|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Not sure that's clear, so I'll add this:
The church sanctions straight sex within marriage, and doing so doesn't in and of itself say that single straight people who are celibate are leading miserable, unfulfilling lives. Insofar as the church does say this about single people, it comes from church culture, not from the sheer fact that straight people are allowed to get married and have sex.
So the church could sanction gay sex within marriage without making any comment about the quality of life led by single gay people who are celibate. Gay marriage would not devalue the single, celibate life any more than straight marriage does.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing is, I haven't seen anyone who is arguing in favor of acceptance of homosexual sex make the assumption that life is necessarily miserable and unfulfilling without sex.
That's not what I said though. The assumption seems to be that it is untenable to tell some people that they never have the chance of meeting someone and settling down in a sexual relationship. Callan said this:
quote:
A heterosexual who is celibate because they are single might meet Miss Right tomorrow. A homosexual who adheres to a traditionalist view knows they never will.
Maybe you have never made this argument, but it certainly one I have heard made against people like me (most notably by the turnabout group "Courage") that it is beyond tolerable to suggest that people should rule out even the chance of romance for the rest of their lives. No doubt this is hard. But not impossible, and there is plenty of fulfilling service of God that can be done in the meantime.
You said quote:
Gay marriage would not devalue the single, celibate life any more than straight marriage does.
Per se I agree. As long as the argument is not made that we must permit it because a life where the possibility of a sexual relationship ruled out would not be worth living, and we couldn't ask any Christian to bear such a thing.
Church culture does seem to teach that, and I think its just people buying into the lie of culture that exclusive relationships are the be all and end all. Fact is, and sorry to go into GLE mode here, but I really believe this, and am having to apply it to myself, Jesus is enough for us, he is the friend that sticks closer than a brother, and it is only in him, and fully in him that we find fulfilment. That is enough.
[ 23. June 2004, 18:03: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Callan wrote:
quote:
celibacy for a homosexual person who has no vocation in that direction is going to be a high and difficult and lonely calling. A heterosexual who is celibate because they are single might meet Miss Right tomorrow. A homosexual who adheres to a traditionalist view knows they never will. We should be chary of judging those who encounter temptations that we will not.
I'm babbling - I expect you know all this.
Babble on.
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Maybe you have never made this argument, but it certainly one I have heard made against people like me (most notably by the turnabout group "Courage") that it is beyond tolerable to suggest that people should rule out even the chance of romance for the rest of their lives. No doubt this is hard. But not impossible, and there is plenty of fulfilling service of God that can be done in the meantime.
True. The thing is, the church traditionally rules out the chance of romance for all gay people, without regard for whether they fall in love and form permanent committed relationships with Christ at the center, whereas it says of course says no such thing about straight people.
quote:
From me:
Gay marriage would not devalue the single, celibate life any more than straight marriage does.
quote:
From Leprechaun:
Per se I agree. As long as the argument is not made that we must permit it because a life where the possibility of a sexual relationship ruled out would not be worth living, and we couldn't ask any Christian to bear such a thing.
Life without the possibility of a sexual relationship is certainly worth living for many people. The argument is that we must permit gay marriage for the same reasons that we permit straight marriage: mutual joy, help and comfort in prosperity and adversity, family life (lifting and paraphrasing some phrases from the ECUSA Book of Common Prayer here).
quote:
Church culture does seem to teach that, and I think its just people buying into the lie of culture that exclusive relationships are the be all and end all. Fact is, and sorry to go into GLE mode here, but I really believe this, and am having to apply it to myself, Jesus is enough for us, he is the friend that sticks closer than a brother, and it is only in him, and fully in him that we find fulfilment. That is enough.
Yes, Jesus is enough. But no one is going to say that to me if I meet Mr Right and want to get married and have sex. I'm allowed to have Jesus and Mr Right.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, Jesus is enough. But no one is going to say that to me if I meet Mr Right and want to get married and have sex. I'm allowed to have Jesus and Mr Right.
Well in some circumstances they would - if he was already married, or not a Christian.
But anyway, this isn't an argument. Just because some people get something, does that mean everyone has a right to have it?
I just don't think its the case in God's economy. God says he will always be enough for us in himself. Really whether other people receive other blessings or not is beside the point and aside from the issue that marriage is, at best, a mixed blessing according to both Jesus and Paul, I have no right to demand what God does not see fit to give me.
The type of argument coming from Courage et al does cast aspersions on celibacy as an option. And I find that both very sad, and a little bit offensive. Anyway, this is tangential, and probably not that helpful.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well in some circumstances they would - if he was already married, or not a Christian.
