would you look at it if you 
>>asked the same question and they responded with, "I am in a relationship
>>with a <insert oppisite gender>. If you look at them differently, the question
>>has to be asked why?

Glen, you can't force somebody to like chocolate ice cream.  They either do 
or they don't.  The school system is the best way to change the mind set
of a nation.  Infiltration now will make certain lifestyles more respected
in the future, we are now seeing the effects of this.  This is why children
are fleeing the public school system in droves.  Home schooling is a booming 
industry and private school enrollment is continually on the rise.

| Sexual orientation is a private matter and is inappropriate to be used as a 
| tool for equal rights.

>>	Jack, let me ask you 2 questions:

>>1) Do people get denied housing because others perceive them to be gay?

Of course.

>>2) Do people get denied jobs because others perceive them to be gay?

Of course.  That is bigotry and unacceptable.  Again that is why I am 
vehemently opposed to government sponsored discrimination...disaster.
Remember Glen, I am opposed to any kind of government interference in the
private sector.   I am a strong proponent of property rights and private
business.  

>>	If you answer yes to either one of these questions, then you can see
>>that equal rights are not happening towards gays. Remember the Cracker Barrel
>>incident? They were legally able to fire employees who they perceived to be
>>lesbian or gay. Tell me that the laws as they exist now legally protected them.
>>Now tell me and mean it. :-)

I agree with you.  There is no place for bigotry in our country.  That's why
I think this is alot of hot air.  Everybody is a victim Glen.  I know for a
fact that I have been discriminated against for jobs....right here bud!  
Overt racism mandated by the feds.  Gay discrimination are the PC victims 
of the 90's Glen.  The abuse I had to endure as a grade schooler...Glen, I've
been there okay.  Remember the stats above.  Overall gays are above parity 
in income and education.  


-Jack
                                     

    .53
    
    David's point is very elementary, clouding it with semantics is silly.
    
    
    | To base morality, sexual roles on 10% or less then the population is
    | ludicrous.
    
    Glen>        To base morality on what any % of the population thinks is
    Glen>        ludicrous.
    
    Two COMPLETELY different statements.
    

re: Note 936.55 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    David's point is very elementary, clouding it with semantics is silly.

Simply rephrasing it, so David can tell me if that's what he meant or not.
I don't think trying to understand what people mean is silly.  

Peace,

Jim

    .56
    
    Okay.. 

re: Note 936.57 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Okay.. 

Well, I'm glad it's okay with you!  .-)

Jim

| <<< Note 936.54 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

RE: making it your business

| Glen, you can hit next unseen here.  

	And if you hear it on the news you can turn the station. If you read
about it in the newspaper you can skip past the story. If you walk by a
demonstration at a statehouse, you can take another street. Are you willing to
do this Jack? If not, how can you ask anyone else to?

| I cannot stand at the State House and make the likes of Governor Weld stop 
| paying for sex changes with state funds.  

	Jack, I hope you can back that state house funds are going to sex
change operations. Otherwise, what r u talking about?

| My money catering to the depravity of a gay individuals private choice.

	What part are you calling a choice, being gay or a sex change? If the
latter, I agree it is a choice, as one is changing from what they are. But
please clarify it for me. 

| Glen, all organizations are made up of tax paying individuals.  You will
| find most civic organizations have tax exempt status, not just churches.

	But the church will lose it if you become like the rest of the people,
right?

| I've never protested at a clinic but certainly reserve the right to peaceful
| assembly, for gays also.  

	You say this Jack, but then when we have a parade you state that we are
throwing our sex lives out for everyone to see. You still have not proven this.
Maybe you did further down in the note. Nope, just looked. Maybe you will?

| As long as your pleas don't effect my wallet...which they do, we're all set.  

	The church is effecting my wallet. If they lost their tax exempt status
we would have a lot more money for the government. So let's get rid of that as
I know you do not want it affecting your wallet. Will you do this Jack?

| 700 Club is a private organization that funds themselves.

	If they talk about holding rallys to change this or that law, then they
will cross the line. If they talk about their view of God, they are telling me
something I may not believe. This is exactly like how you want it with gays, 
isn't it Jack?

| It's my belief because it does explicitly say this.  The Romans 1 speech was
| a condemnation toward lust, yes.  However, It also says they gave up the
| natural function of the man/woman, which is unbecoming.

	For a heterosexual it most certainly is! Why would a heterosexual want
to have gay sex? For the almighty orgasm of course. THAT is what I believe the
story is talking about.

| I would be glad to forego the rights to use our public schools if you would 
| please lobby your congressman to stop making me pay for these ghastly places.  
| I can educate my child alot better than they can with 20% of the money.  

	Can't do that Jack. We can't be lobbying for the laws to change,
remember? Can't push for what we believe to be right. But it is the world 
in the way you want it....remember?

| As far as the workplace, I never proslethyze unless in a forum such as this.

