G'day Jonathan and the Group
At 01:24 AM 22/08/03 -0400, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
Andrew Alder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm unhappy to put these four together. My first problem is the "T". The
>first three are decisions, assuming we mean "practising". The last one, the
>"T", is not. There's no such thing as a non-practising transexual. Even if
>they are completely celibate they remain transexual.
In my view, a heterosexual person remains heterosexual even if they are completely celibate. Similarly, a homosexual person remains homosexual even if they are completely celibate.
>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?
I see it this way:
A heterosexual male may be attracted to many people, all of whom happen to be women. We may encourage this person to select one woman, enter into a lifelong relationship with this woman, and confine the _expression_ of their sexuality to this relationship.
Similarly, a bisexual male may be attracted to many people, some of whom are men, some of whom are women. We may encourage this person to select one person (man or women), enter into a lifelong relationship with this person, and confine the _expression_ of their sexuality to this relationship.
I think you'll find that if you use these definitions, then as a consequence EMU will have no objection to the ordination of homosexuals (as *you* define them).
There's also the question of whether there are degrees of homosexuality. I know people who consider themselves strongly heterosexual, but admit to being affected by homosexual pornography. I'm not convinced that these people are all really "bisexual".
So perhaps it's not the most helpful set of definitions.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
