The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

The homophobia of Romans 1 was structured to play on the sympathies of conservative Jewish Christians of the time so that he could get treated as an insider well enough to get them to shut up about bacon.

Yes, but the same-sex acts in Romans 1 are also set in a context of worshipping non-Christian deities, perhaps some sort of cultic prostitution. It is hardly surprising, that St. Paul want Christians to stay away from practicing non-Christian religions.

The critical thing is that they are not the point of the writing.  They are the thing set up to make his intended audience go "Ewwwwwwwwwwwww," so that he could say, "I know, right?  They do all this shit that, by the way, you do too, and you don't have the excuse of not having the Law."

Yes, yes. I don't contradict that interpretation.

No, it was not implied, and I do not nitpick. I hope that those Anglican/Episcopal churches who are ready for it will bless civil marriages, but not by using poorly worded liturgies with crude and dysfunctional theology. Anglicans have justified pride over the high stylistic quality of their liturgical texts, and they have been able to gather quite different churchmanships under one umbrella for 450 years. Why let same-sex couples suffer a lower standard of liturgy than hetero couples?

Wait...you're trying to tell me what my own words meant? The fuck?

Civil or sacramental?

I have problems with both, but more with sacramental marriages than civil ones.

Sorry to hear that. It is possible, that I have interpreted your position in a more positive  light than what you intended. I am, though, still not sure exactly what your position is. Doesn't Conservative synagogues perform same-sex weddings?

The Conservative position re: homosexuality and same-sex marriage is... complicated. In 2006, the Rabbinical Assembly adopted a variety of responsa, some of which directly contradicted each other. Same-Sex Attraction and Halakhah by Leonard Levy and Homosexuality Revisited by Joel Roth both stand on the conservative end of the spectrum. The former counsels against outright discrimination and encourages LGBT participation in the Jewish community, but maintains that there ought not to be same-sex marriage ceremonies or blessings of same-sex unions. As well, Rabbi Levy states that while those who flout the prohibitions on homosexual conduct should still be accepted into the Conservative community -- much like those who don't keep kosher or observe the Sabbath are -- their actions should not be validated. As well, it is the position of Levy's responsa that those with same-sex attraction can be admitted to rabbinical and cantorial schools, but should refrain from having sex.

Rabbi Roth, on the other hand, states in his conclusions that "[t]he Rabbinical and Cantorial schools will not knowingly admit sexually active homosexual students, nor will they be admitted to either the Rabbinical Assembly or the Cantors Assembly.' but otherwise tends to mirror Same-Sex Attraction and Halakhah. Both responsa agree that homosexuals shouldn't be ostracised, but that sodomy remained prohibited, and that neither same-sex blessings or marriages should be assented to; as that would undermine the standard ideal of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Celibacy is counselled, but with the attitude of "if you can't be celibate, that's okay; just try to live up to Jewish ethics in that relationship" in line with the Conservative ideal of encouraging Jewish observance as normative and beneficial, but not penalising those who fail to live up to it.

That's a big reversal from the CJLS' (Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, the Rabbinical Assembly's halachic arm) blanket prohibition of homosexuals and homosexuality across the board, but is still relatively conservative. Rabbi Levy's responsa is very nuanced in addressing the subtleties of sexual orientation and attraction, and I'm not quite doing it justice. It's easy to find if you'd like to skim it. However, a third responsa was also adopted: Homosexuality, Human Dignity, and Halakah. This is generally understood to be the 'liberal' one among the three responsa. In comparison to the position of other religions (Episcopalianism) or Jewish denominations (Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Renewal, and Reform Judaism spring to mind) it may not really seem that liberal; but in a Conservative context it's pretty close. The explicit ban on sodomy remains in place, and "[h]eterosexual marriage between two Jews [is confirmed as] the halakhic ideal," but with the significant caveat that "for homosexuals who are incapable of maintaining a heterosexual relationship, the rabbinic prohibitions that have been associated with other gay and lesbian intimate acts are superseded based upon the Talmudic principle of kvod habriot, our obligation to preserve the human dignity of all people." As regards admittance to seminaries and cantorial schools the paper instructs that LGBT students are to be admitted without prejudice.