Seeing as you brought it up, I know of several couples who met when one party was not a Christian who are now leading Christ-centred stable married lives together. What wounds most is your insistance choice of the bland, all-encompassing sweeping statement that does not take account of real people, Lep.
quote:
The type of argument coming from Courage et al does cast aspersions on celibacy as an option. And I find that both very sad, and a little bit offensive. Anyway, this is tangential, and probably not that helpful.
Sorry, Lep. Whose fault do you think that is then? Are you suggesting that celibacy is easy or that you are entitled to inflict it on others? Moreover, has the evangelical subculture given any support for people who want to chose strong same-sex celibate relationships? Errr no in fact.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Seeing as you brought it up, I know of several couples who met when one party was not a Christian who are now leading Christ-centred stable married lives together. What wounds most is your insistance choice of the bland, all-encompassing sweeping statement that does not take account of real people, Lep.
[qb] [QUOTE]
Wounds? wounds who? You? If that is the case, then I apolgise, although I'm not sure how you could take personal offence.
The anecdotal evidence on this is hardly conclusive either way - I know people who married when one was not a Christian and one partner is either trapped in the terrible pain of an unahppy marriage, or one has upped and left. In others one became a Christian. As far as I can see, the Bible advises against it - and it is a concern for real people that would make me want to give this advice.
Anyway, as you'll see if you read my post, I said someone might tell you to stay single on this account. Which was a deliberate attempt not to be all encompassing.
quote:
Sorry, Lep. Whose fault do you think that is then? Are you suggesting that celibacy is easy or that you are entitled to inflict it on others?
Again, if you read any of my posts I have made it very clear I don't think (or find, in fact) celibacy to be easy. Nevertheless both Jesus and the apostles had a very high view of it as an opportunity to serve God, and therefore even the language of "affliction" is extremely unhelpful. In fact it is this type of bland uncompromising statement that wounds so much - treating single people, such as myself, as if we have some sort of disease.
[ 24. June 2004, 08:08: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Again, if you read any of my posts I have made it very clear I don't think (or find, in fact) celibacy to be easy. Nevertheless both Jesus and the apostles had a very high view of it as an opportunity to serve God, and therefore even the language of "affliction" is extremely unhelpful. In fact it is this type of bland uncompromising statement that wounds so much - treating single people, such as myself, as if we have some sort of disease.
Indeed. Celebacy is something to be celebrated. It is not a disease. We agree, Lep.
But neither is it something that should be enforced. A choice is not a choice if someone else has made it for you.
Moreover, if you look carefully at your own post, you nowhere said 'might'.
quote:
Well in some circumstances they would - if he was already married, or not a Christian.
But anyway, this isn't an argument. Just because some people get something, does that mean everyone has a right to have it?
see? But you are correct in your latter post - there are many examples of working and failling relationships within and outwith Christians marrying. Guess what. We agree again. This shows that any kind of general comment is unhelpful in this case.
But this is where we part company. You say that some who want close relationships with others of the same sex should accept that
quote:
Jesus is enough for us, he is the friend that sticks closer than a brother, and it is only in him, and fully in him that we find fulfilment. That is enough.
My relationship with my wife is strong - to the extent that I regard her as the better half of myself. Is it so unreasonable that others should want that too? Is saying 'oh well, don't worry sonnie, you've got Jesus, remember?' anything but unhelpful?
I accept that God calls some to wrestle and overcome those feelings, and sometimes they never do. But to make a statement like that is surely to undermine a person's feelings and experience in such a way as to make them feel small and inadequate. You are effectively saying 'what you need to do is become more spiritual and suddenly all of these things will become insignificant compared to Almighty God and eternity.'
Well woopie. Fortunately, if and when God changes his mind, you can have a close relationship and get married. But you deny this option to others.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
But neither is it something that should be enforced. A choice is not a choice if someone else has made it for you.
As I pointed out earlier, singleness is rarely a choice and many straight Christians are single who would rather not be.
I just dislike the idea that some Christians are forcing others to be single. That is not true. There is no force used. What there is is Christians of the traditionalist camp saying "we believe that a gay Christian who wants to honour God is called to celibacy". It is then up to gay Christians (of which there are plenty in the traditionalist camp) to decide whether they agree or not and how they believe they are called to live their lives to honour God.
I think therefore that this view depends on the idea that everyone does what evangelicals tell them. This is hardly backed up by the facts. Celibate gay people choose to be celibate (obviously I mean celibate in the sense of living a life of life-long celibacy as opposed to celibate because they happen not to be in a relationship).
