In
a topic-driven, well-developed paragraph (like Peter Bigelow’s), SUMMARIZE the
second half of Gagnon’s “More than ‘Mutual Joy.’” Clearly identify the author’s
thesis and supporting arguments—Gagnon’s “they say.” Be specific. Use examples
from the text in your response to substantiate your claim.
NOTE:
After posting on the blog, open up the CANVAS assignment (by the same name) and
DO copy and paste the URL address into the CANVAS "WEB URL" text box
so that I have record of your submission on Canvas. Thanks.
Andrew Griffin
ReplyDeleteTimothy Kirk
Freshman Comp.
9/18/15
Gay: the counter argument
In her essay miller argues about the sexual out look of Jesus, she questions whether or not he has a right to speak on this subject. She says that the practice of inclusion is speaking to the outcasts that the emphasis on togetherness and community is speaking for gay marriage. In his counter argument to this Dr. Gagnon says that if this was true then he (Jesus) is also speaking for polygamy, however he also points out that Jesus was reaching out to polygamists in his outreaches. Thus her argument in this area is invalid. Miller also goes as far as to say that Jesus preached against earthly attachments, that Jesus said that family was not important as we would not recognize family members as family in heaven. Yet again Dr. Gagnon shoots the argument down, saying that if this where true, sleeping with ones close family would be fine for people to do. We all know however that this leads to birth defects, this is where Dr. Gagnon takes it and applies it to homosexuality. When we look at incest from a natural perspective, it is harmful for the offspring of the couple, and when we look at homosexuality from the same perspective we get the same outlook. With Homosexual couples there is no offspring, and thus we can conclude that it is not intended for human sexuality, Dr. Gagnon’s argument is validated once again.
Dumar Camacho
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman Composition
September 18th, 2015
More than Mutual Joy Part Two Summary
When Miller says that a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is immoral and prejudicial, we can go to where Jesus says that it is foundational for sexual relations. “Miller uses such texts to argue that Jesus was open to greater inclusiveness as regards non-traditional forms of sexual bonds. As it happens, Jesus meant the exact opposite.” This shows us how Dr. Gagnon gets something that Miller says and then talks about how wrong she is and how it is the exact opposite of what Jesus said. In the Bible we see how Jesus talks about how the alternative to a marriage between a man and a woman is being abstinent from sexual relations. It is very ironic when Miller says that polygamy is an example of why people should disregard a male-female prerequisite in Scripture. Miller claims that “religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all.” The Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is foundational by Jesus. Dr. Gagnon says that, “Lisa Miller’s article is so poorly researched and so badly (and arrogantly) argue that the editors of Newsweek should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it.” This just shows how much Dr. Gagnon disagrees with Miller and her article.
Andrew Falgiano
ReplyDeleteProfessor kirk
9/18/15
Engl 1003
In the second part of Dr. Gagnon is Miller arguing about Jesus and the bible sexual outlook. First,“ Miller cites the relationship of David and Jonathan as an example of the “ Enduring love between men”. She then adds “What Ruth and her mother-in-law what Naomi did in the bedroom is best left to our own imaginations”. So Dr. Gagnon comes back saying as if it is possible that the Bible would be supporting a case of incest. Lisa miller is given invalid arguments. The Lisa miller goes to far saying that Jesus preached against earthly attachments, that Jesus said that family was not important as we would not recognize family members as family in heaven. Then Dr. Gagnon kills that argument saying if this were true we wouldn’t know already that sleeping with your family member gives the baby birth defects. Through this whole article Lisa miller is given invalid arguments and Dr. Gagnon is doing a very good job of stating it and citing scripture and proving her wrong.