Importantly, it also refrains from addressing the issue of same-sex marriages or blessings for civil unions; saying that the many halachic questions which would have to be addressed fell outside the scope of the paper. The rabbis did say though that they "favor the establishment of committed and loving relationships for gay and lesbian Jews", paving the way for the adoption, in 2012, of an addendum to Homosexuality, Human Dignity, and Halakah which laid out ceremonies and blessings for Jewish same-sex marriages. As is the way with the Conservative movement, the various synagogues, seminaries, and cantorial schools which are affiliated with the movement can choose which responsa they wish to adhere to; recognising that they all establish valid halachic positions. I, obviously, tend towards the first two responsa; and if I ever ended up a rabbi I would not officiate same-sex marriages. But taken as a whole, I would say that if one were to average the three responsa together, the position of Conservative Judaism could broadly be summed up as "no anal, please, and celibacy and/or heterosexual marriage are ideal, but while we encourage you to live up to these standards we understand if you can't."

This discussion (and this is not directed exclusively to you, but to all participants of this thread) will not become balanced and nuanced until we take a few other observations in consideration:

The Scottish Episcopal Church has not adopted any official liturgy for blessing of a civil marriage, but it permit its clergy to use locally adopted rites in order to bless same-sex civil marriages. The Scottish Episcopal Church is not suspended from the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia have a liturgy for trial use in order to bless same-sex civil marriages. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is not suspended from the Anglican Communion.

What the Episcopal Church (vague name!) has done, is to adopt a liturgy that blurs the sacramental theology of Christianity, something the Scottish and New Zealandic liturgies do not.

I think the problem is that TEC is large and influential, and is in any case far more blatant about gay marriages and non-celibate gay priests (Gene Robinson, anyone?) than any of the churches you named; so obviously they will be of more concern to the conservative wing of the church. I should also add that, despite Kiya's surprising attempts to paint the African portions of the Communion as backwards stone-throwing savages (perhaps the benevolent white prelates of Europe and North America can enlighten them...), it isn't just the African church which is dismayed. I've heard that the South American and Latin American contingents of the Communion aren't exactly thrilled either. TEC is a bit of a renegade and that's coming back to bite them. Anglicanism prides itself on the via media, and on collegiality and consensus, and The Episcopal Church is too busy thrusting doctrine into a paper-shredder and screaming that it knows better than everyone else.
 

And you're correct...I'm not mollified. You're entitled to your opinion, but damn. Being okay with gay people as long as they remain second-class citizens doesn't really fly with me.

Equal rights means equal rites.

Agree to disagree? :ange:

Wait...you're trying to tell me what my own words meant? The fuck?

 
I made a statement with a set of implications contextually attached to them that are perfectly valid in US language usage and culture. It appears that Swedish English does not seem to have the same contextual implications.

So rather than throw rocks at each other, maybe it can be agreed that we're separated by a common language.

I made a statement with a set of implications contextually attached to them that are perfectly valid in US language usage and culture. It appears that Swedish English does not seem to have the same contextual implications.

So rather than throw rocks at each other, maybe it can be agreed that we're separated by a common language.

I do not understand what is happening. There is no reason for our discussion to deteriorate. Is it best to disentangle our mutual puzzlement in private messages instead?

I don't recall Kiya doing that, in this thread or anywhere else. But I'm happy to.

From less than 2 years ago:
BILL TO STONE GAYS TO DEATH INTRODUCED IN KENYA
http://religiondispatches.org/bill-to-stone-gays-to-death-introduced-in-kenya/

This is the lot that the African Anglican churches have thrown in with. I hope it helps this indictment go down easier for you, coming from a black man.



Perhaps they can, considering much of the recent rash of anti-gay hatred has been whipped up by less-than-benevolent white prelates of American conservative evangelical churches, traveling to Africa to peddle their discredited hatred in more fertile ground, since they've lost so much ground in the Americas.

Or since the taboos against homosexuality were largely introduced by white Europeans during colonial times.

You may notice that I'm less concerned about skin color than with the human rights principles involved.

 

I'm not entirely sure what the situation here is.

I've read that this move is less about same-sex marriage, but about TEC taking matters of doctrine and policy into their own hands. For that, they have been suspended for three years from voting on doctrine and policy at the Anglican Communion.

As in, it could have been any issue that created this schism, and not that this is necessarily an Anglican attack on homosexuality. It's that there is still a process in which things need to happen, and TEC didn't follow that process.

Is that an accurate understanding?