[soc.religion.christian] PCUSA report on human sexuality

hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (05/06/91)

By now many of you know that the upcoming (June) General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church (USA) is going receive a report from a special
committee on human sexuality.  I've already summarized the majority
report in a comment I made on a posting yesterday.  I'd like to make a
couple of personal comments that are more appropriate under my own
name than as moderator.

First, Jennifer Irani seems to think that the GA is going to be asked
to endorse liberal policies on sexuality.  It is not.  The majority
report calls for three things: (1) a set of actions that are
noncontroversial, at least within the PCUSA, (2) approval of the
reports (majority and minority) for study by individual congregations
and other groups, (3) a set of actions that are based on the report,
which are being referred for action by the GA that meets in 1993, i.e.
after the proposed study.  So what the GA is actually being asked to
do is primarily to get the churches to study the issues.  I think this
is the right thing to do.

It's hard to predict what will happen.  While the PCUSA is among the
more "liberal" denominations, I believe there are things in the report
that the church will find unacceptable.  Indeed I know of one incident
of negative personal consequences for one of the authors of the
report, in a part of the country that is relatively liberal.  (I am
reluctant to be more specific, because I don't know whether the
information is public.  I will probably be in a position to be more
specific in a week or so.)

The PCUSA as an institution takes a somewhat "flexible" view of
Scripture.  We are willing to consider that Paul's advice to 1st Cent.
churches may not apply to us.  My own position is a fairly radical
one: I believe that Christians are not under laws, either OT Law, or
laws derived from Paul's advice.  Thus I believe that Christian ethics
must be constructed from Christian principles, such as love of our
neighbor.  The majority report is a very interesting attempt to do
exactly this.  They proceed from principles such as fidelity to
commitments, and a justice based on mutual responsibility.  Thus I
start out being sympathetic to the way the committee proceeded.
Indeed some of their detailed analysis is valuable.  However I have
some problems with the results.

First, the results sound suspiciously like "situation ethics".  This
was an attempt to get rid of rules, saying that Christianity means to
act in each situation as lovingly as possible.  While this sounds
good, there are some problems with it.  Most seriously, it produces an
ethics that fails to do one of the most important things ethics should
do: provide guidelines that protect us against the tendency to
rationalize things that we want to do.  There are actions that seem
very attractive, but which have bad long-run consequences.  One of the
purposes of ethics is to consider actions and their consequences in
advance, and allow us to make judgements calmly, in advance of the
situation and in conjunction with other people who have more
experience.  Reducing ethics to "do what looks loving" is an
abdication of this responsibility to do careful ethical analysis.  It
also makes relationships based on long-term commitment impossible,
since at any moment it may seem more loving to ignore the commitment.

Now I don't believe the committee actually intended to recommend such
an empty ethics.  In some areas they did manage to produce solid
ethical analysis.  The best example was their analysis of the sexual
responsibility of pastors and other leaders, e.g. whether it is
appropriate to have sexual relations with a member of the
congregation.  (Their answer was: only with the most careful
safeguards, and they gave some examples of what this means.)  The
problem is that they did not apply such careful analysis to every
area, and they were apparently not sufficiently self-critical to
realize this.  Thus the report has the effect of demolishing
traditional restrictions and not doing the work necessary to put
something in their place.

It may of course be that the committee and I simply disagree about
what an adequate replacement for traditional restrictions would be.
But I am simply not convinced that there is no difference in sexual
expression appropriate within and without marriage.  This gets to my
second basic problem with the report.  The report is based on the
concept that all people are sexual beings, and have a right to express
themselves sexually.  Those who are not engaging in intercourse are
assumed to express themselves sexually by masturbation.  This approach
is portrayed as a corrective for the tendency of Christians to
consider sex as "dirty".  I agree that Christians need to consider the
positive value of sex, and that the Reformed tradition is correct in
not limiting its purpose to procreation.  However the idea that
everyone is sexually active seems to me an unnecessarily narrow view
of what it means to be sexual beings.  Using the kind of analysis that
the committee uses elsewhere, I believe it can be shown that there is
a great danger that sex outside committed relationships such as
marriage will turn out to be exploitative.  I'm willing to consider
that a proper analysis might identify situations outside of marriage
where sexual relations are appropriate.  But they have not done such
an analysis.

