Hi
Andrew,
I
was responding in particular to this:
My only problem with it is a side issue I
think. I don't think that someone who feels themselves to be strongly
heterosexual, but feels some attraction to the same sex too, is necessarily
bisexual. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Otherwise there's a
risk that we'll end up calling everyone bisexual, and the word will lose its
meaning. But other than that, which I'm still working out, agreed.
and
this
The difference is, if I were to have *any*
(presumably heterosexual) partners, then that would make me practising
heterosexual. With bisexuality it's a bit more complicated.
I was
suggesting that one of the reasons for the complication is
because it's not possible to draw two lines and say that everyone to the left of
one is homosexual, everyone to the right of the other is heterosexual and those
in between are bisexual. In fact, it's quite possible that the majority of
human beings are somewhat attracted to people of their own gender as well as to
those of the opposite gender but that in most societies they choose to identify
as heterosexual rather than bisexual because it's more socially accepted and the
same gender attraction isn't particularly strong. That the labels, in
other words, are human constructs which have developed because we like to be
able to put people into neat boxes and I think that in some circumstances they
create more problems than they solve.
However, I
agree with you that it's the way that one expresses one's sexual orientation
that is important, not what that orientation is. In that, I agree with the
Christians of New Testament times.
As I
understand it, in biblical times there was no understanding of sexual
orientation. It was assumed that all men were sexually attracted to women
and vice versa, so that any same gender sexual activity was necessarily an
'unnatural passion' or it was a way of humiliating an opponent (as in the Sodom
story) or part of some gentile religious activity (as in Graeco-Roman
society). In the 1840s, researchers began to recognise that this wasn't so
- that some people are 'naturally' sexually attracted to those of their own
gender rather than those of the opposite gender and so they divided the world
into two neat boxes - heterosexual and homosexual. And then another
generation of researchers began to realise that there was also another group of
people - those who were sexually attracted to those of both genders.
Which brings
us around in a spiral to a similar point to that of the New Testament church
which is saying that promiscuity, adultery, indulging in sex with prostitutes
even as part of a religious rite and forcing sex on people as a way of
humiliating them or showing that you have power over them rather than as an
_expression_ of a caring relationship with them are all unacceptable ways of
expressing your sexuality. The difference is that we are now at least
aware of the possibility that being sexually attracted to someone of the same
gender might be normal for the person concerned, rather than some form
of sexual perversion, some way of deliberately going against that person's
natural inclinations. I think there are still quite a few people around
who don't accept that - they seem to think that people decide to be gay or
lesbian although everyone is really heterosexual - but I don't think we're
talking about them.
But if you do
accept that homosexuality is 'natural', the point at which there is conflict is
how we deal with this same gender sexual attraction. One
perspective is that a lifetime monogamous union between two men or two
women should/could/might be an acceptable way for Christians to express their
sexual orientation in the same way that a lifetime monogamous union between a
man and a woman has always been. In other words, that seeing it's a
natural rather than perverted thing for them, as long as they express their
sexual orientation according to the same rules that apply for heterosexual
people, they should not have to remain celibate. The other is that
people whose orientation is bisexual can choose either to have a partner of the
opposite gender or remain celibate and those whose orientation is homosexual
must remain celibate if they wish to be fully accepted into the Christian
church.
And it is
this latter perspective that is being argued by EMU. That homosexual
people must remain celibate and bisexual people can only have sexual
relationships with those of the opposite gender if they want to be fully
accepted into the life of the church and have leadership positions within the
church. Because in their view, sexual activity between people of the same
gender is always wrong, evil. Whereas those who take the other perspective
are saying that sex between people of the same gender whose orientation is
either homosexual or bisexual can be good or bad or a bit of both depending
on the context in which it happens, just as sex between two people
of different genders whose orientation is heterosexual can be
good or bad or a bit of both depending on context. That same gender
relationships should be subject to the same set of rules as different gender
relationships. And that a different gender relationship where one
partner's orientation is homosexual is likely to be big
mistake.
But, in order
to run that line, orientation is important. And even with the EMU
position, orientation is also a factor because those people who happen to be
homosexual and bisexual in orientation are given less choices than those
who are heterosexual. So, the EMU position does discriminate against
people on the basis of their sexual orientation, even though it
decides suitability for ordination on the basis of activity rather than
orientation, in that it sets up extra conditions for them.
I hope this
is reasonably coherent. And as I said in my private email to Andrew,
no-one has suggested to me, nor did I for one moment think, that he is trying to
say that either homosexual or bisexual people should not be
ordained simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. I know some
people who are, but I am confident that Andrew is not one of
them!
Judy
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Andrew Alder
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2003 4:24 PM
To: Insights
Subject: RE: GLBT?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Andrew Alder
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2003 4:24 PM
To: Insights
Subject: RE: GLBT?
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
****
