Re: Another query to George and comments to Janice

What is marriage, is it a secular institution or a
religious one? I have problems with how marriages are
currently performed because you have a religious figure
performing both a religious and a civil role. Why is this
not a violation of the seperation of church and state?

I think that if same sex couples want to have a civil
union, I see no reason that the government should not
allow it. Call it a marriage for all I care, I see no
reason that the civil benefits of marriage shouldnt apply
to them as well as heterosexual couples.

But that is not the same as a ceremony in a church, a
religious ceremony, that should be up to each individual
denomination whether or not they would perform same sex
marriages or even recognize them.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:02:30 -0600
  Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
> George wrote, in part: "I think the church needs to
>accept the reality of
>
> non-volitional homosexual orientation & find some
>responsible way to
> recognize same-sex unions (not marraige) to help people
>with such
> orientations deal with their conditions. OTOH I see no
>compelling reason
>
> for the church to ordain non-celibate homosexuals."
>
> I agree with sentence one, although I am not convinced
>one way or the
> other on same-sex marriage. On sentence two, I comment
>as follows:
>
> 1. I am reasonably sure you (as would I) would welcome
>into church
> membership people who are living with a same-sex
>partner. Not all
> churches would do so, of course, but that's another
>thread.
>
> 2. If you would not ordain such people, you will have in
>your
> congregation, two classes of people, one "first class,"
>who can be
> ordained (no matter what their particular sins) and one
>"second class",
> who cannot be ordained, because of one particular
>situation, which some
> Christians call a sin and other Christians claim is not
>a sin. I take it
> as given that having two classes of member is not a
>"good thing."
>
> Given these two statements, I turn your last sentence
>around. What is the
> "compelling reason" the church should NOT ordain
>non-celibate
> homosexuals?
>
> The only reason I can come up with is to claim certainty
>on an issue that
> good and devout and scholarly Christians can and do
>disagree upon. But
> perhaps you can propose another reason.
>
> Thanks.
> -------------------
> Replying to Janice (1):
>
> I had posted: "Good Christians are to be found on both
>sides of the
> issue; that
> fact leads me to hold that none of the arguments are
>"irresistible."
>
> Janice commented: " The criteria that makes a biblical
>argument
> irresistible is the
> use of sound hermenutics. Plenty of "good Christians"
>couldn't even
> define the word let alone engage in them."
>
> Ignoring the last sentence, which is, of course true but
>off subject, I
> take it that your claim is that those favoring your
>preferred position
> are, for the most part, "using sound hermeneutics" and
>all those on the
> other side are not doing so. Perhaps so, I am
>unqualified to say. But I
> am skeptical of such a claim.
>
> There is one attribute I share with my friend, Glenn
>Morton. I like to
> read stuff from people I don't agree with, who are
>making claims I do not
> hold. I have done more than my share of this. I still
>may be wrong; I
> accept that possibility.
>
> ---------
>
> Replying to Janice (2)
>
> Janice: "The reason why there are so many biblical
>illiterates is because
> of
> the fact that the church at large has failed in its
>responsibilities.
> That's going to change."
>
> I am puzzled. What do you mean by this? I agree
>(generally) with your
> first sentence but I see no general force for change. In
>our little
> church in Rico we strive always to rectify this
>condition; but it is a
> general condition and a big problem.
>
> -----------
>
> Replying to Janice (3)
>
> Don wrote: "The same sort of argument that Janice makes
>to justify
> the condemnation of homosexual behavior can and has been
>made to
> justify anti-Semitism, slavery and the subjugation of
>women."
>
> I wrote: "Don -- that is true enough, but (speaking as
>the devil's
> advocate)
> that does not make them invalid. It is a good argument,
>to be sure,
> but it does not go far enough.
>
> Janice observed: "The argument used above is illogical,
>so it's not a
> good argument by a LONG shot.. It's like saying that
>the best way to
> stop misspelled words
> is to get rid of pencils, and the best way to stop
>people from being
> murdered is to get rid of guns."
>
> Here is why I disagree: The argument is not illogical if
>one starts with
> the assumption that same-sex intimacy may not, in some
>instances, be a
> sin.
>
> If one starts with the certainty that same-sex intimacy
>is, in all
> instances, a sin, then I agree, the argument is
>illogical. It is because
> of this that I wrote to Don as I did.
>
> -
>
> Reply to Janice (4)
>
> I wrote: 'Janice -- I understand and respect your
>position (while, of
> course,
> disagreeing with it). It is held by many good
>Christians. I just
> happen to believe that the arguments are not conclusive
>enough to
> convict."
>
> Janice asked: "Convict"? Of what?"
>
> I was thinking of the tendency in all of us to convict
>others of sin when
> we are innocent of that particular sin and to overlook
>our own failings.
> Specifically, the action of calling all same-sex
>activity "sin." If all
> Christians were united on this one, it might be
>different. That is not
> the case.
>
> ----
>
> Reply to Janice (5)
>
> Janice: "You may have missed it, but the only thing I
>was addressing was
> your
> claim that Paul didn't address the subject of
> homosexuality -
> (forget the tap dance about the word- it's transparent).
>
>
> No, that was clear. But Paul could hardly have addressed
>"homosexuality,"
> any more than he could have addressed quantum mechanics.
>
> Janice: "Dr John Warwick Montgomery would not accept
>your personal
> opinion on
> the subject as carrying any weight because you haven't
>backed it up
> with sound hermeneutics. I can't either - for the same
>reason."
>
> My personal opinion is not really relevant here, and the
>last thing I
> would urge anyone to do is accept it just on my say so.
>Nor do I intend
> "sound hermeneutics" for my training has allowed me to
>avoid such
> subjects in the past; at age 74+ I am not likely to
>become another George
> Murphy, who seems to have that discipline well under
>control. <G>
>
> In any case, my original post was calling for precision
>in language,
> nothing more. The word "homosexuality," in scholarly
>discourse at least,
> refers to a condition, not an action. To use it as
>referring to an action
> blurs the conversation and disrespects the other side.
>This is not a "tap
> dance."
>
> -----
>
> Question to Janice.
>
> Now I have a question -- our librarian here has acquired
>a number of
> "Bush Bashing" volumes in the past year (many by
>donations). She asked me
> to find some "responsible" books on the other side --
>recent ones (2004
> and later). So far I have come up with nothing that
>pleases her (Ann
> Coulter and Shawn Hannity books don't really qualify).
>Perhaps you (or
> anyone) can recommend a couple of books of this nature.
>This is a serious
> request; almost certainly I will read (and possibly
>review) any such book
> she acquires.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Burgy
>
Received on Thu Jun 8 15:16:54 2006