G'day Jonathan
At 02:05 AM 18/12/03 -0500, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Andrew Alder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> However, the issue is whether these standards are the same
>> for homosexual and heterosexual people. One perspective on this issue
>> is that the standards differ.
>
>Hmmm. Has anyone ever expressed this "perspective" to you? Who?
Yes, although perhaps not in these words. For example, I think the view that:
* if you are heterosexual and desire ordination, you can choose from celibacy OR a committed, faithful relationship as an appropriate way to express your sexuality
* if you are homosexual and desire ordination, you can only choose celibacy
is very common amongst those opposing the ordination of gay and lesbian people.
Hmmm? Is it? I'm skeptical.
Without knowing exactly *who* you're referring to and how *they* express their views, I see two likely problems with the way you express these views. One, it's needlessly complicated. Two, I think it's incomplete in a very important way, which is what is making it so complicated.
I'm guessing that perhaps the view of these people, whoever they are, would be better expressed very simply: "No sex outside of marriage." This is certainly a view I've met, and I endorse it myself, with some provisos.
(I worry that marriage, like ordination, is a semi-sacrament in the UCA. We say that they aren't, and we act as if they are. Personally I'd drop ordination and radically promote marriage, but either way I think our woolly thinking here is part of the problem.)
A presbytery that adopted your rules above would be happy to ordain someone in a committed heterosexual de facto arrangement, but not someone in an equally committed homosexual arrangement. You're quite right, that would be discrimination. But is that really the likely situation? I think not.
Or to see it another way, even if your _expression_ of the rule *was* accurate, the fact that there are complex ways of expressing a rule doesn't mean that the rule itself is complex. You *could* say "If you are driving a black car, give way to the right; If you are driving a white car, give way to the right unless the other car is yellow; If the other car is yellow or you are driving a car that is not black, give way to the right." But it's far simpler to just say "When you are driving, give way to the right".
And there are other dangers of using the needlessly complex statement of the rule. I *think* my cars examples above are logically equivalent, that is they express *exactly* the same rule. But it's not all that obvious, is it? And, drivers of black cars could quite reasonably complain that this rule discriminates against them and in favour of yellow cars. It's not a very good example of this as it doesn't really discriminate, where your restatement above does discriminate, but do you see what I'm getting at here?
Your complex version of the rule does discriminate. The simple version doesn't. Your complex version doesn't reflect reality. The simple one does.
I'm also concerned that you say these are people who "oppose the ordination of gay and lesbian people", and imply that there are many people with this view. I think this might be ambiguous, but it's a surprising statement either way. If you mean that there are many who oppose ordination just on the grounds of orientation (1), that's simply not true. However, if you mean that there are many who oppose the ordination of practising gay and lesbian people, that's true, but I think all of my gay and lesbian friends would object very strongly to the way you have phrased it. They regard themselves as gay and lesbian whether practising or not.
So, which meaning did you intend? Or is there a third I didn't see?
Anyway, the point of all this is, I think you may be badly paraphrasing the views you quote, and that's where the problems you so rightly criticise come from.
>> As I see it, these standards are independent of sexual orientation.
>
>And I'd agree. And I think so would everyone who has expressed an opinion
>on this list.
I think we are about to push on to another level, yes?
Hmmm... I think we're perilously close to going around in circles. We're not quite there, but we're still dealing with the same issues. Especially if you adopt interpretation (1) above.
If we do agree, then where is all the debate coming from? We currently ordain heterosexual people who are in a committed, faithful relationship.
No. Firstly, it's currently up to the presbyteries, and the standards are in some confusion.
Secondly, this again makes no mention of marriage. And I think the more conservative presbyteries would find this very important.
If we all agree the required standard is independent of sexual orientation, then it trivially follows we should allow the ordination of gay or lesbian people who are in a committed, faithful relationship? :-)
Hmmmm... I think it seems a trivial deduction to you because you are again assuming that marriage doesn't matter.
If that were true, then your argument would be valid although I still wouldn't consider it trivial. But it's not true. Marriage does matter.
Rather than second guess where I think this is going I will wait for your response. I am finding this very useful in untangling some of my thoughts on the matter - thanks for your posts.
Likewise. I just hope we're not irritating the rest of the list too much!
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/03
