>* for the purposes of any assessment referred to above, "marriage" (the >voluntary, lifelong union of a male and a female to the exclusion of all others) >is equivalent to a voluntary, lifelong union of two people of the same gender >to the exclusion of all others (regardless of whether the latter is called a >"marriage" or not).
In the context of the debate I believe you have assumed what you have to prove. Because those opposed to the ordination of candidates who engage in homosexual behaviour believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong in and of itself. One counter argument frequently used is that homosexual partners do not hurt anyone, but the reply to this from the other side is that they do, because they are engaged in something morally wrong. Let me draw a comparison. The recent booklet distributed to Congregations from the Assembly, Sexuality and Leadership in the Uniting Church, refers to an Assembly resolution (97:31:07) which denounces sexual behaviour which is "exploitative and demeaning". However, the authors of the booklet have interpreted this to include "promiscuity". Let me portray an example that would almost certainly be assumed to be "promiscuous." Imagine a male candidate who has sex with six different women, one on each day of the week except Sunday. This is a mutually acceptable arrangement to all concerned. None of those involved wishes to enter into marriage, but rather remain single. However, the arrangement meets their sexual and relational needs of the women and frees them to be single on the other six days of the week. For one reason or another, pregnancy is impossible and none of the participants have any form of STD. All participants concur that no one feels demeaned; in fact they all feel it is a just and equitable arrangement, since no one is left out. However, the Presbytery decides that this is "promiscuous". When pushed they denounce the behaviour as immoral in and of itself. Is that any different from those who decide that homosexual behaviour is immoral in and of itself? - Greg ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