The most serious problem I see with the report is that it didn't deal
adequately with the problem of homosexuals within the church.  After
all, this is the primary actual issue that the GA needs to deal with.
There is certainly a section on homosexuality in the report.  Some of
what is says is useful, although I agree with the minority report that
the analysis of Rom 1 that they quote from Robin Scroggs has its
problems.  (The minority report, on the other hand, blows the analysis
of Gen 19.)  But the big problem with the report is that it doesn't
make any attempt to look in detail at homosexual relationships.

What bothers me about the majority report is that it shows no signs of
having looked at what kinds of relationships gay and lesbian
Christians actually engage in.  I would have expected the committee to
make an effort at presenting statistical evidence, case studies, or
something like that.  Are people thinking only of the homosexual
equivalent of marriage?  Are we being asked to endorse gay sex clubs?
What?  It seems to me unreasonable for the committee to ask us to
endorse a lifestyle without giving us some idea of what it is like and
what its consequences are.  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.  Would the homosexuals
within the PCUSA consider that a good stand for us to take?  The
report gives us no idea.

Frankly I find some of the comments in the minority report both more
realistic and more helpful.  It's interesting that press attention has
focused mostly on the majority report.  What I find *really*
interesting is how far the conservative minority was willing to go.  I
found their analysis of whether homosexuality is innate, and their
summary of attempts at "converting" very useful.  (In summary, they
concluded that changing orientation is a long, painful process with a
fairly low success rate, and there are some reasons to doubt how
successful the "successes" are.)  

I'll end with a summary of the issue from the minority report.  "One
thing that seems clear to us, is that there is something in the human
spirit that seems to work best in monogamous, covenantal
relationships.  Many people whose sexual orientation is toward those
of the same gender are not promiscuous and are living together
responsibly and faithfully -- and at least as permanently -- as many
people who are living in a heterosexual marriage.  Even though a
majority of people within our church, and most people in society at
large, do not seem ready to affirm homosexual marriages, still it is
our opinion that monogamous, conventional [I think they mean
covenantal --clh] relationships are better than the pitfalls of
promiscuity and ought to be affirmed in some way. ...  The entire
special committee unanimously agrees that hatred, exploitation,
violence and scorn directed against gay and lesbian persons, ... is
sin.  There needs to be a continuation of work and prayer for more
understanding on all sides of this issue.  We are united in affirming
that our churches should welcome gay and lesbian persons into the
membership of the church, providing a safe haven against bigotry, and
offering ministries of love and nurture which take them seriously as
persons.  Some of us believe that one day, after we have done this,
and when more of us have come to know some gay and lesbians as real
persons, then the question of ordination will finally be settled, one
way or the other, from the grass roots up, rather than from the
General Asssembly down."

kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (05/07/91)

In reading about the PCUSA report on human sexuality, I wonder if the
most basic problem is a perceived societal unwillingness to use the
religious "s" word -- sin.

From day one, Christians have maintained that: (1) all of us are
sinful, BUT (2) that sin is, thanks to Christ, FORGIVABLE.

I've thought a lot about "how evil works" in this world, and one
way, be it with, promiscuity, drugs or gangs, it seems like a "1-2"
punch.  First, one is seduced into believing that what one is going
to do is "perfectly ok" certainly "not sinful" ... then after the trap 
has been set ... one is told that there is "no forgiveness" ... "you're
evil ... you have to live with it."

Both are completely against what Christianity is about.  There is *always*
the *possibility* of forgiveness.  It is *not* automatic, but redemption
is *always* possible to even the most despondant of sinners.

