Reply to John Burgeson

dohlman@cornerstone.edu
Thu, 25 Jul 1996 13:36:11 EST

Wow, I certainly did find out what "Burgy baiting" is! Until now I was not
sure I knew what that meant. I will take my gloves off when I reply privately
to John. No sense in blood splatters here.

I think that the discussion on the definition of family is most significant to
this forum if it sticks close to socialogical meaning of the core building
block of society, not all the various combinations we could call a family or
the matter of what the government should do with all these combinations. There
first has to be an agreed-upon limitation of what constitutes a marriage and
the procreational and nurturing responsibilities of that marriage which results
in the basic unit we call the family. As far as I am concerned, Mike's defi-
nitions do the job well. In the context of those definitions, I think the
Berry quote was perfectly relevant.

Regarding my thoughts about gay marriage, I thought I was referring to the
"homosexual lifestyle." If I did not say that, I apologize. To repeat what I
meant is that the typical homosexual lifestyle "is self-centered, lust-centered,and anti-procreative." I stand by that, but do not deny that some heterosexualscan be similarly described. I do not agree with Burgy that such a lifestyle is
merely "non" procreative. The typical behavior of most homosexuals destroys thebodies, the mental health, and the spiritual health of thousands rendering them
and many of its innocent victims incapable of normal, healthy procreative
activity. As one whose fifteen-year-old sister was devoured by a predatory bandof lesbian softball players who ruined her life and left her incapable of a
normal life as wife and mother, I cannot play these PC games. And I do not
believe there is nearly enough evidence to even declare that there is an
inborn tendency that drives an individual to do the indescribable things most
homosexuals do.

I do not wish to start a chain of discussion on homosexuality here, but it
might at least be helpful here to quote from an essay I have written:

" While it is certainly not universally accepted that there is a
constitutional “homosexual condition,” the following conclusion
from the “Evangelical Dictionary of Theology” (Baker, Grand
Rapids), is probably a fair statement of the evangelical
Christian position:

“But the homosexual condition, until indulged, is innocent,
and should be cleared of the guilt feeling that may drive
[some] into deeper introversion. Like all congenital
deviations from the normal, established homosexuality has
to accepted and lived with. The resulting problem is acute,
but no more so than for heterosexuals, the widow/widower,
the impotent, the single who long to marry and cannot, or
(through inherited insanity) should not. For all such,
prostitution or promiscuity may offer constant temptation, but
one to be resisted by the help of God. For neither
heterosexual nor homosexual is the situation culpable; but
actions to which the situation may incline them remain
sinful, as unnatural, degrading, contrary to Christian
concern for the total welfare of others, inimical to religious
devotion and spiritual progress, and no solution to their
problem. . . . A mature society will recognize prevalent
homosexual activity not as "liberation" but as a symptom of
moral malaise; an alert church will not ostracize but befriend
those whose constitution and circumstances make Christian
living harder for them than most."

[the extra capital letters there represent quote marks]

Dean Ohlman
Cornerstone College