Megan Pliauplis
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman Composition
September 18, 2015
More than Mutual Joy: Part 2
In the second part of “‘More than Mutual Joy’: Lisa Miller Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus”, Gagnon continues to rip apart Miller’s article in Newsweek. He continues to pull apart every single argument that Miller makes by dissecting her points. He also continues to have evidence from the Bible to support his own arguments and prove Miller wrong. For example, Gagnon writes, “It is hypocritical of Miller to emphasize as a basis of affirming homoerotic unions such things as inclusion of those on the margins, defying social convention, the presence of “mutual joy” and love as a sufficient prerequisite, and building community and togetherness while rejecting out of hand all adult-committed forms of incest and polyamory.” Gagnon is telling us that Miller obviously does not understand what she is saying. Miller is saying it is okay for you to practice forms of homosexuality but it is not okay to practice forms of incest and polyamory, even though they all fall under the same subject in the Bible. Miller appears ignorant. Gagnon obviously disagrees with this statement, along with the whole article.
Roger Tinsley
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
9/18/2015
ENGL 1003
The second part of Dr. Gagnon's response to Miller, he begins by saying miller thinks a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is immoral and prejudicial. also that miller goes on to use texts from Matthew 19:11-12, Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36 to argue that Jesus was open to greater "inclusiveness" as regards non-traditional forms of sexual bonds. Next Dr. Gagnon says that Miller statement: "Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce." has two side points and that it was a remaining loophole that need to be closed in the law of Moses. Later on Gagnon states "It is hypocritical of Miller to emphasize as a basis for affirming homoerotic unions such things as inclusion of those on the margins, defying social convention, the presence of "mutual joy" and love as a sufficient prerequisite, and building community and togetherness while rejecting out of all adult-committed forms of incest and polyamory. Later he says that miller says: "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual." well of course not, the Bible does have to be read in its historical and literary contexts something that miller does not do well. Finally Gagnon slams Miller one more time stating that her article is so poorly researched and so badly (and arrogantly) argued that Newsweek should be ashamed for publishing it.
Dustin Parsons
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman comp
September 18, 2015
Dr. Gagon
Gagon continues to tear apart Millers statements and arguments from the core. He continues to use verses from the bible to counter act some of the statements Miller makes in her article. He goes on to talk about Millers statement "Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce." he tears this apart by saying "there is no Jew in first-century Palestine known to be engaging in it" and that "there is no Jew advocating for the acceptance of homosexual relations." He talks a lot about the Jews and how they lived and their beliefs. He continues by breaking down her statement on sexually inclusive Jesus and then at the end gives us evidence for Jesus negative stance on homosexual practice.
Conner Ewing
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
English 1003
18 September 2015
In the second half of Dr. Gagnon's counterargument to Lisa Miller, he starts with explaining one of Millers arguments. Her argument is, "male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is immoral and prejudicial." He then explains how she is wrong for using texts that she assumes Jesus really meant, however he meant the total opposite. Later in the essay, Gagnon then takes a jab at Miller's priest friend. In Miller's essay, the priest friend says, "he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Gagnon then goes on to say "This is simply holding hostage God's clear and strong will for sexuality in scripture to whatever innate sexual desires and orientations humans might claim." This just proves the assumptions that Miller and the other people in her essay use because they believe that God predicted humans to stop violating all the commandments. As the essay goes on, it is just another argument from Miller that Gagnon then uses textual information and scripture to prove wrong and show how invalid Millers essay truly is.
Nate Holladay
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
English 1003
18 September 2015
Dr. Gagnon’s Argument towards Lisa Miller: Part Two
Dr. Robert Gagnon continues in the second half of his argument towards Lisa Miller’s false claim to truth on the subject of human sexuality and what the Bible says what is right about homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and adultery. Gagnon continues in his arguing and irritated tone. He says, “Yet, she gets Jesus’ logic backwards.” The entire article as a whole, not just the second half, uses phrases like these to call Miller out on her false interpretations. As we can see here, if the majority of our countries’ population read the two essays, they would probably agree that Gagnon is correct.
Dina Fajardo
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
ENGL 1003
18 September 2015
On the second part Gagnon continues to quote Miller and proving her statements wrong. He is using Bible verses and then explaining them correctly, unlike Miller. "Jesus doesn't have to mention homosexual practice explicitly because there is no Jew in first-century Palestine known to be engaging in it..." This was Gagnon's response to Miller after she stated that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Gagnon continues to explain how Miller is not understanding the scriptures. Polygamy and divorce are other things Miller was not understanding. Gagnon also continues to keep giving evidence to why homosexual practice is wrong.