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
My relationship with my wife is strong - to the extent that I regard her as the better half of myself. Is it so unreasonable that others should want that too? Is saying 'oh well, don't worry sonnie, you've got Jesus, remember?' anything but unhelpful?
For a number of reasons not always unhelpful, although I would never say it in that way.
I'm glad you have a great relationship with your wife. Bully for you. But that does not entitle everyone else who wants that to expect it. Why? Because God has given us enough in Jesus for whatever state we find ourselves in.
I've had quite enough of smug marrieds in this whole debate saying "lifelong partnership is great, its so wonderful, we've never been so happy, blah blah blah" thus making people who are, for whatever reason celibate, feel like they SHOULD long for that. Which is often the last thing they need. People like you would do much better to affirm singles, and then, perhaps this whole "lifelong partnership is the only ideal state, therefore we cannot deny that to people with different orientation" argument might never have arisen.
quote:
You are effectively saying 'what you need to do is become more spiritual and suddenly all of these things will become insignificant compared to Almighty God and eternity.'
I am so not saying that. Its not a case of being more spiritual - its merely a case of enjoying the good things that God has for us. The whole tone of your argument is predicated on the idea that everyone will and should want a lifetime partnership, no matter what. I am saying - enjoy and use your singleness, whether you have it just for now, or forever. That's not a case of spirituality, just reality.
These things will probably never become "insignificant" for us (and by that I mean, single people like me who are actually having to deal with this, rather than philosophise about it) but that doesn't mean there aren't many great things, including myriad opportunities to serve God, to be enjoyed in the mean time.
quote:
Well woopie. Fortunately, if and when God changes his mind, you can have a close relationship and get married. But you deny this option to others.
I am not about to go posting about my personal life on a message board. But can I just say you are making some pretty big, and in reality unwarranted assumptions here about "my options".
And sorry about the "might" thing. That's what I er...thought I wrote. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Thing is, Lep, I was always unhappy as a single, and have been far happier married. But I don't want to be one of the smug marrieds, so I'll stop.
But the point of raising the matter at all is that I think it shows that I am not called to be single!. I do not have the necessary psychology (call it a "gift of celibacy" if you like) to cope with permanent celibacy. Now, the question I have to ask is, if God really wants all gay people to be single, does He give them the ability He didn't give me (but, one assumes, He must give to monks and nuns who follow a calling into their orders) to all gay people?
If He doesn't - and the experience of many gay people is that they were unhappy alone and are happy in a partnership, which implies that He doesn't - then it does not make logical sense to assume that God calls all gay people into celibacy. If this is so, to what does He call them?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm glad you have a great relationship with your wife. Bully for you. But that does not entitle everyone else who wants that to expect it. Why? Because God has given us enough in Jesus for whatever state we find ourselves in.
I've had quite enough of smug marrieds in this whole debate saying "lifelong partnership is great, its so wonderful, we've never been so happy, blah blah blah" thus making people who are, for whatever reason celibate, feel like they SHOULD long for that. Which is often the last thing they need. People like you would do much better to affirm singles, and then, perhaps this whole "lifelong partnership is the only ideal state, therefore we cannot deny that to people with different orientation" argument might never have arisen.
No, I agree. We should affirm celebacy. But we should also recognise that some people feel a keen 'need' to be in a lifelong partnership. If you don't long for it, Lep, fine and dandy, it is not an issue for you. A lot of people do.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If He doesn't - and the experience of many gay people is that they were unhappy alone and are happy in a partnership, which implies that He doesn't - then it does not make logical sense to assume that God calls all gay people into celibacy. If this is so, to what does He call them?
I suppose that the wider issue here is one of what "calling" means. I don't accept that you are always "called" to the state in which you will be happiest.
I don't love being single at all. That was part of the assumption I was asking you not to make. But I accept, at this point, because of various personal things, that this is what I am called to now and may well be forever. Easy? No. Happy with it? Not really. But sure Jesus will be enough, whatever the eventuality, yes.
And I'm sorry, if you think that is pious, or trying to set up myself as super spiritual. I'm not, I'm just trying to be honest. I'm certainly not having a laugh a minute in my celibate state. But I think it can be done. Even by people who are very unhappy in it. I don't think it is too much for God to ask of people who have homosexual orientation.
There are millions of other arguments around this whole issue, I realise that. But I just don't think this is a valid one.
