I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation. It's nothing to do with you, just that I'm unable at a personal level to continue. I think there's room for further discussion, but I'm choosing not to respond to your points here rather than have my say and abruptly end the discussion without allowing you a chance to reply.
I'm awfully sorry. Clare
Andrew Alder wrote:
G'day Clare and the Group
I've trivially renamed this string just to distinguish it from a very interesting but different branch proceeding between Andrew Swenson and Lindz.
At 03:04 PM 25/08/03 +1000, Clare Pascoe Henderson wrote:
Hi Andrew at al.
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).
True. There's a lot of speculation there, and it's largely because he (quite deliberately I would guess) hasn't disclosed a lot of the relevant information. And as he's now stepped down from candidature, I think that's his right.
You introduced this case. What was it supposed to prove?
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.
Hmmm. So, do we need better? Which generalisations fail?
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.
Agreed. And so...?
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.
I have a friend who honestly believes that the Stealth Bomber is really and secretly a submarine. He is undergoing treatment (really). In the meantime, I don't think the ADF are going to revise their ASW arrangements because of his belief. People believe all sorts of things, ranging from hallucinations and delusions to harmless mistakes.
If these people enter into the discussion, or into the public record to be quoted, then we can learn something from them. Until then, I think these beliefs are hypothetical.
But, as you raise it, I'll repeat my belief that any (hypothetical) demand of celibacy as the standard for all transexual people is baseless, unreasonable and just plain wrong. I'll even go further. I think anyone who expects such demands to raise anything more than pitying laughter is themselves deluded.
The point is, I think we *all* agree on trannies (your word) in principle. All we might (and I'd also be confident to guess some would) disagree on is exactly *who* is genuinely transexual.
There is no similar agreement on homosexuality. That's one reason that lumping GLBT together is not helpful IMO. It presupposes that the same arguments will apply to all four groups, and that's prejudging some very important stuff.
And I'm defining "practising" as "acting on the innate identity/orientation".
Hmmm. You don't think that definition prejudges some important issues?
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!
Hmmm. Difficult. Perhaps I'll just say that if they are there, then obviously they aren't choosing to be identified as such, and I think that they have every right to choose this course.
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.
Sorry, which post? Which part? I thought I'd been following her stuff.
Agreed that bisexuality can refer to either orientation, practice or both, see below, so perhaps it's not critical. Except in bizarre circumstances, bisexual practice would imply bisexual orientation.
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.
Irrelevant to them, you mean? Yes. I think you are quite right here.
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.
Again, until they put their views, IMO that's hypothetical. The Stealth Submarine comes to mind again.
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.
Hmmmm. I certainly agree that there's such a thing as a non-practising bisexual.
But I think we may need to agree to disagree on whether a person in a monogamous relationship can be a practising bisexual.
Let me have one more try.
I would say that a person in a monogamous heterosexual *relationship* is practising heterosexuality. If that person was also homosexual in *orientation* (and this does happen, perhaps not as much as it once did but it does) I still wouldn't call them a practising homosexual. I'd only call someone a "practising homosexual" if their orientation and their practice *both* were homosexual.
Similarly, I'd only call someone a "practising bisexual" if *both* their orientation *and* their practice were bisexual. Which a monogamous relationship can't be. In particular, I don't see any bar at all to the ordination of someone of bisexual *orientation* to the ministry, provided their *practice* as I have defined it was not bisexual.
So as *I* have defined "practising bisexual", it has exactly the same problems for me (and I'd guess for EMU members) as homosexual practice does. But as *you* have defined it, I would have no problem with the ordination of "practising" (in *your* sense) bisexuals, and I don't think EMU would have any problem either.
I think that is very confusing. I think it blurs the distinction between orientation and practice, and makes it a lot harder to address the issues.
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).
I'd like to unbundle that. Past relationships and future ones are I think two different issues. Agree that both RR and FIM are completely consistent with any sort of past experiences.
So I'm certainly happy with remarriage after divorce. What I'm *not* happy with is going into a marriage with the view that it may be temporary. I don't think that is FIM, in fact I don't think it's "marriage" at all. It may be RR, I think RR is capable of many interpretations.
We don't necessarily go our entire life having had only one relationship,
True.
and we can't say that we will.
False I think. Many have, many still do. If I ever say "I will", then my intention is that I will.
But I think this is a very important issue. I think that many think as you do, and don't see real FIM as something that ever happens any more.
We need to talk about this.
Even leaving out the potential of divorce/relationship split, there's still the possibility of one's partner dying, and a new relationship forming.
Another issue I think, and a dead one (sorry, no pun intended). All mainstream churches accept remarriage after the death of a spouse. This can be hard on the friends and relatives, the children especially, of the dead partner. And it can be very hard and confusing for the surviving partner. But that's another issue.
The reality about bis is that they don't automatically assume that such a relationship would be with the opposite gender to themselves.
True. Presumably they wouldn't assume either way in fact. I've no problem with that.
But marriage is exclusive and permanent. If they don't see it in this light, then they shouldn't call it marriage. At the risk of again appealing to liturgy, the words "until death do us part" or similar are I think very relevant here.
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.
That has never been disputed.
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.
Agree. But I think all of that is consistent with my claim that a bisexual can't be *both* practising *and* monogamous, both at the same time.
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.
Fair enough.
Perhaps that is at least partly because you understand the words to mean something other than what I intend them to mean.
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.
I know some rational EMUs. That's why I proposed formation of RME.
But I do admit I'd only raise the topic of transexual ordination with them if I was feeling exceptionally strong...!
Definitely a good point to raise.
Thanks. And thanks for your contribution.
Likewise, as usual :-)
Hang in there. I think the point you have raised about exactly what marriage means regarding future partners may be the most important issue we have touched on yet.
Let me try another tack. If a marriage ends other than by death, I call this a "failure". I think that is common terminology, and I think it accurately reflects the feelings of those who go through the experience.
A relationship can end without failing. It can serve the needs of the partners, and then end as these needs change. Not so a marriage. Marriage is a commitment for life. Again, our liturgy is quite explicit there.
(And as I said above, I think that is completely consistent with remarriage after divorce. Christianity is the Religion Of The Second Chance.)
Many heterosexual couples do still want to get married on these terms, both Christian couples and others. I don't know about homosexual couples. Those few that I have known personally have quite openly admitted that they were not that committed. Perhaps that is why there is not a great clamouring for the recognition of homosexual "marriage".
Yours in Christ andrew alder
**** email: andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 ****
-- *************************************************** 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 ------------------------------------------------------
