Question:
Amy Lou wrote: > "Doug Laidlaw" > Shouldn’t have that sort >> of thing at pre-school level. > I would have thought pre-school level was *the* place to have ‘that sort > of thing’. > Amy
I am not expressing my opinion, just the "official" view. The politicians are always saying that the ABC is too independent, and the ABC doesn’t want to be seen as the mouthpiece for the political party which is the government of the day. You may very well be right. Doug. — ICQ Number 178748389. Imagine all the people living for today. – John Lennon.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tsam Nami wrote: > "Doug Laidlaw" <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message > news:1ds4p1-kcg.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au… >> Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on > its >> kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian >> relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view >> that >> the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration >> that >> "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that >> sort of thing at pre-school level. > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay male) > couples. > We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment that all married > couples > seek. > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of > gay > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian > couples. > For gay women _and_ men, the prospect of children and relationships that > need > not be hidden are causing profound changes. Given an alternative to a > living > between the closet and the bar, many are responding by growing up. IMO > this is a wonderful development. > — > Tsam
Fair comment, Tsam. Our Family Court wants the sexual options of children such as this little girl to be preserved, so they usually impose a condition that the Moms not engage in sexual behaviour in the presence of the children. I don’t know what this means in practice. I think that if the children do not see the same expressions of love between the parents as they would see in a heterosexual environment, their own emotional development will be the poorer for it. But I am probably biased on that issue, having had parents who weren’t demonstrative. Not having preschool age children, I didn’t see the program myself. If that little girl can’t come into the marital bed in the morning, she will miss out on a lot. Doug. — ICQ Number 178748389. Imagine all the people living for today. – John Lennon.
Response:
In article <slrncc2doh.36n.t…@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote: > As a Catholic, I’m not used to deciding issues by discussing. Now I have > seen the Cardinals and Bishops discuss at ecumenical councils, and if > that’s what he’s talking about, I understand that. But the rank and file > voting on what they will believe??? Makes no sense to me.
And Cardinals and Bishops are more in touch with God than the average parishoner in the pew? Makes no sense to me. I remember hearing something about some people called Sadducees and Pharisees who claimed to have the inside track to the truth. (I’m actually in agreement with you on whether a democractic vote expresses the will of God or not, but it’s too late tonight to explore that. Later.) Ted
Response:
In article <8R8wc.46732$eY2.23116@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually I’m confused about this. Religious conservative have little > trouble with the "different rules for men and women" idea. > If they had a reason too, I’m sure they could accept lesbians but not > gay men.
Good point, Doug. What I wonder is what’s really behind it all? Ted
Response:
"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncc2doh.36n.tony@home.cigardiary.com… > As a Catholic, I’m not used to deciding issues by discussing. Now I have > seen the Cardinals and Bishops discuss at ecumenical councils, and if > that’s what he’s talking about, I understand that. But the rank and file > voting on what they will believe??? Makes no sense to me.
Because our church’s leaders are selected by our membership, this is a fundamentally different system. The structured discussion does not change the intention. If you are going do decide such a divisive issue on the collective consciences of followers instead of leaders, this approach makes sense. It seems from the outside that there is a politics of consensus building that goes on in your church’s hierarchy, only with more selective participation. The main issue where the Roman Catholic decision making process appears to be causing tensions is that of family planning. IIRC, there was a commission that sifted through the issues and implications of the changes in this area when oral contraceptive technology was discovered. Some say that there were significant arguments for change that were rejected. In this area, the RC laity seems to have rejected doctrine by its actions. (I don’t know how much this happened outside the US, but certainly this is the case within the US.) I don’t want to change your church’s culture — it is a large part of what I love in my wife, but it does not appear to be completely different from mine in how decisions are made in practice. Here is a side issue, more to you personally than to your church… A while ago, when I mentioned your offhand comment about wanting to avoid your daughters learning about sex before marriage, My wife, who attended a Sacred Heart high school, wondered how in the world they would learn the practical aspects of Natural Family Planning, which I understand to be more than merely calendars and periods of abstinance. How are you and your wife handling this issue? — respectfully, Tsam
Response:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:45:45 GMT, Tsam Nami <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote: > "Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > news:slrncc1mqv.2hk.tony@home.cigardiary.com… >> We can disagree and still remain civil I think. And I don’t doubt that >> many gays have a profound faith in God. Many also believe that God >> made them like that so He must approve of what they are doing. >> Others don’t understand how "love can be wrong". > We all have responsibilities in our relationships. I try to interpret these > in a way that unites, not divides.
It’s nice to try doing that. But sometimes (and this is the the purview of religion), since religion is supposed to be teaching the Truth, there’s no way to unite in the face of wrongness (in the opinion of the religion). > I admire the church from Rome because if its sincere efforts to be > "catholic" — for _all_ people.
