G'day Judy and the Group
At 08:54 PM 27/08/03 +1000, Judy Redman wrote:
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.
OK. Agree with that.
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 would certainly be my view. Actually I'd see it as at least three-dimensional. Some people aren't very strongly attracted to anyone! So we need to have a two-dimensional continuum to allow for this, the first parameter is hetero on one extreme and homo on the other, the second parameter is strength of desire (libido?). But even that's not enough when we start to consider bisexuality. The third parameter is the degree to which the partner's gender even matters. Thus some people are stongly and exclusively attracted to one sex or the other, others may be attracted to both sexes not particularly strongly but with a preference to one, still others may be strongly and equally attracted to both sexes, there are many possibilities along all three continuums.
I would also say that all three parameters can change in a single person from time to time, but that idea might be resisted by those who wish to strongly affirm the "gay gene" theory.
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.
Agree.
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.
Yes. And the most important thing about sexual _expression_ is not gender orientation at all IMO. That's why it is such a tragedy that CISFIM and RR are seen as alternatives. There's a lot of good stuff in RR, issues that the church has a long history of avoiding to our cost.
Part of the problem I think is that while EMU and similar minds have traditionally been happy to invade and police the bedrooms of the gay and the single, the bedrooms of the married have been largely beyond scrutiny just so long as they were alone in there. Tragically, that is not always appropriate. Abuse happens there too.
Logically, we'd expect the same rules to apply, surely. Could this be a way forward? And I didn't say an *easy* way forward!
There was a suggestion elsewhere on the list that the problem with the EMU proposals was that their proposed rules were *not* the same for both gay and straight, but discriminated against gay. Both views beg the question of whether gay and straight practices are equally good. That's the whole issue. But, I've never seen anyone even try to frame the rules in such a way that heterosexual couples were equally restricted (I'm putting that rather delicately) and I can't see why not. And I know some married and formerly married people who feel that the church has failed them badly in this.
Who knows, if the rules were framed in these terms, we might just find the hetero lobby backing off a great deal. That's not my preferred result but it's a fascinating possibility, isn't it?
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).
OK. I don't think it was quite that simple, but that doesn't affect the argument.
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.
Yes. Very well put indeed.
And it's then up to EMU, and myself, and anyone else who thinks that sexual practice is sufficiently important, to justify this practical discrimination.
There is a heirarchy of issues here.
1. The surface issue is, who do we ordain?
2. Deeper down, there's the question of what sexual acts are good.
3. Deeper still, there's the question of how we know what God wants of us.
4. Deepest of all, there are questions of what sort of God we worship, and does he even have any such requirements?
These can all be *very* personally threatening issues. I don't wish to suggest that the surface issue is any less important than the very deepest one.
EMU is constitutionally committed to focussing on level 3 of my heirarchy. Most of their critics seem to be focussed on level 1. Perhaps that's part of the problem. I'm more interested in levels 2 and 4, personally. I see them both as a bit neglected, and capable of providing some answers with a bit of work.
There are also what we might call underlying meta-issues, for example I've assumed in phrasing my levels 2 and 3 that what God wants for us and what is "good" are the same thing. I don't think that's particularly threatening or controversial, but I may be wrong there.
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!
Thank you!
It seems that my blunt words before were based on a poor understanding of what you meant. I don't bat 100. Thank you for not taking offense at them.
I think what you have written here is awesomely coherent. There's a little slip about rules I think, it sounds at one stage as though you are accusing EMU etc of wanting consistent rules for both genders but I think you mean the opposite, that they don't and should, and I think it's clear what you mean. It has helped my own thinking a great deal.
But I haven't yet solved the whole problem for the UCA. Hmmm. Maybe I'm not even up to doing that little chore all on my own. (;->
Unlike at least some EMU members I do think that ASC made a very good start at it last weekend. Lots still to do.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
