Re: Another query to George and comments to Janice

How very sensible - civil licenses (isn't that how we do it?) and church
blessings. Here again is a problem that is in part likely a product of a
widely-accepted conflation of two functions.

In some cases, it would need to be up to a church (or minister) to
choose to ask a blessing or not in cases where denominations are in
internal disagreement.

JimA

drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:

> 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 18:59:56 2006