	Do you tell others they should not or do you let it go? It's important
to know Jack as it will help show if you mean what you say for everyone or if
you only mean it for those who are different than you.

| Glen, statistics show that a majority of the gay population in this country are
| better educated and more wealthy than non gays.  There are many people that
| dislike me because of Christianity but I consider that their loss.  Please
| relinquish the victim horse.

	How does being seen as a human being = victim? Hmmm..... but to go by
what you wrote above, I will look for the latest and greatest study done. It
shows we're really in line with the country as a whole. I think what they did
was go out and take a broader base audience. Not just those in high tech areas.

| >>	But if you asked about their personal life, like if they are married or
| >>not, would you look at it the same way if they said no, but I am in a
| >>relationship with a <insert same gender> Now how would you look at it if you
| >>asked the same question and they responded with, "I am in a relationship
| >>with a <insert oppisite gender>. If you look at them differently, the question
| >>has to be asked why?

| Glen, you can't force somebody to like chocolate ice cream.  They either do
| or they don't.  

	Jack, are you saying if they ever said they were gay, even under that
scenerio, that you would consider it to be highly inappropriate? If so, why do
you not get upset if they mention their straight? Each person answered the
question honestly, each person answered it in the manner that fit their life.
If I got what you mean correctly then you will only accept someone saying they
are straight but will never accept it if they say they're gay. That really
makes me think lesser of you Jack. The reason being is that each person
answered the question honestly, but you are holding it against one, and not the
other.

| >>2) Do people get denied jobs because others perceive them to be gay?

| Of course.  That is bigotry and unacceptable.  Again that is why I am
| vehemently opposed to government sponsored discrimination...disaster.
| Remember Glen, I am opposed to any kind of government interference in the
| private sector.   I am a strong proponent of property rights and private
| business.

	Jack, what you are saying is that it is unacceptable to do the above,
but if you had your way it would be ok to do. Kind of contradictory, don't you
think? Your way leaves the door wide open for someone to deny anything to
anyone because they are <insert thing>. 

| I agree with you.  There is no place for bigotry in our country.  That's why
| I think this is alot of hot air.  Everybody is a victim Glen.  I know for a
| fact that I have been discriminated against for jobs....right here bud!

	But under your plan Jack people can hire who they want. If someone does
not like blacks, they won't hire them. How is you plan not really a way for
bigotry to grow? Hey, can we keep certain people from shopping at stores too?

| Remember the stats above. Overall gays are above parity in income and 
| education.

	Not so true Jack. Let me find the article.

Glen

    
    
    Patricia,
    
    > Sexual orientation is a private matter
    
     Bunk, it is a public moral issue.
    
    > the propaganda about the naturlaness of homosexuality may in fact
    save the lives of many fundamentalist children that discover they are
    gay
    
      ...given the statistics on the prevalency(sp) of AIDS in the gay
    community your remark is asanine(sp).....
    
    David

    Patricia:
    
    I must respectfully agree with Davids premise.  Statistically, a family 
    whole is Bible believing and respects the Word of God is less apt to
    experience dysfunctionalism.  There are far Far less divorces,
    violence, STD's, Babies out of Wedlock.  You can't srgue with facts.
    
    This is also the case with Orthodox families, particularly, Jewish
    families.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 936.60 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| > the propaganda about the naturlaness of homosexuality may in fact
| save the lives of many fundamentalist children that discover they are
| gay

| ...given the statistics on the prevalency(sp) of AIDS in the gay
| community your remark is asanine(sp).....


	David, it is your remark that could be asanine. AIDS is something
people get. If we use the CDC's figures and look at the figures world wide 
we would see that heterosexuals are the leaders in the disease (btw, it's based
on HIV) by a 11-1 or 12-1 ratio. I forget which. So please, if you would, think
about what you are saying, as it would appear that being heterosexual is not a
good thing at all. Also, did ya know that the biggest increase in this country
is among heterosexuals? 


Glen

| <<< Note 936.61 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| I must respectfully agree with Davids premise. Statistically, a family whole 
| is Bible believing and respects the Word of God is less apt to experience 
| dysfunctionalism.  

	How can you say this Jack? I'm curious.

| There are far Far less divorces,

	Does not mean the marriage is a good one, and it can affect the kids
because of it.

| violence, 

	Maybe not physical as much, but quite possibly verbal? 

| STD's, Babies out of Wedlock.  

	Uhhhh can you show a study that talked about Christian families or is
this something you believe?

| You can't srgue with facts.

	No one wants to srgue anything Jack! We just want to discuss things.



Glen

re Note 936.61 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I must respectfully agree with Davids premise.  Statistically, a family 
>     whole is Bible believing and respects the Word of God is less apt to
>     experience dysfunctionalism.  

        Compared to what?  General population?  Devout Muslims?
        Liberal Christians?

        Bob

| Glen, you can hit next unseen here.  