"In things that matter, unity. In those that don’t, tolerance. In all things charity." I think it was St. Augustine who said that. > [snip] >> Also, I heard Ted say a church was taking a vote on how they would deal >> with the homosexuality issue. *A vote*?!?!?!?!? Has God’s will become a >> democracy while I wasn’t looking? > This is more of a structured discussion than a vote. There is a 6-week set > of discussion questions, and congregations are to report back their > reactions. > More details can be found at URL: > http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/
As a Catholic, I’m not used to deciding issues by discussing. Now I have seen the Cardinals and Bishops discuss at ecumenical councils, and if that’s what he’s talking about, I understand that. But the rank and file voting on what they will believe??? Makes no sense to me. > (Many feel that this discussion is slanted towards accepting homosexuals. > The most prominent place where dissenting opinions are expressed is The > Lutheran Commentator, at URL: > http://www.luthercomment.org/ > The most prominent place where gay-accepting Lutheran opinions are > expressed is the "Reconciling in Christ" movement, whose web site is at > URL: > http://www.lcna.org/ric.shtm) > —
-Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Response:
Ignoramus32760 <ignoramus32…@NOSPAM.32760.invalid> writes: > In article <WZ%vc.1385$uX2…@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tsam Nami wrote: > > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay > > male) couples. We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment > > that all married couples seek. > Sounds like you belong to a church of Satan. > Would your church also solemnify blasphemy? Would it invite atheists > to make speeches from the pulpit, in the name of "openness"?
This is sillier than the silliest "slippery slope" arguments, Igor.
Response:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZS8wc.46741$eY2.30600@attbi_s02… > Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: > > This is fine and dandy, but I also believe that people shacking up should > > not be portrayed at times when young, impressionable children might be > > watching, > Then maybe we ought to give them an alternative to "shacking up." > > but in the US they are (some soap operas are borderline > > pornographic) > I wouldn’t even say borderline. I’d say well over the border. > Though I find this less disturbing than the standard ration of TV
violence. During the the Journeying Toegther Faithfully discussion in my congregation, one open lesbian was very outspoken how she resented being accused of promiscuity while feling immersed in a culture of heterosexual promiscuity. The idea that all were called to be sexually faithful went over just fine with her. — Tsam
Response:
Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: > This is fine and dandy, but I also believe that people shacking up should > not be portrayed at times when young, impressionable children might be > watching,
Then maybe we ought to give them an alternative to "shacking up." > but in the US they are (some soap operas are borderline > pornographic)
I wouldn’t even say borderline. I’d say well over the border. Though I find this less disturbing than the standard ration of TV violence.
Response:
"Seeker" <tedds212removet…@yahoo.com> writes: > "Tsam Nami" <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote in message > news:WZ%vc.1385$uX2.28@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of > > gay > > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO > > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian > > couples. > Well, Tsam, I suspect the reason lesbians are unacceptable to the > conservatives is that if they accept them they have little logical reason > not to accept gay men either.
Actually I’m confused about this. Religious conservative have little trouble with the "different rules for men and women" idea. If they had a reason too, I’m sure they could accept lesbians but not gay men.
Response:
"Doug Laidlaw" Shouldn’t have that sort > of thing at pre-school level.
I would have thought pre-school level was *the* place to have ‘that sort of thing’. Amy
Response:
"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncc1mqv.2hk.tony@home.cigardiary.com… > We can disagree and still remain civil I think. And I don’t doubt that > many gays have a profound faith in God. Many also believe that God > made them like that so He must approve of what they are doing. > Others don’t understand how "love can be wrong".
We all have responsibilities in our relationships. I try to interpret these in a way that unites, not divides. I admire the church from Rome because if its sincere efforts to be "catholic" — for _all_ people. [snip] > Also, I heard Ted say a church was taking a vote on how they would deal > with the homosexuality issue. *A vote*?!?!?!?!? Has God’s will become a > democracy while I wasn’t looking?
This is more of a structured discussion than a vote. There is a 6-week set of discussion questions, and congregations are to report back their reactions. More details can be found at URL: http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/ (Many feel that this discussion is slanted towards accepting homosexuals. The most prominent place where dissenting opinions are expressed is The Lutheran Commentator, at URL: http://www.luthercomment.org/ The most prominent place where gay-accepting Lutheran opinions are expressed is the "Reconciling in Christ" movement, whose web site is at URL: http://www.lcna.org/ric.shtm) — Tsam
Response:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:14:29 GMT, Tsam Nami – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote: > "Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > news:slrncc18q4.7vg.tony@home.cigardiary.com… >> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:49:26 GMT, Tsam Nami >> <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote: >> > "Doug Laidlaw" <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message >> > news:1ds4p1-kcg.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au… >> >> Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on >> > its >> >> kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian >> >> relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view > that >> >> the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration > that >> >> "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that > sort >> >> of thing at pre-school level. >> > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay male) >> > couples. >> > We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment that all married >> > couples >> > seek. >> With 33,000 flavors of non-Catholic, Christian churches, you can always >> find one that will support what you want to do. >> > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation > of >> > gay >> > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO >> > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian >> > couples. >> This may be a problem if you believe that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) >> defines the totality of God’s truth. We don’t believe it does. >> > For gay women _and_ men, the prospect of children and relationships that >> > need >> > not be hidden are causing profound changes. Given an alternative to a >> > living >> > between the closet and the bar, many are responding by growing up. IMO > this >> > is a wonderful development. >> This is fine and dandy, but I also believe that people shacking up should >> not be portrayed at times when young, impressionable children might be >> watching, but in the US they are (some soap operas are borderline >> pornographic) > I would not want to tell you how to interpret your faith. I claim the same > right > to live according to my faith and conscience. In many aspects we are in > concord, but this is a fundamental disagreement.