I can't see how a church can tell a pair of teenagers that sex at 
their age can *ever* be "responsible" ... But I would hope that the
various pastors/priests/and other ministers of the faith would make 
it clear that despite that, Christ will always love them, and (hopefully)
the Church will always love them, and that the door will *always* be open
should they want to *come back*

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu

[No, the authors of the report are perfectly willing to use the term
"sin".  However they use it for different things than you do.  They
identify things as wrong when they involve exploitation, lack of
responsible consent, violation of promises, and other criteria.  Their
claim is not that there is no sin.  Rather they reject the traditional
criteria the define it primarily by formal criteria such as whether
people are married.  Instead they want to look at whether the
particular actions are responsible, with a definition of responsible
that involves various considerations of mutuality, consent, etc.  As
you may know, I have some problems with their analysis, but it's an
oversimplification to say that they are afraid to call things sinful.
--clh]

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/07/91)

OFM gave us a fairly extensive meta-report.  He also expressed
disappointment over the lack of reporting upon homosexual relationships
in the church.

The UMC has also had a committee studying a church controversy.  This
study has been specifically on Homosexuality.  No official report has
been handed down, and no official vote has been taken, however a straw
poll taken recently indicates that a majority of the committee will
recommend that the denomination remove the ban against ordaining
"self-professed practicing homosexuals".

This would be an ammendment to "The Discipline" of the UMC, to remove
wording that was added back in '72 as I recall.  It would not take place
until "General Conference" which will be in '92.  Although everything is
*very* unofficial at this point, a minor uproar is starting and will no
doubt grow.  (I'm looking forward to passionate debates at my Annual
Conference again this year.  (* Heavy Sigh *))  Already, protests have
been lodged, and the AFA is lobbying delegates to Annual Conferences
(such as myself), and possible delegates to General Conference to try
and influence the election of delegates this year, and the vote next
year.  (Delegates are sent from each "Annual Conference" to
"Jurisdictional Conferences" and to the "General Conference".  It will
be these delgates to GC that will decide whether or not to amend "The
Discipline" and if so how.  ("The Discipline" is not holy writ, it is a
document governing the running of the denomination.  Like, what is the
responsibility of the trustees of the local congregation.  And how are
officers to be elected.  And how are clergy to be ordained.))

It's my understanding that Roberts wrote his "Rules of Order" in an
attempt to bring order to church meetings he had the misfortune to
chair.  The more church meetings I attend, the more I understand.

In case anyone has any specific questions, I probably don't have any
answers.  (Well, maybe one or two, but you get the idea.  I'm still
pretty much in the dark in this one.  This much I know, Once again
[as in the PCUSA report] the minority opinion is surprising in its
acceptance.)

					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) (05/07/91)

I have heard a variety of _opinions_ of what the PCUSA report says.  Does anyone have an electronic copy or an inclination to input the whole report?  The variety of opinion leads me to believe that the report is not clear cut.

Randy
-- 
________________________________________________________
Randy Price                      randy@uutopia.dell.com
The opinions are my own, not my employers, cognito.

"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have
removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift 
of God?"
                           Thomas Jefferson

[In answer to another request, I'm going to post information on where
to get a copy.  It's over 100 pages.  I don't think that's appropriate
for a posting...   --clh]

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/10/91)

When Paul said that we were not under law, he did not tell us to
"continue in sin that grace may abound."  This saying "not under law"
can be taken out of context (of the Torah.)  In I Corinthians 9, Paul
explained that when he was among them without law, he bacame as one
without law, not as being without law to God, but under the Law of
Christ.)  James describes our law as the "law of liberty."  But notice
in the letter in Acts which explained that we were not under the Law,
we are given certain commands.  No idolatry, no fornication, no eating
blood.  We should keep ourselves from sexual immorality.
Unfortunately, there were some in the early church who did not believe
this.
 
 From what I have read, there was a group in the early church called
the Nicolatians who as a take-off on Paul's preaching of liberty said
that it was okay for Christians to worsip idols and commit
fornication, because God would forgive it.
 They are mentioned in Scripture.
 Revelation 2:14-16
 This is Jesus speaking,
 "Nevertheless, I have a few thinngs against you: You have people
there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice
the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by
commiting sexual immoralit.  Likewise you also have those who hold to
the teaching of the Nicolaitians.  Repent therefore!  Otherwise I will
son come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my
mouth."
 Jesus coming against them with the sword of his mouth.  Why could he
not do this today?
 Also read Peter's discussion of the "way of Balaam" In II PETER 2.
Notice that it would have been better for those who turned from the
gospel to these teachings to never have known the way of
righteousness.
 It reminds me of the parable of the servant who knew the lord was
returning and began to eat and dring with the drunken and beat his
fellow servants.  The servant who did not know was beaten with fewer
stripes.
   
