marriage (was: Another query to George and comments to Janice)

It may be "very sensible," to separate civil licences from church blessings
but it's not as simple as that. The state would still have to set limits on
what it defines as "marriage." In Canada, the traditional definition of
marriage now includes same-sex unions and, although this has pleased the
"progressive" element in Canadian society, the FLDS (fundamental latter day
saints) is now clamouring to have polygamy accepted, with the argument that,
prohibiting polygamy is an infringement on their religious rights.

Allowing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions, what
prevents a female from entering into a same-sex relationship with her sister
or her mother? One could, I assume, prohibit a man from marrying his sister
because of the problems associated with any offspring but this problem would
not arise from same-sex sibling unions. If it would become economically
advantageous (e.g., taxation(, all sorts of "marriages" could be arranged.

It seems to me that the only reason for extending the definition of marriage
to include same-sex unions is to make the latter acceptable. In the past,
if I said I was married, the sex of my spouse would be clear: the opposite
of mine. Now I will have to qualify this. This makes language less precise
and is not the way I would expect a language to evolve.

IHMO, once the state severs its relationship with traditional
Judeo-Christian values, all best are off and the any future decisions will
be based on the will of the majority and that will lead us into uncharted
waters. I would not be one bit surprised if the FLDS (located in Bountiful,
BC) would issue a challenge to the Canadian courts. In fact, when the change
of the definition of marriage was debated, the then Federal minister of
justice was asked about that. His reply was that there was no danger of
polygamy to be allowed because it "was against the law." However, if laws
are based on public opinion and not on traditional Judeo-Christian
principles, the law against polygamy can easily be changed.

Chuck Vandergraaf

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:00 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 Fri Jun 9 10:09:32 2006