G'day Jonathan and the Group
At 07:03 PM 21/12/03 -0500, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
Hello Andrew, Niall, and others...
I have selectively snipped the text to try and keep the history short. I
think I have still captured the central thread.
I agree. Good work.
Andrew Alder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm guessing that perhaps the view of these people, whoever they are, would
> be better expressed very simply: "No sex outside of marriage."
Your response, and that of Niall, refers to what I meant about pushing on
to the next level. Specifically, I think you both are refering to my use of
the term "committed, faithful relationship" and perhaps suggesting the
appropriate standard I am refering to is really:
"You can choose from celibacy or marriage as an appropriate way to express
your sexuality."
Furthermore, this standard applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual
people and therefore does not discriminate.
Is this a fair summary of your posts?
It's a good summary of mine.
> 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 am arguing the simple rule, or the paraphrase I have given above,
DOES discriminate. It just hides the discrimination at another level.
In particular, it hides the position that "If you are heterosexual you
can get married, if you are homosexual you cannot get married."
I certainly haven't been hiding this position. My personal web page on the subject explicitly raises this issue and recommendeds that we do something about it. It's been publicly expressing this view since 1995.
I think this is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I think that's stretching it a bit. If as you suggest this is wrong, then it's collateral damage of our woolly thinking on marriage or on ordination or on both. The solution is to sort it out, not to tangle it up further.
If we need to break the connection between marriage and ordination, it should be for *all* people, not just homosexuals. Alternatively, we need to offer marriage to homosexuals. If that's what you mean by the next level, I've been trying to get to it for eight years now. Welcome aboard!
But be warned, to go to this next level we will need to abandon any attempt to discriminate *against* heterosexuals. If unmarried homosexual couples are welcome, then so should unmarried heterosexual couples be welcome.
If on the other hand we are to affirm marriage as the only proper way for our ministers (and members) to practise their sexuality (as I recommend), we need to be sure that *all* who are practising what we regard as acceptable sexuality are able to marry. Surely, that's logical?
And this might mean breaking or at least (further) weakening the existing connection between our marriage ceremonies and the secular registration of a marriage, which I have suggested as a serious and overdue option in another string.
It certainly means sorting out what acceptable sexual practices are, which might actually mean giving some standards to heterosexual, married people too. Shock! Horror! Surely everything they do is wholesome?
> If you mean that there are many who oppose ordination just on
> the grounds of orientation (1), that's simply not true.
Yes, I mean there are people who oppose ordination just on the grounds of
orientation, although it appears from this thread that for some people
this connection to orientation is buried as described above.
Hmmm. Have I answered the second point above? I think I might have.
With regard to the first, the views of these people seem to keep coming up, so I think we should (again) discuss them a little. Let's assume they do exist, despite the underwhelming lack of any evidence, and I'll try another tack. Please take it as intended, an attempt at communication.
I do wonder who these people might be? But they seem to be keeping their views a very closely guarded secret, so let's respect their right to privacy. (;->
And don't you think that the UCA, as an inclusive church, should show them some compassion? Their only offence is thoughtcrime. Admittedly, their thoughts are misguided. But put yourself in their position. They hold a belief that many people in the UCA, including EMU and I suspect RA and UN, publicly denounce, and which *nobody* defends.
So strong is the revulsion to this belief among UCA members that the issue is regularly raised just to attack it, despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone actually holds the belief that is being attacked. So it's understandable that those who do hold it dare not allow their beliefs to be generally known. Surely theirs is a lonely and miserable existence, and we should assure them of our love and respect. (;->
Now seriously, folks...
As a serious point, there probably *are* a few people who hold this belief. They have chosen not to enter the debate, and frankly I think this is a good decision as they have little to offer it. And we *should* make sure that we make them *welcome* if they *do* speak up. I dream of a UCA where this would be possible, but we're not there yet.
I think we are in practice unanimous that orientation is *not* a bar to ministry, and should move on.
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