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting on this topic now if that is all right, because I am finding it all a bit personal and, quite frankly, upsetting.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
New (but not totally unrelated) subtopic, actions of the Anglican Church of Canada General Synod 2004:
quote:
Resolution A134
Be it resolved that this General Synod:
1. a) Affirm that, even in the face of deeply held convictions about whether the blessing of committed same sex unions is contrary to the doctrine and teaching of the Anglican Church of Canada, we recognize that through our baptism we are members one of another in Christ Jesus, and we commit ourselves to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us;
b) Affirm the crucial value of continued, respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, scientific, psychological and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons;
c) Affirm the principle of respect for the way in which the dialogue and study may be taking place, or might take place, in indigenous and various other communities within our church in a manner consistent with their cultures and traditions;
d) Affirm that the Anglican Church is a church for all the baptized and is committed to taking such actions as are necessary to maintain and serve our fellowship and unity in Christ, and request the House of Bishops to continue its work on the provision of adequate episcopal oversight and pastoral care for all, regardless of the perspective from which they view the blessing of committed same sex relationships; and
e) Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships.
2. a) Request that the Primate ask the Primate's Theological Commission to review, consider and report to the Council of General Synod, by its spring 2006 meeting, whether the blessing of committed same sex unions is a matter of doctrine;
b) That on receipt of such a report, the Council of General Synod distribute it to each province, diocese and the House of Bishops for consideration; and,
c) That the issue of blessing committed same sex unions be considered at the meeting of General Synod in 2007.
Resolution A135
That this General Synod request the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee in the next triennium
to prepare the resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality,
including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.
There's been a lot of discussion about the meaning of (e) above. Conservatives have held that it prejudges the question that the second resolution refered to the theological committee. Others hold that the intent of (e) was "pastoral" or "declarative", that it doesn't either mandate or permit any action.
"Sanctity", of course, was the word that got people going.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Henry (and others interested);
I did not see the speeches around the "sanctity" clause, but I am told that the mover made very clear that in his mind, this was purely pastoral and only recognized that God works through and in committed same-sex relationships as he does in heterosexual relationships.
He supposedly specifically rejected the idea that this clause was a way of sneaking in approval of blessing of same-sex relationships. I believe this to be true, because I am pretty certain that +Peter and a number of other bishops would not have voted for it if he and they had thought it meant approval of blessing same-sex unions -- he has been so scrupulous about not taking a stand on the issue.
Now the opponents of blessing are choosing to interpret the Synod's vote as something else.
While I don't disapprove of what I am told was the intention of the motion, I am angry at the movers for taking a word with a clear ordinary meaning ("sanctity") and using it to mean something else, so that you need a commentary to interpret the motion correctly. They have forgotten that the responsibility for clear communication lies with the sender; you cam't blame the receiver if you use words to mean something other than they usually mean.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
No, I agree. We should affirm celebacy. But we should also recognise that some people feel a keen 'need' to be in a lifelong partnership. If you don't long for it, Lep, fine and dandy, it is not an issue for you. A lot of people do.
I repeat: a lot of people do long for it, but don't get it. To take Karl's argument, one could equally point out that God hasn't wired up plenty of straight people with the ability/wish/whatever to be single, and yet those people are still single.
I would therefore suggest that to argue that God hasn't wired up all gay people with this ability is hardly a conclusive argument that he doesn't mind if gay people don't stay single.
I'm certainly not saying this shows he does want gay people to be single - far from it. That is a totally separate argument. What I am saying is that this argument isn't a good one.
Furthermore, Leprechaun didn't exactly say he didn't long for it. Rather the opposite, in fact. He simply pointed out that being single hasn't left his life "stunted and destroyed" as the Big Issue once put it.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Sanctity (from M-W.com): quote:
Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
As you said, the word has specific meanings - which have nothing to do with "pastoral". The paragraph declares homosexual relationships to be holy or sacred. Try arguing otherwise in a court of law - which is where it will be interpreted when an Anglican priest refuses to perform a homosexual wedding.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Sanctity (from M-W.com): quote:
Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
As you said, the word has specific meanings - which have nothing to do with "pastoral". The paragraph declares homosexual relationships to be holy or sacred. Try arguing otherwise in a court of law - which is where it will be interpreted when an Anglican priest refuses to perform a homosexual wedding.
Unless you are willfully choosing to disregard the intentions of the supporters of the motion, no, the paragraph does not declare homosexual relationships to be holy or sacred. In a very badly worded way, it recognizes that God can be present in a committed same-sex relationship. And that, my dear dharkshooter, is a simple fact. Just look at the lives of those of your christian friends who are in same-sex relationships. Or, maybe you don't know who they are, because they are afraid of telling you because of your probable reaction. Or maybe, of course, you just don't have friends like "that". I do. And they set a far higher standard for christian marriage than most of the heterosexual married couples I know -- possibly including me and my wife.