>>	And if you hear it on the news you can turn the station. If you read
>>about it in the newspaper you can skip past the story. If you walk by a
>>demonstration at a statehouse, you can take another street. Are you willing to
>>do this Jack? If not, how can you ask anyone else to?

Yes, I am willing...I do it quite frequently.  Glen, my college room mate was 
gay.  I didn't know it at the time but I still keep in touch with him.  I
respect him greatly, and I respect you too.  Let's say I look at the St.
Pattys day parade infiltrators like you look at Operation Rescue.  Big turn
off.

| I cannot stand at the State House and make the likes of Governor Weld stop 
| paying for sex changes with state funds.  

>>	Jack, I hope you can back that state house funds are going to sex
>>  change operations. Otherwise, what r u talking about?

Medicaid has monies available for sex changes.  

| My money catering to the depravity of a gay individuals private choice.

>>	What part are you calling a choice, being gay or a sex change? If the
>>latter, I agree it is a choice, as one is changing from what they are. But
>>please clarify it for me. 

Never seen a person change sexes who wasn't gay.  

| Glen, all organizations are made up of tax paying individuals.  You will
| find most civic organizations have tax exempt status, not just churches.

>>	But the church will lose it if you become like the rest of the people,
>>right?

I thought the liberals were big on separation of Church and State.

| I've never protested at a clinic but certainly reserve the right to peaceful
| assembly, for gays also.  

>>	You say this Jack, but then when we have a parade you state that we are
>>throwing our sex lives out for everyone to see. You still have not proven this.
>>Maybe you did further down in the note. Nope, just looked. Maybe you will?

Glen, it is inappropriate because I for one don't care what mode of coitus 
one commits.  I've never been asked any questions at an interview like, "Am I 
Married?"  It is against the law.

| As long as your pleas don't effect my wallet...which they do, we're all set.  

>>	The church is effecting my wallet. If they lost their tax exempt status
>>we would have a lot more money for the government. So let's get rid of that as
>>I know you do not want it affecting your wallet. Will you do this Jack?

You're grasping at straws Glen.  Governments been screwing you for years!  And
you know this so why bother discussing it?  Besides, it tax exempt goes away,
many charities fundings will drop and then they will have to rely on
government.  Do you actually trust Bubba with this?

| It's my belief because it does explicitly say this.  The Romans 1 speech was
| a condemnation toward lust, yes.  However, It also says they gave up the
| natural function of the man/woman, which is unbecoming.

>>	For a heterosexual it most certainly is! Why would a heterosexual want
>>to have gay sex? For the almighty orgasm of course. THAT is what I believe the
>>story is talking about.

So...do you believe it was because they lusted...not because they exchanged
the natural use of their body?

| I would be glad to forego the rights to use our public schools if you would 
| please lobby your congressman to stop making me pay for these ghastly places.  
| I can educate my child alot better than they can with 20% of the money.  

>>	Can't do that Jack. We can't be lobbying for the laws to change,
>>remember? Can't push for what we believe to be right. But it is the world 
>>in the way you want it....remember?

I believe laws can be changed as long as they do not take prescedence over
the Constitution.  The current administration has a warped view of
Constitutional law.

| As far as the workplace, I never proslethyze unless in a forum such as this.

>>	Do you tell others they should not or do you let it go? It's important
>>to know Jack as it will help show if you mean what you say for everyone or if
>>you only mean it for those who are different than you.

I respect the privacy and wishes of my colleagues in our professional atmos-
phere.  When they make me go to a Valuing Diversity class, I look at that as
them proslethyzing me and believe me, I don't hold back.  I am extremely
insensitive.

>>	How does being seen as a human being = victim? Hmmm..... but to go by
>>what you wrote above, I will look for the latest and greatest study done. It
>>shows we're really in line with the country as a whole. I think what they did
>>was go out and take a broader base audience. Not just those in high tech areas.

Glen, for the love of God, everybody's a victim these days!  The point is,
knock it off.  I have just as little respect for the welfare and poverty 
pimps in this country.  I've been working for women since I got here and I've
been discriminated against.  I'm a victim but I keep my mouth shut.

>>	Jack, are you saying if they ever said they were gay, even under that
>>scenerio, that you would consider it to be highly inappropriate? If so, why do
>>you not get upset if they mention their straight? Each person answered the
>>question honestly, each person answered it in the manner that fit their life.

Glen, asking ones sexual orientation is inappropriate...gay or straight.

| >>2) Do people get denied jobs because others perceive them to be gay?

>>| Of course.  That is bigotry and unacceptable.  Again that is why I am
>>| vehemently opposed to government sponsored discrimination...disaster.
>>| Remember Glen, I am opposed to any kind of government interference in the
>>| private sector.   I am a strong proponent of property rights and private
>>| business.

>>	Jack, what you are saying is that it is unacceptable to do the above,
>>but if you had your way it would be ok to do. Kind of contradictory, don't you
>>think? Your way leaves the door wide open for someone to deny anything to
>>anyone because they are <insert thing>. 

