G'day again Jonathan and the Group
Happy Christmas!
I've snipped a lot below, points I think are either agreed or exhausted for the moment at least.
At 05:47 PM 22/12/03 -0500, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
<snip>
Indeed, I think we should do both:
* in regard to sexuality, ordination should be based on the practice of
� "right relationships" rather than specifically marriage
* marriage should be open to all couples (regardless of sexual orientation)
� practicing "right relationships"
I can see what the authors of "right relationships" were on about I think, and I think it may be exactly the way forward.
I once wrote a free-choice anthropology essay titled "What is this thing called marriage?" in which I looked at how the concept seemed to appear in a few different cultures. It was largely inspired by Ferdinand Mount's book "The Subversive Family: An alternative history of love and marriage". Mount is I gather a novelist and political scientist (and has a political connection to Margaret Thatcher I discovered) but I found his viewpoint refreshing, insightful and well expressed (which is more than my teachers thought of my essay, but they did pass it for which I was grateful).
I question whether we should give up on the word "marriage", as the "right relationships" proponents seem to have decided. What's the difference between a "right relationship" and a "marriage"?
There are some. But what I'd like to do is to focus on these, with the goal of recognising *any* right relationship as a marriage, and recognising *only* right relationships as marriages.
I think it's possible to do this. And of course if we can, the problem of which criteria to use in any particular situation simply goes away.
And if we can't, then these particular differences are the ones that need further attention. Would you or anyone else who supports "right relationships" like to say what one important difference is that encourages you to prefer the "right relationships" standard?
Then, of course, I'm going to see how our idea of marriage could be changed to bring it into line with this. Either it will be an improvement to our idea of marriage, in which case let's do it, or it won't, in which case we should look at updating "right relationships".
Food for thought?
> 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
� and loving faithfulness between a ***man and a woman*** in marriage”
� (my emphasis)
upholds this discrimination.
This seems to be explicitly about practice, is it not? If so, it's not an example at all. These people wish to discriminate on the grounds of *practice*.
There's also a trap here in that "discrimination" can mean two significantly different things. When we speak of "racial discrimination", we mean invalid discrimination. I don't think anyone who insisted that white children wear sunscreen in a situation in which black children were not wearing it (and didn't need to) would be accused of "discrimination".
Yet this *is* discrimination in a technical sense. The problem is that in many contexts we talk of "discrimination" and understand it to mean "unjust discrimination". But there are also situations in which it is just and valid (and even important) to discriminate.
The Queensland resolution you quote discriminates, yes. But whether or not this is *unjust* discrimination is the whole question at issue.
So "these people" I refer to appear to me to be quite definitely present
and vocal about their views.
Have you any other examples that might be clearer? Even accepting the point below?
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.
Good point.
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