You have also misunderstood both the law of Canada and the law of the Anglican church if you think an Anglican priest refusing to perform a same-sex wedding would be prosecuted.
While the law currently recognizes the right of same sex couples to be married, as with heterosexual couples, no one is compelled to preside at the wedding. Any couple has to go and find a minister. And if the fundamentalist loonies would stop opposing proposed legislation that would regulate the system, there would be further guarantees that no minister of religion could be forced to presdie at a wedding.
As for the Anglican church, the motion -- even if it meant what you inaccurately claim it means -- would only have canonical force if worded as an amendment to a specific canon, and if passed at two consecutive general synods. And no-one -- let me repeat that -- no-one -- in the Anglican church in Canada is currently proposing that the church allow same-sex marriage. Some people wish it would, but most people are still coming to grips with the idea of blessing an existing same-sex union. Even in New Westminster, the rite of blessing has been designed so no-one who actually reads it can possibly think that what is going on is a wedding.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you are willfully choosing to disregard the intentions of the supporters of the motion, no, the paragraph does not declare homosexual relationships to be holy or sacred.
Actually, it does say that. Interpretation (at least legal interpretation) only relies on the intention of the drafters when the meaning is not clear. The meaning here is clear. The words are not ambiguous.
I would suggest there are (at least) two possible reasons for using this wording while arguing it doesn't mean what it clearly says:
1) The drafter (and supporters) didn't know the meaning of the words.
2) The drafter wanted approval for the resolution but needed approval from some who would not otherwise agree to it.
Are there other possibilities?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you are willfully choosing to disregard the intentions of the supporters of the motion, no, the paragraph does not declare homosexual relationships to be holy or sacred.
Actually, it does say that. Interpretation (at least legal interpretation) only relies on the intention of the drafters when the meaning is not clear. The meaning here is clear. The words are not ambiguous.
I would suggest there are (at least) two possible reasons for using this wording while arguing it doesn't mean what it clearly says:
1) The drafter (and supporters) didn't know the meaning of the words.
2) The drafter wanted approval for the resolution but needed approval from some who would not otherwise agree to it.
Are there other possibilities?
1 is it. I am acquanited with the mover and several of those who voted for it. They are at worst confused -- and I have already expressed my feelings about that.
2 can certainly be ruled out.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
...Try arguing otherwise in a court of law - which is where it will be interpreted when an Anglican priest refuses to perform a homosexual wedding.
Well, it won't, for reasons John states, and others.
First off, I don't see how you could get it anywhere near a court. There's no "right" to an Anglican wedding - Canada does not have an established Church, so an Anglican priest cannot be held to have a legal duty to perform a wedding.
The discipline of the Anglican church does not currently permit the blessing of a whole range of marriages acceptable to the state, so showing up with a legal license and a hither-to undisclosed partner could not constitute a breach of contract, as the contract would not be valid.
So, neither legal right nor contract right can oblige the priest to perform the rite. (Couldn't resist the pun.) No open route to court.
If someone somehow did get it before the court, freedom of religion trumps a whole pile of other things, on precendent and many other ways. Else, some married man would have long since sued the Roman Catholic Church to ordain him (etc., ceteris paribus.)
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I think that this is my first essay into the land of equine cadavers, but as the sanctity clause was brought to the Canadian General Synod by a local cleric and as two other Ottawavians have already commented, I feel safe in so doing, at least on this occasion.
Shipmate Holding is, I think, correct in choosing (1) as the motion's mover's motives. Indeed, a fortnight after the event, I was torturing the 327th draft of an Official Document in an effort to make words mean something along with a secularist colleague. He pointed out, accurately I now believe, that my suggestion for a paragraph would start months of arguing and who then referred to the Synod's motion as an example of what happens when soft heads and soft hearts combine in preparing texts.
However, it has certainly complicated things and I had the unpleasant experience of participating in a fairly virulent special vestry in my own parish shortly after the Synod meeting.
Curious as to the opinion of my lavender & leather-atttired fellow subjects, I ran into a range of responses. One noted that it could be taken to apply only to celibate committed same-sex partnerships as the Christian default in sexual expression outside marriage was abstinence, or so he recalled from his days in Pentecostalist youth groups. Another snorted that this was a prime example of (adjective withheld) Anglican (gerund withheld) condescenscion, where he was being told his behaviour was holy in a (adjective withheld) pastoral sense but not in the sense of (another, even more colourful, adjective withheld) it meaning anything. His suggestion as to what I could do with the resolution, and indeed the entire church, was distasteful (and likely very painful).