>>| I agree with you.  There is no place for bigotry in our country.  That's why
>>| I think this is alot of hot air.  Everybody is a victim Glen.  I know for a
>>| fact that I have been discriminated against for jobs....right here bud!

>>	But under your plan Jack people can hire who they want. If someone does
>>not like blacks, they won't hire them. How is you plan not really a way for
>>bigotry to grow? Hey, can we keep certain people from shopping at stores too?

Absolutely...Glen, bigotry is protected under the 1st Ammendment, as deplorable
as it is.  

-Jack

    Also, examine some of the families in the Bible.  Lot and his
    daughters were incestuous.  Jacob married his first cousin and
    her sister.  Further, Jacob had a dishonestly scheming relationship
    with his mother against his brother and father.  Abraham and Sarah and
    Hagar formed a....well, a less than acceptable traditional family as
    defined by fundamentalists.
    
    Richard
    

    -1
    
    In everyone of those cases you just mentioned, God used them as
    examples of what *not* to do and what to do.
    
    As I told someone once about my own life and it's imperfections.  I may
    not be the best example for what to do, but I can serve as an example
    of what not to do.
    
    

    Oh?  The Bible makes it very clear that God favored Lot, Jacob
    and Abraham, and the Bible in no way denounces what these men did.
    You're twisting what the Bible says to fit your contemporary conservative
    eurocentric agenda again.
    
    But we love you anyway.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    Glen,
    
     Heterosexual couples have the option to have sex for the intent of
    reproduction and sex for non-reproductive pleasure. They do so with
    there partners, they dont have to talk a lesbian couple into doing
    it for them although some heterosexual couples do look for a surrogate
    couple because of infertility etc etc. Two men having sex with each
    other cannot reproduce the species.
    
    David

    
    
    Kirk,
    
    > I read it real carefully
    
    > In other words, it is natural for every act of male/female
    intercourse to result in pregnancy?
    
      It is natural for Sperm To fertilize Egg if no conscious obstacles
    are placed in the way. To use birth control is okay. To say that
    heterosexual usage of birth control is a justification for
    homosexuality is yet another example of the weird thought process
    used by the gay community to justify the UNNATURAL CHOICE they have
    made.....
    
    David

    
    
    Glen,
    
      Factor out drup users and 89% of all persons infected with HiV are
    Homosexuals. As for the largest growing population being the
    heterosexuals, whats your point,so we went from 3 % to 5 %, does this
    diminish your 89%(heard it on t.v.).......
    
    
    David

    
    
    -1
    
      previos note was in regard to the U.S.A. I know the gay community
    is on this big kick about Africa...
    
    David

>    Oh?  The Bible makes it very clear that God favored Lot, Jacob
>    and Abraham, and the Bible in no way denounces what these men did.
>    You're twisting what the Bible says to fit your contemporary conservative
>    eurocentric agenda again.
    
    I think the Bible makes it clear that God loves sinners and forgives. 
    This is the greatest example of restoration of one's life and soul.
    
    
>    But we love you anyway.
    
    Thanks...     
    

    >if no conscious obstacles
    >    are placed in the way.
    
    I'm sorry David, but uh, like what would be an unconcious obstacle! :-)
    :-)  :-)  ????????
    

    
    Richard
    
    
    > hows these for family values
    
     And again I must point to your ilks family value. Homoesexual, cross
    dressers,sex change operation boy to girl girl to boy Phil Donahue
    freaks etc. No wonder the number one song climbing the chart to date
    is Alice Coopers " Lost in America"..
    
    
    David

    You are wrong, but that's no surprise.
    
    While we're at it, let's hear the stats on the life expectancy
    of urban black males in the U.S..
    
    Guess these guys have no traditional family values.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    > unconcious obstacles 
    
    
      Cancer.
    
    David

    Oh.... :-) :-)

>    I think the Bible makes it clear that God loves sinners and forgives. 
>    This is the greatest example of restoration of one's life and soul.

This, however, was not the issue.  The issue is families of men favored
by God as portrayed in the Bible.  I don't see Lot, Abraham or Jacob
repenting and seeking redemption for their sinful actions.

Love in the Holiness of God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Richard

    
    
    > guess these guys have no traditional values
    
     > While were at it, lets hear the stats on the life expectancy
     > of urban blacks
    
       Homosexual death by AIDS and the death of blacks are apples and
    oranges, nice try tho Richard.. One nit, one thing they both have
    in common is that the resulting death can be greatly reduced by
    a mere change in behavior. Oh and one other thing for you to dither
    while you are formulating your counter attack, would you argue that
    God made urban black violence, that it is genetic, hence God loves
    the urban black violence just the way it is??
    
    David
     

    No, God doesn't love violence, except when it's perpetrated by
    the good guys, like Oliver North and George Bush and not that
    nasty heathen, Sadam Hussein.
    
    Of course, it's apple and oranges, David.  What isn't?  What parallel
    is perfect?  Not all apples and oranges are of like kinds, either!
    

