Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:45:09 -0700 From: Ron Subject: How to give "Christian moral absolutists" fits The following is a message that I have sent on various occasions to self-proclaimed "Christian moral absolutists". No one has ever attempted to answer the questions I pose, and I think it unlikely that good answers exist. Here it is: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And now for the belief that homosexual acts are always wrong.... Imagine that your country is at war, and that the enemy has captured one of your loved ones. You have reliable information that the enemy will torture and execute your loved one within 12 hours unless you do something. You also have reliable information that the only way you can obtain your loved one's release by having sex with an enemy agent. Unfortunately for you, the only enemy agent within 12 hours' travel is a member of your own gender. Would you have sex with the agent? Why or why not? If you would, would it be "sin"? Why or why not? If it is "sin", is it somehow "justified" or "excused"? Why? And if your love for your loved one "justifies" your "sin", why does not the love of one gay person for another justify his or her "sin"? If you wouldn't have sex with the agent, how do you justify letting the enemy kill your loved one, with torture, when you could have saved him or her? Is that really "family values", or is it elevating the form of avoiding a certain politically incorrect "sin" over the substance of love? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This series of questions presents the "Christian moral absolutist" with a Hobson's Choice. If he wouldn't have sex with the agent, he's selfish for valuing his freedom from "sin" more than he values his loved one's life. If he would have sex with the agent, he's no longer a "moral absolutist" because he doesn't believe that gay sex is always wrong. I hope that this nugget helps in our fight for equality. Good luck, Ron