   I think we can conclude that the one who turns from the truth to
following the way of Balaam will have a greater damnation than the one
who never recieved the gospel.  Think about it.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/10/91)

>understanding on all sides of this issue.  We are united in affirming
>that our churches should welcome gay and lesbian persons into the
>membership of the church, providing a safe haven against bigotry, and
>offering ministries of love and nurture which take them seriously as
>persons.  Some of us believe that one day, after we have done this,
>and when more of us have come to know some gay and lesbians as real
>persons, then the question of ordination will finally be settled, one
>way or the other, from the grass roots up, rather than from the
>General Asssembly down."

There is a statement of Paul in I Corinthians 6 that is not a law.  It
is stated as a fact.  Paul states that fornicators, nor idolators, nor
adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor
the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit
the kingdom of God.  This is not stated as a law for us to follow, but
it is simply stated as a fact.  It is clear that God condemns the acts
of forniction, adultery, and homosexuality.
 
 In I Corinthians 5, Paul writes of a man who has his father's wife.
Paul said to cut this person from fellowship and to "deliver him to
Satan."
 In the Old Testament, sleeping with one's step-mother had the same
pnalty as homosexuality.....death.
 Now let us look at verses 9-11.
 "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexualy
immoral people- not at all meaning the people of this world who are
immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters.  In that case you
would have to leave this world.  But now I am writing you that you
must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is
sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or
a swindler.  With such a man do not even eat."
 Should we allow homosexuals or fornicators or adulterers into the
church?  Certainly not!  Should we ordain them?  II Peter 2 goes into
detail about teachers who teach others to live immorally.  I think
this would especially fit with one such person as these who teaches
that his acts are okay.  If we accept people into the church who live
lives such as these, and openly admit it, we are profaning the name of
Christ.  We are dragging Christ through the mud.
 Thank you.

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/10/91)

In article <May.7.00.25.55.1991.14554@athos.rutgers.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
+
+I can't see how a church can tell a pair of teenagers that sex at 
+their age can *ever* be "responsible" ... But I would hope that the

As a matter of fact, this age seems to be the one at varience with
the past. In previous times 'teen-agers' were married and
contributing to the society. But now that is considered
inappropriate, but essentially left no alternative to the sexual
motivations in the young. As for family orientation, once a long
time ago I work on a youth hot line. It was constant source of
amazement to me to hear a young girl complaining that 1) she was
pregnant 2) the parents in a fit of self-righteousness told her to
leave("we don't want you to corrupt your sister"). I don't hear
parents saying much different today. You may 'encourage' the
behavior you want, but it seems when your efforts fail the angry is
all that remains.

It is no surpise to me that in this environment which emphasizes
'chasity' so much, and the consequences of not measuring up so
greate that 1) young woman want abortions 2) young men deny
culpability. The young women who have continued their pregnancy
inspite of social ostricism  and get support from parents are often
not likely to repeat the process. The ones who get tossed, often end
up in the endless cycle of finding someone to take care of them, get
pregnant and tossed again.

Of course you may not see it since those who wind up in this state
usually do not go to church or school. So what you don't see is not
a problem. Every once in awhile your reminded by some sensationalist
new report, or some preacher trying to whip up support for why
everything is going to hell in a handbasket.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) (05/13/91)

In article <May.10.03.24.07.1991.6718@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>There is a statement of Paul in I Corinthians 6 that is not a law.  It
>is stated as a fact.  Paul states that fornicators, nor idolators, nor
>adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor
		^^^^^^
Why just MALE prostitutes? Female prostitutes are redeemed? Oh by the way,
the original Koine Greek of Paul has instead of "male prostitutes, nor
homosexuals" the SINGLE WORD "arsenokoitai" which means "male prostitute".
How did homosexuals get thrown in there, too?