    .81
    
    Whoa, that was quite a sign off on that one!
    
    I hear and see your point.  I believe this is one of those things
    that is backed by taking the Bible in its entire content.   I notice it
    doesn't say much about Rahab's repentance from prostitution, yet she is
    in the lineage of Christ.  It may not have written in the text that
    they repented per se, but it was a practice among the nation of Israel
    to do so... as demonstrated in the story of Isaac and Abraham.
    

>    No, God doesn't love violence, except when it's perpetrated by
>    the good guys, like Oliver North and George Bush and not that
>    nasty heathen, Sadam Hussein.
    
    Huh? Come again?  Since when does violence of any kind other then for
    spiritual reasons, become sanctioned by God?  Who has claimed such? 
    
>    Of course, it's apple and oranges, David.  What isn't?  What parallel
>    is perfect?  Not all apples and oranges are of like kinds, either!
    
    Good point... but it still makes no sense in this analogy as I see it.  
    
    I don't know where sarcasm begins and ends with you Richard.  Could you
    please put a little * next to your sarcastic explosions, especially if
    they're in your sign off? :-)
    
    Nancy
    
    

    No.  But I really do think I'm becoming more and more Christian, like you
    and David.
    
    Love led by a Whirlwind of Fire and Smoke,
    Richard
    

    .86
    
    That's sad Richard, I mean really sad.   I know you don't want my
    compassion...  but I cannot be less then who God has allowed me to
    become.  Perhaps you even believe there is no reason for me to have
    compassion for you...  but its not there for your approval, it's just
    there.
    
    Do you really hate as easily as your sarcasm indicates?  What in the
    world have I done to you personally to create such antagonism?  I know
    I've expressed opposite points of view, but is that something on which
    to build such negativity?
    
    Your loved Richard, genuinely... even though you reject it.
    
    From a sincere heart,
    Nancy

    .87  Look in the mirror and you'll see me.
    

    .88
    
    Richard, I've done a lot of looking in the mirror of late.  And
    honestly don't like some of what I saw.  Now I have choices to either
    begin restoration with God's help in those areas or to continue
    willfully ignoring the Spirit's call to repentance.
    
    Praise God if we're using the same mirror.
    
    Nancy

>	-< mod request >-
>
>        So, can anybody tie this back in to the topic of "UU
>        Welcoming Congregation Program"?

Well, the base note is about welcoming homosexuals; it talks about teaching
children the "naturalness" of homosexuality, about "homophobia," etc.

>        (This has become another discussion of homosexuality --
>        please take this to the appropriate topic.)

The base note itself was another discussion of homosexuality; maybe you
should move this whole topic to topic 91.

/john

re: Note 936.61 by Jack

>    I must respectfully agree with Davids premise.  Statistically, a family 
>    whole is Bible believing and respects the Word of God is less apt to
>    experience dysfunctionalism.  

There is a 12 step program called Fundamentalists Anonymous.  It was not 
started by opponents to the fundamentalist movement, it was formed by people 
who were fundamentalists and came to believe that the movement was 
dysfunctional.  (Not saying you were talking about fundamentalists, but I 
think it is interesting that such a program exists.)

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 936.65 by Jack

>Let's say I look at the St. Pattys day parade infiltrators like you look at 
>Operation Rescue.  Big turn off.

As I understand the issue, members of the gay community wanted to participate 
in the parade, not close it down.  That the organizers of the parade chose to 
close it down was their decision.

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 936.65 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| >>	And if you hear it on the news you can turn the station. If you read
| >>about it in the newspaper you can skip past the story. If you walk by a
| >>demonstration at a statehouse, you can take another street. Are you willing to
| >>do this Jack? If not, how can you ask anyone else to?

| Yes, I am willing...I do it quite frequently.  

	Jack, then why in the world did you ever complain about the Gay Pride
parade? The St Patricks parade? You could have taken yourself OUT of the
situation, but didn't. This is where you are very inconsistant sometimes Jack. 
You say say say, but then you contradict yourself afterwards. 

| Let's say I look at the St. Pattys day parade infiltrators like you look at 
| Operation Rescue.  Big turn off.

	Well, lets look at this, shall we? Let's see how close we really are at
comparing the 2. For *me* I look at OR as a group that does not want abortions.
I agree with this premise. If they block the abortion clinic, they should be
arrested. I don't think they need to go to this extreme, but like with anything
the extremists make talking to the others much more pleasant. :-) I don't have
a problem with them counciling women. Where I have the problem is when they go
out and run down the halls and chain themselves to the fixtures. This bothers
me. I think this and blocking are 2 things that bother me about them. Now,
explain what it is about gays and St. Patricks day that bothers you.

| Never seen a person change sexes who wasn't gay.

