Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: TWPIERCE@amherst.bitnet (Tim Pierce) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: PCUSA report on human sexuality Message-ID: Date: 17 May 91 06:33:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 38 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >I think for example that it would be >easier to get the PCUSA to accept homosexual relationships that seem >analogous to marriage than to give a broad endorsement that would seem >to include promiscuous behavior of all kinds. It probably would; however, in addressing this question, there is an implicit assumption that sexual or romantic relationships between people of the same sex are typically more promiscuous than those between people of opposite sex. To clarify that a little bit: suppose that the question was whether _heterosexual_ relationships should be accepted. (A completely imaginary situation.) If someone raised the question about whether "accepting" heterosexual relationships simply meant monogamous or marriage-oriented relationships, or any kind of casual sex, the answer of course would be only the monogamous ones. In fact, the question itself is ridiculous; why is there any reason to believe that "accepting" heterosexual relationships implies condoning any and all heterosexual activity? "The word is love"; what is at stake is whether it is a loving and caring relationship, and not the genders of the participants. Thank you for caring about this issue. -- ____ Tim Pierce / If this bothers you conceptually, \ / BITnet: twpierce@amherst / you are broken and need to be fixed. \/ Internet: twpierce@amherst.edu / -- Robert White (rwhite@jagat.uucp) Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes. [I make no assumption about levels of promiscuity among homosexuals or hetersexuals. Indeed all of the homosexuals that I have known anything about (and it isn't a large number) were living in long-term monogamous relationships. I only point out that I think there's a lot of ignorance and stereotyping, and by not describing more specifically what they mean when they endorse homosexual activity, the authors run the risk of being understood as referring to a different class of activity than they actually intended. --clh]