[There's a good deal of uncertainty about the precise meaning of some
of the words in Paul's lists.  The translation being used by Paul
Hudson presumably translates malakoi as "male prostitutes" and
arsenokoitai as "homosexuals".  This is essentially what NRSV has.
RSV tranlates both together (one assumes) simply as "sexual perverts".
Gingrich connects both words with homosexuals.  Unfortunately my best
source on NT Greek (abridged Kittel) cleverly omits both words.
(chicken!)  I've also heard suggestions that the reference was to the
active and passive partners in homosexual sex, as well as suggestions
that neither word has anything to do with homosexuality.  Only a very
optimistic person would claim to know for certain what the meaning is.
--clh]

TWPIERCE@amherst.bitnet (Tim Pierce) (05/17/91)

>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]

gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/17/91)

The question has been asked, ``Why just MALE prostitutes?'' in I
Cor.6.  It is possible that Paul here is referring to the male cult
prostitutes mentioned in the Old Testament.  Unfortunately I can't
find the references to them because apparently the King James version
called them something else.

Anyway this could have meant male religious prostitutes.
--
-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com 

lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) (05/19/91)

>[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]

I appreciate your sensitivity to the risks of making assumptions, Chuck.   
About a year ago,  I reviewed all 1360 records in my address file at the time,
342  (25%) of which are records of persons I know to be lesbians or gay 
males.  Here's the breakdown,
 
  16         Single & celibate or in hetero marriage;
 
  95         Single with no commitment to celebacy
 
  96         In a committed gay relationship
 
 135         I don't know (mainly professional or organizational
              associates whom I do not know in a social setting)
=====
 342
 
While I am not clear about the longevity of the relationships of
all 96, I estimate 30-40 of those have been together at least 15
years.
 
Over the last two decades I have visited in the home of close to
three dozen lesgay couples, and at least of a third of those had
been together your magical number of 10 years at the time I
visited them; many others passed that number after I visited
them.
 
Louie Crew
Founder of Integrity, the justice ministry of lesgay Episcopalians
Member of the Council, Episcopal Diocese of Newark
Editor of the book just out today, _A Book of Revelations:  Lesbian and 
   Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories_, with a foreword by 
   George Hunt, the Bishop of Rhode Island (NYC:  Integrity, Inc, 1991,
   224 pp.)


 
    Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
    Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lcrew@draco.rutgers.edu
    Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147
    Rutgers:  The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h
    P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5434 o
    Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5700 FAX
 
                    Only a dead fish floats with the current.

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/19/91)

In article <May.17.02.33.48.1991.27786@athos.rutgers.edu> TWPIERCE@amherst.bitnet (Tim Pierce) writes:

The moderator writes:
+[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

A book titled 'American Couples' circa 1982 lists average duration of
relationship as( in approximate years):

Heterosexual non-married	2-3	years
Homosexual female		5-6
Homosexual male			7-8
Heterosexual married		15

I have not found another studie which is more recent and has the
'same' categories. I don't have the time to read several different
studies and then correlate them with this study. It would seem from
the above numbers that Heterosexula non-married is the most
ephemeral. The book also noted that homosexual males were able to
tolerate a high level of 'non-monogamy'. However the study was done
before the AIDS epidemic became well known.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (05/22/91)

In article <May.18.22.54.51.1991.14156@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

   A book titled 'American Couples' circa 1982 lists average duration of
   relationship as( in approximate years):

   Heterosexual non-married	2-3	years
   Homosexual female		5-6
   Homosexual male		7-8
   Heterosexual married		15

I'm surprised that gay women had relationships shorter by two years
than gay men, because that doesn't match my experience.  But then, who
knows?  

The problem is that of the gay relationships cited, certainly some are
committed and supported similarly to the heterosexual marriages, and
some are certainly more akin to the heterosexual unmarried
relationships.  We need a breakdown into level of commitment before we
can draw any conclusions.  The numbers simply aren't parallel.  They
allow us to conclude only that 1) gay relationships are more stable
than unmarried heterosexual ones, on average, and 2) gay relationships
are less stable that married heterosexual ones.  But, those statements
are true, probably, of *all* relationships.  The average relationship,
overall, is certainly inbetween the two pictures as well.

There *is* less regard for stable relationships in the gay community
(but not so little regard as the pundits on this list seem to think),
and that *is* a problem.  But we will never solve it by excluding
them, for it is that exclusion that led to the situation as it is.

