Hello Andrew, Andrew Alder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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? Great stuff! There is much here I agree with. Indeed, I think we should do both: * in regard to sexuality, ordination should be based on the practice of Â"right relationships" rather than specifically marriage * marriage should be open to all couples (regardless of sexual orientation) Âpracticing "right relationships" > Jonathan wrote: >> >>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. >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 >I do wonder who these people might be? >They hold a >belief that many people in the UCA, including EMU and I suspect RA and UN, >publicly denounce, and which *nobody* defends. Contrary to your suggestion, much of the material I have read and heard from people who identify themselves as belonging to either EMU or RA, attempts to uphold this position of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Even the Queensland Synod resolution: * "that responsible sexual behaviour is expressed by celibacy in singleness Âand loving faithfulness between a ***man and a woman*** in marriageâ Â(my emphasis) upholds this discrimination. So "these people" I refer to appear to me to be quite definitely present and vocal about their views. I choose not to specifically identify them with EMU, RA, or QLD synod because I suspect there is a diversity of views in each of these groups. Cheers, Jonathan __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Access from the Netscape Internet Service. Beta test the new Netscape Internet Service for only $1.00 per month until 3/1/04. Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
