Andrew Alder wrote:
That depends. If you read my reply to Andrew Watts, the issue in England (and for those oustide England who felt it mattered to them) was not that John was practising gay, it was that he was unrepentant celibate. I'm not sure whether EMU made any public pronouncement on that case, but I would expect that that's where they stand too.
I did read that. What I know of this story has been from newspapers and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. It seems he currently has a partner, but claims to be celibate. Presumably that means that they both are. It's a rather strange situation.
Why? There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are celibate too,
it's just that they haven't had to declare it. And John has been very
good about not publicising who his partner is - it may be they're
currently living apart because of their jobs, it might be that there's
some other equally valid reason why they're celibate just now. (His partner might even be an abuse victim and unable to deal with the triggers...but that is PURELY speculation - I'm just using it as a classic, and very personal, instance of why a relationship might be temporarily a celibate one).
I'm going to be really picky here, but with a transsexual in my family
it *is* something I know about directly. Trannies consider themselves
trannies before, during and after transition. Legally speaking, they're
a tranny at the point where they begin to live as a member of the
opposite sex, whether or not they've taken steps to actually alter their
gender.
Understood.
And there are still people who believe that innate transsexualism
Transexualism? Is that the same as transexuality?
<laugh> Yes. I was tired when I wrote before - I'm not sure whether that was a typing error or a thinking one, but that's all it was.
See http://transsexual.org/What.html for what is IMO a good explanation. Interested in other views.
There are some generalisations on that site that don't fit with the stuff my aunt (previously uncle) has found in experience and research, but it seems a fairly good site in introducing the basic concepts.
is biologically impossible, and therefore that transsexuals choose something against biology and thus against what god ordained for them.
I'd think this is purely a matter of where you draw the line. Physically ambiguous gender is medically very well established. Surely nobody doubts this, or would oppose the ordination of such persons into the UCA clergy (although some other churches well may, remember my earlier account of a paraplegic friend needing a medical certificate to get married).
Yes, of course it's a matter of where you draw the line. My point was that different people (and different theological viewpoints) draw the line in different places, so there are plenty of people who would still argue that acting on the transsexuality (ie. taking hormones, changing name, having reconstructive surgery) is wrong.
So there *is* room for arguing that there are non-practising trannies. (I'm not saying *I* would argue that.)
Hmmmm. I don't follow the logic here. Are you saying that something that you think is *false* would support your argument if it were *true*? So what?
Um, I have no idea what you mean :-) See above - I was simply saying that *because* there are people who would argue that acting on the transsexuality is wrong, there is already a distinction between practising and non-practising trannies. And I'm defining "practising" as "acting on the innate identity/orientation".
I suspect that the reason it hasn't actually been specified one way or
the other is because not enough trannies have yet come forward in christian circles to speak about it :-)
That could be. The ones I know are quietly and happily getting on with their lives. If any wished to candidate I'd support them, and I would not expect their sexuality to be an issue.
I don't know of any who've been able to stay in mainstream denominations, so the issue wouldn't arise for them!
There is a similar problem with lumping GLB together. Surely, a practising bisexual must have more than one partner? If they are practising "right relationships", that's not practising bisexuality. "GL" can describe people in committed, exclusive relationships. "B" can't. That's not rocket science surely.
Or have I missed something?
Um, yes, I believe so. (I also have a bisexual family member, and yes,
I do come from a christian family.) Bisexuality is probably most simply
defined as liking both genders equally as sexual partners.
That's inclination again. I am talking practice.
But there is a difference, which is why it comes into this discussion. Judy's post (with quotes) said this far better than I was struggling to. Essentially, that bisexuality is also about sexual orientation, practised or not.
If that's what you mean by bisexual, I would *definitely* leave it out. But there is such a thing as a practising bisexual. I have counted some as friends. They don't impose their lifestyle on me, nor I mine on them, but we have discussed it. In fact we have joked about the fact that neither side really knows what we are missing out on.
There has been a lot said recently (by others in other threads) about others taking EMU bait. Maybe. But IMO there is a transparent attempt, going back many years, to blurr the distinction between homosexual practice and inclination. Whether this is by an organised lobby or just by misguided but highly motivated individuals is not especially relevant.
You know, I think some of the blurring comes from each side of the debate. EMUs (as you so effectively pointed out) blur it by context and assumption - I think some liberals probably blur it because they don't have issues with it *either* way, practised or non-practised, so the distinction is irrelevant.
I don't think that I, or EMU members, or any (other) reasonable person has ever attempted to get the UCA to ban anyone from ordination on the grounds of unfulfilled homosexual desires. But these are words that are often put into our mouths.
Be very wary of this particular bait. It is poisonous to our church.
I appreciate the need to specify this, although it would be interesting to get a 100% response to an enquiry of conservatives as to whether they do or don't think that way. I'm not so sure *nobody* does.
It doesn't
mean you have to be enjoying them both at the same time.
Hmmm... stretching it there I think...
I don't see how. Bisexuality is about orientation. Not necessarily practise. So even if you're not practising, you can still be bi. But you *can* be bi, practising, and monogamous, in my view.
You could be
in subsequent relationships with different genders.
Hmmmm... and does that conform to right relationships? If it's practising bisexuality, I don't think so. Interested in other views. Perhaps it confirms just what a loose standard RR is that it's possible for us to even ask the question.
I don't agree at all. Acknowledging that one has had more than one relationship in the past, and may have a future relationship beyond the current one, is absolutely not contrary to RR (or FIM). We don't necessarily go our entire life having had only one relationship, and we can't say that we will. Even leaving out the potential of divorce/relationship split, there's still the possibility of one's partner dying, and a new relationship forming. The reality about bis is that they don't automatically assume that such a relationship would be with the opposite gender to themselves.
Or you could be
talking about past experiences rather than present actions.
Which again is not practising.
Exactly! So it's possible to be bi and not practising.
But
whatever way they choose to live out their sexuality doesn't alter the
essential predisposition to relationships with both/either.
Agreed. So...?
So...what I've already said. Bis can be practising or non-practising, monogamous or polygamous, and thus can be included in the discussion as to whether it's appropriate to ordain them or not based on whether they're practising or not and whether they're in RR or not.
So I certainly *would* include bi's in this discussion.
OK. And I think it's inevitable that this will eventually happen, assuming GL ordination goes ahead. But this is a guess of mine. For the moment I'll avoid the term GLB I think, as it doesn't IMO do GL people justice in terms of Right Relationships.
I can only say I disagree profoundly, and I think your stance does grave injustice to bis who choose to live monogamously.
EMUs, in the same context as initially discussed, would probably be including non-repentant BTs, I guess.
I have been making some guesses myself, so I can't complain about your making this one. But can I assume from it that you have not actually heard any EMU members make such claims?
I've never heard EMUs even touch on bis or trannies, except in a tone of utter revulsion. So I suppose I'm guessing based on that tone rather than anything specifically said in rational discussion, because they haven't seemed able to *have* rational discussion about this.
Definitely a good point to raise.
Thanks. And thanks for your contribution.
Likewise, as usual :-)
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------
