RE: Shapes of a Wedge

From: Don Perrett <>
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 14:42:00 EDT

I'm sorry you were unable to see the LARGE letters I wrote "NON-COMMITMENT"
which specifically denotes my objection to a relationship solely for the
purpose of procreation. Nonetheless, procreation is an obligation we have.
Aside from ancient reasoning, it is also a question of maintaining the
species. I doubt that you imply that we should have self-genocide. After
all who would want more people around praising the Lord. :) I suppose for
argument sake one could simply accept it and hope that most abhorrent people
will not procreate. I personally would rather that all were without sin.
Is homosexuality and bisexuality a sin? In my opinion. But that doesn't
make them any more or less sinful than the next person. The question should
not be is it sin, but is anyone trying to change to live within God's
intended purpose. Somehow I don't see staying celibate or gay helps God's

Don Perrett

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Schneider []
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 05:41
To: Don Perrett; John W Burgeson
Cc: ASA Discussions
Subject: Re: Shapes of a Wedge

The problem with your argument, Don, is that it reduces marriage to sexual
intercourse for the purpose of having offspring. That is not a description
in any real sense of what a marriage is to be. One of the problems with the
concept of marriage in many Christian expressions is that it bought the
ancient (Greek, Roman, Jewish) concept that the purpose of marriage is to
maintain the family as an economic unit, which required offspring to
perpetuate the family and its property rights. Women were married by their
parents to the male of another family for purposes of economic, political or
other alliances. They were not married for the purpose of maintaining a
loving, faithful, monogamous relationship. In fact, it was common in some
of these cultures for the male to have relations with other women outside of
the marriage; or with men. Futhermore, such marriages were power
relationships in which the male in their patriarchal, hierarchical
relationships held nearly complete control over his wife, whose only
recourse to abuse was to threaten to walk away and take the dowry with her;
she had virtually no rights at law. She was the inferior in a power

When procreation is placed in the context of the primary purpose of marriage
as mutual love, companionship, and mutual care, then we come closer to the
teachings of Jesus and the new testament letter writers. When Maria and I
married, she was past child-bearing age: I defy anyone to argue that there
is something defective about our marriage because we are unable to produce
offspring. Eve was created from the human being primarily to be his
companion, not primarily to be his baby maker.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett" <>
To: "John W Burgeson" <>
Cc: "ASA Discussions" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:45 AM
Subject: RE: Shapes of a Wedg

> Hi Burgy,
> To interject, the Bible does speak to it, in a manner of speaking. First
> says "go forth and multiply". Now assuming one does this, it does not
> that one must be married nor heterosexual. It does mean that one must
> sex with a partner of the opposite sex in order to fulfill this command.
> Which only leaves the option of bisexuality for those leaning towards same
> sex. This however would then mean that one cannot be in a monogamous
> relationship, of the type that you state is intimate and acceptable.
> leaves you only the option of having a relationship with someone of the
> opposite sex, for the purpose of having a child, then become gay and enter
> into a second relationship. Or vice versa. In either case it would then be
> predetermined NON-COMMITMENT to a relationship (marriage), which is not a
> relationship of intimacy at all. Which again brings it back to the point
> that one cannot obey God and be homosexual or bisexual. Homosexual(never
> having sex with the other sex) leaves one unable to fulfill the command,
> Bisexual(having had at least one experience with someone of the opposite
> sex, even if only for reproduction) leaves one unable to even fulfill your
> requirement of intimate relationship let alone God's. And while divorces
> occur, I doubt anyone would subscribe to the idea of it being intended
> solely for reproduction. Some would say, "people in the OT used
> Yes, but who would raise them. The two mothers, or the two fathers? The
> Bible says honor your father and mother, not father and father, nor mother
> and mother.
> From the beginning
> Don Perrett
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On
> Behalf Of John W Burgeson
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 16:43
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Shapes of a Wedge
> >>How can any Christian advocate gay marriage when the Bible (both old
> and new testament) so clearly speaks out against it? I understand that
> you are not personally advocating that position, but you don't seem to
> see such a position as contradictory to the Word of God. Please explain.
> >>
> Lots of material on my website, page 2, section 10, on all sides of the
> issue. Some people here get bent out of shape when I mention this stuff,
> so I will not go over already plowed ground.
> The issue (#1) of whether ALL same-gender intimacy is sin is one issue.
> The issue (#2) of Gay marriage is another issue. I have a position
> statement on the first issue on my website, written after a several years
> study in 2001; it is still my position.
> I have not (yet) taken a position on #2, Gay Marriage, although I think
> the arguments for permitting it are strong ones -- yes, "conservative"
> strong ones. There is at least one argument against it which still gives
> me pause; it is a variation of the so-called "slippery slope" logic.
> Briefly stated, if I can approve Gay Marriage, on what grounds can I
> still oppose polygamy? I have not (yet) worked through this.
> In any event, the Bible does not speak at all to either issue, except by
> strained interpretations. The material on my site will explain why I do
> not see scripture as speaking "clearly" on either issue. There are quite
> a number of Christian scholars, clerics and lay people who argue this
> point quite better than I can. Is Paul, in Romans 1, speaking of ALL
> same-gender intimacy, or only of the kind he clearly knew about, acts
> which took place in a pagan temple between men and children?
> One of the neatest example of this is a debate between Tony Compolo and
> his wife, who hold differing views on issue #1. A link to this debate is
> on my website.
> Scholars Wink and Mauser have written position papers on issue #1, each
> on a different side. Worth reading them both; links on my site.
> The issues are not easy. The temptation to just "believe what one has
> always believed" is great. I started there; I know.
> Best
> Burgy
> Today's quip: They told me I was gullible -- and I believed them.
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!
Received on Wed Jun 9 15:06:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 15:06:05 EDT