G'day Lindz and the Group
At 12:27 PM 27/08/03 +1000, Lindsay Brash wrote:
On another level, the distinction between sexual orientation and practise is also somewhat artificial, having been largely created by the church to deal with the church's problem. So it is no surprise to me that we find times and places where the distinction is blurred, confusing or unhelpful. Which seems to be where the GLBT? thread had ended up in many respects.
Hmmm... interesting.
I don't entirely disagree.
The *only* problem I have with it is that I'm not sure what you mean by "artificial". If you mean that there's no real or significant difference, I would disagree with that. I think the rest is fine.
So can we simplify things by discarding one of the two concepts? If we wish to, I think it should be orientation that we discard, for two main reasons.
Firstly, orientation is the one that is difficult to understand, and the one that can be seen as a continuum. Practice on the other hand is simple to understand. See my earlier posts. We all know what homosexual practice is. We can argue for hours about what homosexual orientation is and isn't.
And we can argue for hours about how the two are related. Isn't it logical to suspect that this is largely because we understand orientation relatively poorly? Practice is a relatively simple concept by comparison.
Secondly, there's no need to talk about orientation in this debate anyway. So far as I can see there has *never* been any suggestion that homosexual orientation should be a factor in assessing a person's fitness for ministry in the UCA. On the other hand, practice is an issue to some, and not to others. So we can't avoid discussing it.
So why do we talk about orientation at all?
I think we do need to keep both concepts. This is because I think it is GL people themselves who have asked that the discussion should include orientation as well as simple practice. They should be heard, even if it does confuse things a bit.
But wait. Could we then discard the concept of homosexual practice, and talk *only* of orientation? This is what I think some have tried to use as a tactic, as I have said. The problem is that it's a very effective tactic. EMU and others have no problem with homosexual orientation. If we redefine "homosexual" to mean just orientation, and don't talk about practice at all, then there won't even be words available to express their arguments. And they should be heard too.
Assuming we do need both concepts, it's very important to distinguish which is which. Otherwise all we will have left is the confusion.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