	You should get out more Jack. Really. They are both. But thanks for
clarifying what you meant by choice.

| | I've never protested at a clinic but certainly reserve the right to peaceful
| | assembly, for gays also.

| >>	You say this Jack, but then when we have a parade you state that we are
| >>throwing our sex lives out for everyone to see. 

| Glen, it is inappropriate because I for one don't care what mode of coitus
| one commits.  I've never been asked any questions at an interview like, "Am I 
| Married?"  It is against the law.

	How did we bring the interview into the parade Jack? Please, if you
will explain this sexual intercourse thing and the parade. You have yet to do
that.

| | As long as your pleas don't effect my wallet...which they do, we're all set.

| >>	The church is effecting my wallet. If they lost their tax exempt status
| >>we would have a lot more money for the government. So let's get rid of that as

| You're grasping at straws Glen.  Governments been screwing you for years!  And
| you know this so why bother discussing it?  Besides, it tax exempt goes away,
| many charities fundings will drop and then they will have to rely on
| government.  

	It does not matter what the government has been doing. We can get mucho
$$$ from the church for taxes that will help us a lot. It's affecting my
wallet, that is the only thing I can think of Jack. I want to align my thinking
with yours. Can you see how you try to justify it when it's something you
believe is ok, but the hell with anyone else?

| So...do you believe it was because they lusted...not because they exchanged
| the natural use of their body?

	They exchanged the natural use of their body BECAUSE of lust.

| >>	Can't do that Jack. We can't be lobbying for the laws to change,
| >>remember? Can't push for what we believe to be right. But it is the world
| >>in the way you want it....remember?

| I believe laws can be changed as long as they do not take prescedence over
| the Constitution.  The current administration has a warped view of
| Constitutional law.

	Wow... now you can try and justify it to meet your goals. Not too cool
Jack. Ya can't have it both ways.

| | As far as the workplace, I never proslethyze unless in a forum such as this.

| I respect the privacy and wishes of my colleagues in our professional atmos-
| phere.  When they make me go to a Valuing Diversity class, I look at that as
| them proslethyzing me and believe me, I don't hold back.  I am extremely
| insensitive.

	What about religion Jack? You skipped right over that, and it was the
subject this pertained to!

| Glen, for the love of God, everybody's a victim these days!  The point is,
| knock it off.  

	Jack, you are gonna have to do better than saying everyone is a victim
these days. How can I knock off something I do not believe is being done?
Please show me where I claim victim, or where I gave you this impression.

| >>	But under your plan Jack people can hire who they want. If someone does
| >>not like blacks, they won't hire them. How is you plan not really a way for
| >>bigotry to grow? Hey, can we keep certain people from shopping at stores too?

| Absolutely...Glen, bigotry is protected under the 1st Ammendment, as deplorable
| as it is.

	Jack, you simply amaze me! You say what you just wrote above, yet
before you said:

| Of course.  That is bigotry and unacceptable.
| I agree with you.  There is no place for bigotry in our country.  

	Which is it Jack? You know YOUR plan will allow bigotry to run rampid.
Yet you say bigotry is no good. You are not making sense here Jack.

Glen

re: Note 936.70 by David

>    Kirk,

My name is Jim.
    
> To say that heterosexual usage of birth control is a justification for 
> homosexuality is yet another example of the weird thought process used 
> by the gay community to justify the UNNATURAL CHOICE they have made.....
    
David, please show me where I said this.  

Thanks,

Jim

| <<< Note 936.69 by COMET::DYBEN >>>


| they dont have to talk a lesbian couple into doing it for them although some 
| heterosexual couples do look for a surrogate couple because of infertility 
| Two men having sex with each other cannot reproduce the species.

	David, if you acknowledge that people will go out and have babies
without the use of sex, then you can not say it's ok for one and not the other.
BTW, do you think that gay men go out and only impregnate lesbians to have
kids? I'm curious about this one.


Glen

| <<< Note 936.72 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| Factor out drup users and 89% of all persons infected with HiV are
| Homosexuals. As for the largest growing population being the
| heterosexuals, whats your point,so we went from 3 % to 5 %, does this
| diminish your 89%(heard it on t.v.).......

	David, nice of you to factor out a large chunk of people. BTW, if you
would look at it from a world wide view you would see how wrong you are. Look
it up David. The CDC publishes the report. 11-1 is NOT 89% homosexual....
(psst... the 11 is heterosexual)


Glen

| <<< Note 936.73 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| previos note was in regard to the U.S.A. I know the gay community
| is on this big kick about Africa...


	An Europe.... and Canada, etc.... 


Glen

    A clue for the clueless regarding AIDS...
    
    U.S. population is approx. 250,000,000.
    
    If only 3% of the population is gay, then there are 7.5 million
    gay people in the United States.
    
    As of Sept. 30, 1993 the total number of AIDS cases in the U.S.
    was under 350,000.   Using Mr. Dyben's figures, 89% of 350,000
    is 311,500.
    
    311,500 is a bit more than 4% of 7.5 million.
    
    Special note: Lesbians - who are also homosexuals - are among the least 
    likely category of people to become infected with AIDS.
    
