G'day Judy and the Group
Great to hear from you, although I did need to do a slow count to ten before replying...!
At 05:59 PM 26/08/03 +1000, Judy Redman wrote:
I have only been reading doing a cursory reading of this thread lately, but I think one of the problems is that the literature on sexual orientation draws a continuum with strongly homosexual at one end and strongly heterosexual at the other end and doesn't actually draw any lines that say "at this point you stop being homosexual and are bisexual and at this other point you stop being bisexual and are heterosexual". Many people working in the area talk about inclinations and tendencies and tend to allow people to label themselves. They have nice, fluid labels such as strongly hetero, basically hetero with some bi leanings, strongly bi, basically homo with some bi leanings and strongly homo. They would also argue that the way people label themselves depends signficantly on how the society they live in accepts various expressions of sexual orientation.
Yes. Agreed and well said.
But, this is all about *orientation*.
Andrew (and many others) doesn't seem to be seeing sexual orientation along a continuum, but rather in three discrete 'boxes' .
I can't speak for the others, but where I am concerned this is just not true. I have hinted at this model in several posts. The reason I have not explored it more fully is simply that *orientation* was not what I was discussing.
I see no problem with the ordination of people of any sexual *orientation*, and as I understand it this is also the official EMU position. I strongly oppose any such discrimination, as I think my website makes clear and has for the past eight years.
It might be easier for the purposes of our current debate if we can do this, but it probably doesn't reflect the research findings which may well be a more accurate description of reality.
May I assume that all of these research findings also concern *orientation*?
I have yet to see *anyone* in the current debate oppose ordination on the grounds of orientation. Practice, yes.
But this continuum model does *not* work well for sexual *practice*. Let's explore this a little.
People who aren't sleeping with anyone are celibate. People who are sleeping with the opposite sex are practising heterosexuality (whatever their orientation). There are similar definitions for practising homosexuality and practising bisexuality. Transexuality is a different thing, as I've already said.
Not exactly rocket science, is it?
Now, the question is whether *practising* homosexuality is a problem with regard to ordination. At the risk of repeating myself, that's the issue I am raising, and I think it is also the EMU position.
The reason that I needed to count to ten is that I've already commented at some length on the problem of confusing practise and orientation, and I have even suggested that this confusion has been used as a deliberate tactic. But I think I know you well enough to say that I would never accuse you of such tactics.
What I do suggest is that you take a careful look around your circle of advisors on this. I know you have an active (and very constructive) involvement in politics, and networks to match. If any of them has suggested to you that I am in any way supporting discrimination on the grounds of sexual *orientation*, then I believe they are either *misinformed* or *lying*. Either way, beware.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think I have been quite consistent on this. If not it's certainly not for lack of time and trouble. Of course I don't bat 100 any more than anyone else does. I may have slipped up, and said something that misled someone else into honestly believing that I would oppose ordination of anyone just because of their sexual orientation. If so I apologise, and if specific instances are raised I will issue specific apologies.
I'm happy to spend more time on the issue of orientation versus practice it if it makes it any clearer. I'm not happy to just repeat myself.
Yours in Christ
andrew alder
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