A third, more cynical while very devout type, a hospice worker who is well on the way to constructing his/her own gender (legally his for the past five weeks, with a reception in the parish hall and the provincial Minister of Health in attendance as the registrar of the declaration), said that the motion was meaningless for, as soon as same-sex marriage becomes more common and people get used to it, they will be held in Anglican churches within a few years, because the clergy will not want to be thought of as unpastoral or uncaring or not nice. The blessings issue, I was informed, will soon be an historical curiosity.
My political antenna tell me that Hospice Worker may be right on this, but my experience at a nigh-hysterical vestry meeting makes me wonder...
As I have to deal with Charter and Rights issues at the workplace, perhaps I might be permitted to support my fellow Ottawavian who, I think, is correct in thinking that clergy of any church have no fear at all in being compelled to participate in such activities. The proposed legislation clearly provides protection and, if it had not been for sectarian ninnies trying to whip up a little pre-election fever (we denizens of the northern Dominion head to the polls on Monday, should we be fortunate enough to escape the hordes of wolves and polar bears which lurk in our forests to feast on unwary voters), this might already be in force.
A priest has a much fear of a court order to officiate at a same-sex marriage as Cardinals Turcotte or Ouellet are at risk for not consecrating Rabbi Gunther Plaut as Bishop of Rimouski.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
On the whole issue of calling to be single, etc.
Sometimes what God wants from us in a situation is to trust him, even though it is difficult.
Sometimes he wants us to surrender our longings to him and to find satisfaction in him.
Sometimes he wants us in our weakness to be so dependant upon him that his power and strength can be shown.
Sometimes God withholds from us what we want so that we can see that our motivation for wanting it was all wrong.
Some people will be single permanently. I am single at the moment. I don't especially want to stay this way. But I know that if it is God's will that I should, that it will be what is best for me.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And sometimes things happen that aren't God's will.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I think it is God's will that we have free will, and that we are scuppering this if we refuse to make a decision for ourselves as to being single or not.
'Oh Lord, please show me if you want me to be single or not!'
Maybe: 'Well, actually, I've given you the freedom to choose.'
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but I have to weigh in with a completely silly tangent relating to ChristinaMarie's last post. My partner and I were travelling upcountry last month and we stopped to use a public toilet in a small country town.
At the same time a young woman with a little boy of around 4 years also stopped to use the toilet. Rosie and I were gobsmacked at the following dialogue:
quote:
Mother: have you finished, darling?
Boy: I don't know. I think I might need to go poo.
Mother: Well, can't you tell?
Boy: Maybe I should ask Jesus whether I need to go poo.
Mother (quite seriously): That's a really good idea. You ask Jesus whether you need to go poo.
By this stage, Rosie and I were just about killing ourselves trying not to laugh out loud. One seriously wonders how this little boy is going to get on with bigger decisions.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Arabella, that is wonderful. It's so good no one could make it up. How do you think it would work as a sig? quote:
Boy: Maybe I should ask Jesus whether I need to go poo.
Mother (quite seriously): That's a really good idea. You ask Jesus whether you need to go poo.
[ 30. June 2004, 00:21: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Feel free Wanderer, I think I'll pass on that!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Feel free Wanderer, I think I'll pass on that!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) As it were!!!
David
this, too, shall pass
PS: And now, for the winner of the "most unexpected thread-derailing award of 2004"...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Arabella, you were meant to see that, and hear that, and pass it on to the world.Go therefore. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
And the Band played:
"Obedience is better than sacrifice."
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
I read the following this morning at Salon and it made me physically ill:
Ohio's Amendment 1
(You will need a day pass to read the article if you don't subscribe, but it's free.)
If this is what Christianity is about, I'm going to resign my membership. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Shrew
Ship's Mother
# 8635
|
Posted
HI everyone *waves* this is my first post on SoF boards, thoguh i have been lurking for some years now.
at risk of repeating what has been said before (im sorry, i was trying to read through but 34 pages is a LOT to read when you have an essay to write on something else!) can i ask some questions please?
the lambeth report thingy which came out today: BBC website said "It also called for a moratorium on the consecration of gay candidates. "
does this mean no gay vicars or is it just a ban on bishops? i dont understand the phrasing *looks sheepish*
also, does it make guidelines or rules?
thankyou all:-)
Posts: 703 | From: York, England | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Hi, Fine first post.
We're discussing the Eames Report in Purgatory, where more people will see your excellent questions.
I think "consecration" means "bishop". And I know it's just "guidelines", 'cause I read what the Anglican Primate of Canada said this morning.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Shrew
Ship's Mother
# 8635
|
Posted
thanky muchly.. i shall move there directly:-)
--------------------
"The goal of life is not to make other people in your own image, it is to understand that they, too, are in God's image" (Orfeo)
Was "mummyfrances".
Posts: 703 | From: York, England | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I read the following this morning at Salon and it made me physically ill:
Ohio's Amendment 1
(You will need a day pass to read the article if you don't subscribe, but it's free.)
If this is what Christianity is about, I'm going to resign my membership.
Actually the one good thing about demonstrations like the above is that it really forces us to ask ourselves: is this really what Christianity is about?
Take the masks off and show us how ugly you really are, I say. [to the homophobic protester] Then we can resolve to be as little like you as possible.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Take the masks off and show us how ugly you really are, I say. [to the homophobic protester] Then we can resolve to be as little like you as possible.
Kelly---that's a fine sentiment, and largely I agree with it.
My problem in the current instance is that there are enough of those morons to pass that amendment. There are going to be real people who are hurt by this, and the only reason that is happening is because "Christians" are using their religion to incite and fan hatred and prejudice.
So, folks---those of you here who oppose gay marriage....is this what you want? You want to strip nontraditional families of what few legal protections they might have? You want to put the children of these unions in jeopardy of losing their health insurance, or consign them to state custody when one parent dies and the other one has no legal recognition?
Hey, maybe you agree with that one wingnut---maybe we should make homosexuality an offense worthy of the death penalty!!! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!!
Christ have mercy on us all. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
My problem in the current instance is that there are enough of those morons to pass that amendment. There are going to be real people who are hurt by this, and the only reason that is happening is because "Christians" are using their religion to incite and fan hatred and prejudice.
Well, I voted for the Missouri amendment back in August. Does that make me a moron? Hmm.
Actually I have little doubt that at some point in the future same-sex marriage will become law, because the number of people who derive their world views solely from the media is growing daily.
The very fact that we passed so quickly from "homosexuality is a preference" to "homosexuality might be genetic" to so many people's present-day conviction, despite any evidence for it, that "homosexuality is genetically determined" illustrates this.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
People don't change their minds about gay people because of what they see in the media, Kyralessa, at least not in my experience. They change their minds about gay people because as more and more homosexuals come out and live openly, more and more straight people become aware that they know a perfectly nice person who is gay, a completely domesticated couple who happen to be gay, etc etc.
I doubt very much that most people think about whether there's good science backing up what they think about homosexuality. People go by their experience - a liberal thing to do, so you don't like it, of course - and after hearing friends and relatives say "I've always been this way," sooner or later they believe it.
Same-sex marriage is going to be the law because it's the right, good, and just thing to do.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
What Ruth said.
I have a friend who went for prayer, counselling, healing courses... over several years he did everything he could to try to not be gay.
In the end, he concluded that he'd got his theology on either homosexuality or God's loving nature wrong. He went for the former, came out, and decided to look for a long-term partner.
He still (AFAIK - haven't seen him for a couple of months) hasn't found that special someone, but he's broken the cycle of trying-desperately-not-to-be-gay; crumbling under the pressure and picking up someone in a public park for a one-night-stand; hideous guilt; trying-desperately-not-to-be-gay... In other words, his lifestyle is healthier AND HOLIER since accepting his nature, whatever its causes.
If I judge his lifestyle by its fruits, I have to accept that he made the more godly choice.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Well, I voted for the Missouri amendment back in August. Does that make me a moron?
Kyralessa---so, tell me...did it feel good to enshrine discrimination against your fellow, tax-paying, mortgage-holding, hard-working American citizens in your state constitution?
Did it make your day to deny to others the benefits that you take for granted---tax breaks, health care, right of survivorship, etc.?
Do you feel that your own marriage is somehow "safer" now? Are you happy to know that your own child will enjoy the protection of the law in the way that the child of a gay or lesbian couple will not?
Could you go sit in the living room of the lesbian couple in the article I linked, look them in the eyes, and tell them that you think they, their relationship, and their children are so disgusting that they should essentially no longer qualify as American citizens? (Because when you abrogate their right to contract--as the Ohio amendment will do--you have essentially done just that...)
Finally, can you remind me again of how Jesus' injunctions to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love one another as your Father in Heaven has loved you" required you to vote for that amendment?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Kyralessa:
quote:
...because the number of people who derive their world views solely from the media is growing daily.
Excuse me, but this is utter nonsense.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Yeah what RuthW said, from a guy that get's his world views solely from almost anything BUT the media!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Kyralessa:
quote:
...because the number of people who derive their world views solely from the media is growing daily.
Excuse me, but this is utter nonsense.
You're being too polite. It's fucking twaddle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Yeah, it is utter nonsense. There's an article in today's Guardian that proves it.
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Kyralessa---so, tell me...did it feel good to enshrine discrimination against your fellow, tax-paying, mortgage-holding, hard-working American citizens in your state constitution?
An amendment seemed to be the only way the laws of the land would be upheld, since the legislative branch no longer seems to hold power in the government.
quote:
Did it make your day to deny to others the benefits that you take for granted---tax breaks, health care, right of survivorship, etc.?
That's especially funny since the jobs I've been working lately don't offer health insurance. But none of those things are denied; they're just not granted to people by virtue of a homosexual relationship. They're also not granted to people in a host of other relationships we could bring up.
quote:
Do you feel that your own marriage is somehow "safer" now?
No.
quote:
Are you happy to know that your own child will enjoy the protection of the law in the way that the child of a gay or lesbian couple will not?
I didn't tell them to go form a couple, now did I?
quote:
Could you go sit in the living room of the lesbian couple in the article I linked, look them in the eyes, and tell them that you think they, their relationship, and their children are so disgusting that they should essentially no longer qualify as American citizens? (Because when you abrogate their right to contract--as the Ohio amendment will do--you have essentially done just that...)
No, but I wouldn't have to, because the amendment wasn't about "disgusting." (And "their" children have nothing to do with it anyway.)
quote:
Finally, can you remind me again of how Jesus' injunctions to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love one another as your Father in Heaven has loved you" required you to vote for that amendment?
They didn't. Nor do they require me to get up and go to work this morning. There's a lot of stuff I do during the day that doesn't derive directly from those injunctions, important though they obviously are.
Now here's a question for you, Paige: If this amendment was such a horrible thing, how come 71% of voters favored it? This was in a primary, mind you, and one in which the Democrats had more interest than the Republicans, as the Democrats unseated an incumbent governor. "They're all bigots" is not an answer, sorry. Think for a bit and tell me just why 71% of voters in Missouri, including many future Kerry-voters, mind you, found it necessary to vote for this amendment.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
so, tell me...did it feel good to enshrine discrimination against your fellow, tax-paying, mortgage-holding, hard-working American citizens in your state constitution?
Do you lose sleep at night thinking about how we have actively discriminated against nice tax-paying, mortgage-holding, hard-working polygamists in this country since the 19th century?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
This is a slight tangent to the 'debate' that is raging on this thread at the moment, but my question has been inspired by this debate, and this thread is the appropriate place to pose it, so, here goes: [takes deep breath for dramatic effect] - Why do so many heterosexual people get so wound up about people who are homosexual and how they live their lives?
There seems to be a lot of people, from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds, who think that gay people are not 'normal', and, worse than that (who is 'normal' after all?), should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. What reasons do people have for holding these opinions?
Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they are a certain colour? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because of their gender? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they have a disability?
If your answer is no, then why is it right and fair to discriminate against a person because of their sexuality? None of these things are chosen - they are things that are determined by factors that are beyond our control. I just don't get it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And I'd like some answers that don't include the words 'Bible', 'so', and 'says'. I'd rather you were honest.....
[ 26. October 2004, 14:00: Message edited by: phudfan ]
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
...Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they are a certain colour? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because of their gender? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they have a disability?
...And I'd like some answers that don't include the words 'Bible', 'so', and 'says'. I'd rather you were honest.....
It is rather rude to want an honest answer but put conditions on how someone can answer.
It is not an issue of discrimination - it is a matter of right and wrong. Some of us still believe the Scriptures are determinative on this issue.
[ 26. October 2004, 14:19: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
...Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they are a certain colour? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because of their gender? Do people think that it is right and fair to discriminate against a person because they have a disability?
...And I'd like some answers that don't include the words 'Bible', 'so', and 'says'. I'd rather you were honest.....
It is rather rude to want an honest answer but put conditions on how someone can answer.
It is not an issue of discrimination - it is a matter of right and wrong. Some of us still believe the Scriptures are determinative on this issue.
Ok - I was being rude by including those last few words, I apologise. But, and I know it's hypothetical, what if the Bible didn't mention the subject? What would your opinion on the issue be then?
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