    So, when you decide to spew your nonsense about how homosexuality
    is bad because of AIDS, you can at least do so with the full knowledge
    you are completely wrong (rather than just not knowing if you are
    right).
    
    /Greg

Re:Note 936.93      
BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."                         112 lines  30-JUN-1994 09:14

>>	Jack, then why in the world did you ever complain about the Gay Pride
>>parade? The St Patricks parade? You could have taken yourself OUT of the
>>situation, but didn't. This is where you are very inconsistant sometimes Jack. 
>>You say say say, but then you contradict yourself afterwards. 

Glen, I don't recall complaining about the gay pride parade as a free speech
issue.  I value the right to march, I just said the premise itself is
inappropriate.   Same with the Klan or NAMBLA.  St. Pattys day, I do have a
problem with.  The gays were not invited, I can't make it any plainer than 
that.

>>	How did we bring the interview into the parade Jack? Please, if you
>>will explain this sexual intercourse thing and the parade. You have yet to do
>>that.

I was replying toyour question as to when one is being interviewed for a job,
I haven't been asked these types of questions.

>>	It does not matter what the government has been doing. We can get mucho
>>$$$ from the church for taxes that will help us a lot. It's affecting my
>>wallet, that is the only thing I can think of Jack. I want to align my thinking
>>with yours. Can you see how you try to justify it when it's something you
>>believe is ok, but the hell with anyone else?

Glen, if the government thought this to be a prudent avenue for raising revenue,
they would have done it.  The Church of England was taxed by the government
and it brought about emmigration and bitterness amongst all people, Christian
and non alike.  Furthermore, taxation would close many churches and put the
burden of support on the government itself.  This would be yet another step
toward communism.  Glen, believe me...you don't want churches to be taxed.  
It will come back and bite you in the behind.

>>| So...do you believe it was because they lusted...not because they exchanged
>>| the natural use of their body?

>>	They exchanged the natural use of their body BECAUSE of lust.

Glen, sodomy is an abomination and an unrighteous act per the Mosaic law.

| | As far as the workplace, I never proslethyze unless in a forum such as this.

>>	What about religion Jack? You skipped right over that, and it was the
>>subject this pertained to!

Glen, I don't discuss religion in the workplace unless a question is asked of
me, Bible study on lunch break, or in this forum.

>>| Glen, for the love of God, everybody's a victim these days!  The point is,
>>| knock it off.  

>>	Jack, you are gonna have to do better than saying everyone is a victim
>>these days. How can I knock off something I do not believe is being done?
>>Please show me where I claim victim, or where I gave you this impression.

Glen, about thirty replies ago, you inferred that gays are lobbying to be
treated as humans.  Victim mentality.

| >>	But under your plan Jack people can hire who they want. If someone does
| >>not like blacks, they won't hire them. How is you plan not really a way for
| >>bigotry to grow? Hey, can we keep certain people from shopping at stores too?

| Absolutely...Glen, bigotry is protected under the 1st Ammendment, as deplorable
| as it is.

>>	Jack, you simply amaze me! You say what you just wrote above, yet
>>before you said:

| Of course.  That is bigotry and unacceptable.
| I agree with you.  There is no place for bigotry in our country.  

>>	Which is it Jack? You know YOUR plan will allow bigotry to run rampid.
>>Yet you say bigotry is no good. You are not making sense here Jack.

Good point Glen.  My point is this and I'll briefly restate some things.
1. Bigotry is unacceptable but is protected under the Bill of Rights.  
   Government cannot FORCE people to like each other.
2. Anytime government tries social engineering, they usually make things worse.
3. Property Rights are the hinge pin of our freedoms.  Government programs
   have no place to interfere with private transactions.
4. Most important for our conversation.  I don't consider my attitude toward
   practicing homosexuals any worse than my attitude toward alcoholics or 
   anybody else with a vice.  We all have vices and that's why I placed 
   such an emphasis on repentance at the beginning of this string.  If you
   want to call what I consider abnormal to be normal, I respect your
   opinion but respectfully disagree.
 
-Jack

>As I understand the issue, members of the gay community wanted to participate 
>in the parade, not close it down.  That the organizers of the parade chose to 
>close it down was their decision.

The members of the gay community were perfectly welcome to participate in
the parade.  They were not welcome to use the St. Patrick's Day parade to
carry signs proclaiming to be good that which the absolute moral guide of
the South Boston community says may not receive acceptance under any
circumstances.  The South Boston community wished to uphold its religious
values; the Massachusetts courts denied them freedom of religion.

In New York City, the courts held that the organizers of the St. Patrick's
Day Parade had the freedom to choose what expression would be permitted in
the parade, and gay signs remain banned in the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade.

/john

    
    while some people refer to the March parade as a St. Patrick
    day parade it is actually a parade which also celebrates
    evacuation day. this makes it entirely different from what
    is being done in New York City. i don't believe john covert
    is correct in writing that "members of the gay community were
    perfectly welcome to participate in the parade."
    
    peter

    It served no purpose and helped erode the cause!!