	-mib

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/26/91)

In article <May.22.00.51.15.1991.1598@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <May.18.22.54.51.1991.14156@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
+
+ ... Statistics on duration of relationships.....
+Bushnell:
+I'm surprised that gay women had relationships shorter by two years
+than gay men, because that doesn't match my experience.  But then, who
+knows?  

The authors noted the discrepancy. As for my own experience with
heterosexual marriages... my wife(marginally Christian) and
I(non-Christian) have been married 12 years; her three sisters all
divorced and Christian to various degrees.
Conclusion, Christians have a greater divorce rate than me.
My wife does wedding photos and again a number, (more than 5), were
divorce within a few years all 'church' weddings with various
degrees of religiousness.

To further darken the waters I'm not a proponent of monogamy nor
do I consider that only heterosexuals should be allowed to form
legally recognized 'marital' bonds. My wife feels otherwise relative
to monogamy.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) (06/03/91)

In article <May.26.01.36.59.1991.13330@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>As for my own experience with
>heterosexual marriages... my wife(marginally Christian) and
>I(non-Christian) have been married 12 years; her three sisters all
>divorced and Christian to various degrees.
>Conclusion, Christians have a greater divorce rate than me.

I believe that no appreciable difference has been found between the divorce
rate for Christians and that for non-Christians. Of course, the people who
gathered this information may very well have been using a rather loose
definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce
is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily.

				GGC  <><

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)

In article <Jun.3.01.57.35.1991.2882@athos.rutgers.edu> chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) writes:
+definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce
+is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily.

Excuse me for not giving more information on my experience. My wife
reads the Bible once every 10 years for her health. I read the Bible
when I make some outrageous statement and either prove myself wrong
or prove I have recalled correctly.

Her sisters at the time were married to individuals who were in the
practice of daily reading from the Bible. Now, I cannot with
absolute verification state that they both, together, daily read the
Bible. But say for the sake of arguement they did. This would give
you a 'hearing of' for which you have not found else where.


On the other hand, what if, for one of the sisters, the sister
did not 'read the Bible' daily with her husband. Does that necessarily
imply that the husband was correct in proceding the divorce.

Or to put it another way, there is a phrase which is to the effect
of "not being un-equally yoked" as in don't be married to a
non-believer. Does this provide a basis for a Christian to divorce a
spouse? And how much Bible thumbing must one do to 'prove' that one
believes if one is accused of not believing?
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (06/05/91)

In article <Jun.3.01.57.35.1991.2882@athos.rutgers.edu>,
chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) writes:
|>I believe that no appreciable difference has been found between the divorce
|>rate for Christians and that for non-Christians. Of course, the people who
|>gathered this information may very well have been using a rather loose
|>definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce
|>is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily.

An article appeared recently in _The United Methodist Review_ on a survey of
113,000 adults performed by sociologists at CUNY.  People were simply asked
"What is you religion?", their answer to this question was then compared
with their answers to a number of other questions.  (The researchers were
interested in how the participants perceived their religious identity.)

While I don't see any specific results dealing with comparitive divorce
rates of Christians and Non-Christians, there is some similar data.

	"Greater percentages of people with no religion stay single.
	Greek Orthodox have the lowest rate of divorce, Unitarians
	the highest.  Roman Catholics run about even with mainstream
	Protestants."

Some other interesting findings:

	"Hindus and Jews, in that order, have the highest percentage
	of college graduates.  Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists and
	Pentecostals have the lowest."

	"Jews and Baptists are the most likely to be Democrats.  Jews
	are the most urban-based group, while Baptists are more rural
	than any other religious group."

	"Half of the 1.5 million Arab-Americans are Christian,
	including most of those of Lebanese and Iraqi descent.
	Most Asian-Americans are not Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim -
	They're Christian, especially Catholic and Baptist."

	"The average age of a Presbyterian is 48.2 years, followed
	by Methodists at 48. Of the major denominational families,
	Pentecostals are the youngest, just under 40."

	"Presbyterians (2.6), Methodists and Jews (2.7) have the
	lowest average size households."
              

					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton