Material below is a collection, not often in date order, of my contributions to Faithspace. Each text may begin some way in to the contribution, but then gaps are signified by three dots. The contributions here extract from the conversational style into something more neutral. They do not include contributions from other people unless absolutely necessary and then they are unnamed. Punctuation is altered for clarification. Extra text is in square brackets which sometimes involves a little removal of text in favour of the given alternative.
|
September 15 2006, 3:07 pm
There is a simple solution to this question of "not liking" gay sex - don't do it. The problem is that in not liking it, for fear, or because it is written in a holy book, people want to tell others to stop doing it. Just as a matter of interest, I don't want to engage in gay sex and I don't think I do or would like it. But then it would not be an expression for me of love or relationship. It is for others, though, and it is an expression that helps bind them together and relate to one another. That's good enough for me. Now trying to say to someone, look these ancients think that if you do that sex your immortal soul is in danger makes me say, sorry, ancient peoples, I do not agree and our society is coming to the view that it does not agree either. Which is why we have social institutions now to reflect this position and add to the stability that a loving relationship itself creates - such as the (inadequate, in my view) civil partnership. In my view the pastoral concern for gay people is not to love the sinner and not the sin, and all that qualified stuff that means the person is not accepted, but to include and affirm people and how they express their positive relationships. Sorry ancient people, but this seems to me to be a basic ethical issue, on about human community and relationships at the heart of community, and I shall for one celebrate what others have (and some continue to do) condemn. |
|
16 September 1:05 am
Law is ideally a consensus, a sum total of situational ethics, and combined opinions, and powerful interests. I am not arguing against law, I am arguing for acting in the situation to what is positive and good - and what is positive and good is part of an ongoing debate and within that situation. Maybe some morality and ethics comes from the Bible, and some of ethics comes from what is interpreted into the Bible, but much of the Bible is given up as inappropriate (such as including those and their activities that the Bible excluded) and much of it is by debate - even fierce debate and not a little conflict. |
|
September 16, 10:21 pm
I was of the view that Jesus' concern was with the minority. Mine is. It is no good the majority becoming content if it means having to make the minority, who only wish the equal chance in life, discontent. We find ways to include as many as posible. It is also why I am positive about the European Union - and why, whereas I once thought Turkey could not be liberal democratic, that Europe stands as a means that it can become so and its accession would mean an even greater inclusiveness, and even greater sensitivity towards difference in this world of need. |
Adrian Worsfold
Pluralist - Liberal and Thoughtful