>i don't believe john covert is correct in writing that "members of the
>gay community were perfectly welcome to participate in the parade."

The organizers explicitly stated that anyone was welcome to march in the
parade with any approved group; homosexuals were not being excluded.

The organizers were not willing to have a group identify itself with
activity which is considered a grave moral disorder by the dominant
religion in the community.

/john

    
    Kirk,
    
    > There is a 12 step program called Fundamentalist Ananymous
    
     There are also 12 step programs for x gay males that have seen the
    light that shines past the foolishness of the lifestyle. Interesting
    that it exists.....
    
    David
    

    
    
    Jim Kirk,
    
    > In other words it is natural for every act of male/female intercourse
    results in pregnancy
    
    > this is patently not so*
    
      I drew my conclusion from ths string. If I am in error I apologize.
    
    David

re: Note 936.104 by David
    
>    Kirk,

My name is Jim, but you knew that.
    
>     There are also 12 step programs for x gay males that have seen the
>    light that shines past the foolishness of the lifestyle. Interesting
>    that it exists.....

Reading past your insult, yes, that is interesting.  I've not heard of it.

    
    
    Silve,
    
    > David, id you acknowledge that people will go out and have babies
    
     Glen, your note is weird. 
    
    David

    
    Greg,
    
      Calm yourself, wether or not your stats are right or my stats are
    right, homosexuality is still wrong, no not becuase of AIDS, but
    because of all the other stuff that has been covered in here...
    
    
    David 

re: Note 936.105 by David

>    Jim Kirk,

Better.  .-)
    
>      I drew my conclusion from ths string. If I am in error I apologize.
    
Apology cheerfully accepted.

Jim

re .106
    
>>    There are also 12 step programs for ex gay males that have seen the
>>    light that shines past the foolishness of the lifestyle.

>yes, that is interesting.  I've not heard of it.

Jim, see 91.3486-91.3506.

/john

    
    
    JIM,
    
    > reading past your insult
    
      I did not intend to insult you. 
    
    David

re: Note 936.110 by /john
    
>Jim, see 91.3486-91.3506.

From my perusal of those notes, the organization you speak of was formed by 
heterosexuals, not gays.  That is completely different from what I'm talking 
about.  

Admitedly, I did not just re-read the entire contents of those 21 notes.
Feel free to point me to a specific paragraph in one of those 21 notes that
describes a "Gay Anonymous" meeting founded by gays. 

Thanks,

Jim

re .112

.104 says "for", not necessarily "by", but for further reading, I recommend
a book entitled "The Crisis of Homosexuality" (I don't remember the author)
in which many men and women talk about their exodus from the gay lifestyle.

An organization recommended by the Episcopal Synod is "Regeneration".  Search
for that word in topic 91.

/john

    Oh I'm perfectly calm, David.  But I must ask you, if the stats on AIDS 
    don't matter then why do you harp on the disease when you are discussing 
    this subject?
    
    /Greg

    
    
     Read and or follow the trail at around 936.60
    
    
    
    David

    The whole issue with AIDS hinges on personal responsibility.  I don't
    consider myself the height of intellect by any means but I do have the 
    ability to think reasonably, act logically, and stay out of trouble.
    
    Maybe if others in society could do the same there wouldn't be so much
    cynicism floating around.
    
    -Jack

>   think reasonably, act logically, and stay out of trouble.
    
You tell 'em, Jack.  These are the very points Jesus taught in his Sermon
on the Mount.  When will they ever get it straight?

re; Note 936.113 by /john

In regard to what I was talking about, all I've heard is non sequiturs.

YMMV,

Jim

    	Hi!  Just taking a morning "time-out" from hospital where I'm
    	progressing nicely and not ready to meet my maker yet.
    
    	Re: .65:  JMARTIN
    
    	> Never seen a person change sexes who wasn't gay.
    
    	Sure:  If the person then has a relationship with a male, HE is
    	gay; but if the same person has a relationship with a female,
    	SHE is lesbian.
    
    	Heads you win, tails I lose!  However, there is another side to
    	the coin, but I do not expect you to see it.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    You figured it out!!! Congratulations!
    
    Richard:
    
    How do you equate the Sermon on the Mount with sexual responsibility?
    The Sermon of the Beatitudes talk about meekness and Godliness.
    My initial point was that I didn't have an easy time in school but
    aside from being a geek, I did have a few opportunities to lower my
    zipper and chose not to.  I think adults these days lack faith in our
    youth today.  Those who espouse to the Jocelyn Elders school of 
    thought believe our children cannot be taught responsibility.  What a 
    crying shame.  
    
    -Jack 

    -Jack,
    
    My response obviously zoomed by you.  An explanation of said response
    would be like explaining the point of a satirical story.  In other
    words, I'm prepared to just drop it.
    
    Richard
    

    Yeah...I guess it did....oh well....