Of course you do. We all make our choices as to what religion we’ll follow. Some people (I’m not saying you’re doing it) put the cart before the horse. They live life according to their uninformed concience and proceeed to inform it with doctrine that agrees with their preconceived ideas. (IOW, for example, gays may gravitate toward a church that accepts homosexuality). > You have a substantial argument. I don’t want to belittle it by saying that > no one can disagree with me. Most of the world does. (Those in the US > who believe as I do are risking a lot — schism with those in the rest of > the > world, in all denominations. This is sobering to me, but I trust that the > faith > that I have seen in believers who are gay is genuine, and I will not deny > this)
We can disagree and still remain civil I think. And I don’t doubt that many gays have a profound faith in God. Many also believe that God made them like that so He must approve of what they are doing. Others don’t understand how "love can be wrong". > Thank you, Tony, for being articulate and compassionate in stating what you > believe. You are an excellent spokesman for it. An _honest_ adversary is > valuable, and I love you for being one. Your comments are welcome by me.
Well, I come from one perspective. And I would be remiss if I stayed out of a discussion like that. Thanks for your comments. One of the problems I have been seeing with many of the churches today is that they seem to place more value on getting people to go to church than teaching the truth. Religion is not supposed to "get with the times" as many say it should. Religion’s job is to *define what is right and wrong* in the face of what "the times" are doing. Also, I heard Ted say a church was taking a vote on how they would deal with the homosexuality issue. *A vote*?!?!?!?!? Has God’s will become a democracy while I wasn’t looking? -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tsam wrote: > Marriage _has_ changed from Biblical times. Polygamy and sex with > ones own slaves is no longer accepted in Jewish (except for some ethnic > sects) and Christian communities. Slavery has been rejected. These > changes to marriage are IMO pleasing to God, because they move toward > monogamous fidelity. > I do not claim that God loves promiscuity in anyone. The commandment > to not commit adultery applies equally to gay and straight. (Marrying a > straight person and pretending to be straight, if it can not be followed > through for a lifetime is sinful, IMO.) > Today it is possible for same sex couples to form faithful relationships. > In Biblical times, marriage was seen more as posession of women than > as a partnership. In that setting it was not possible to picture > homosexual acts except as selfish adultery (or fornication). It was not > even possible to imagine faithful same sex couples. This change is > critical. It opens up the possibility of marriage to such couples, > especially if one views marriage as being done by the couple and God, > not by a congretation or minister. > The condemnation of lifeling committed gay couples depends on the > belief that they can be forbidden from marriage by earthy authorities. > I believe that Christ honors true faith in Him, and that gay people who > trust that they can honor Him with a life of faithful committment are > rewarded for their faith with the sem opportunity to marry that I have.
Excellent, Tsam. Sheila
Response:
"Tsam Nami" <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:R52wc.1576$uX2.860@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > When we discussed this, with the ELCA’s "Journeying Together Faithfully" > materials that Seeker/Ted alluded to, our congregation largely accepted the > radical (addressing the root issue) position that I had reached through my > own studies:
Tsam — I don’t think we ever successfully managed to connect via email. I think we should try again. There are some aspects to this subject (involving others) that I’d like to talk to you privately about. Could you send me note at Tedds212 at yahoo.com and I’ll send you my real address? (Yes, those are the materials we will be using.) Ted
Response:
"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncc18q4.7vg.tony@home.cigardiary.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:49:26 GMT, Tsam Nami > <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote: > > "Doug Laidlaw" <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1ds4p1-kcg.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au… > >> Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on > > its > >> kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian > >> relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view that > >> the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration that > >> "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that sort > >> of thing at pre-school level. > > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay male) > > couples. > > We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment that all married > > couples > > seek. > With 33,000 flavors of non-Catholic, Christian churches, you can always > find one that will support what you want to do. > > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of > > gay > > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO > > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian > > couples. > This may be a problem if you believe that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) > defines the totality of God’s truth. We don’t believe it does. > > For gay women _and_ men, the prospect of children and relationships that > > need > > not be hidden are causing profound changes. Given an alternative to a > > living > > between the closet and the bar, many are responding by growing up. IMO this > > is a wonderful development. > This is fine and dandy, but I also believe that people shacking up should > not be portrayed at times when young, impressionable children might be > watching, but in the US they are (some soap operas are borderline > pornographic)
I would not want to tell you how to interpret your faith. I claim the same right to live according to my faith and conscience. In many aspects we are in concord, but this is a fundamental disagreement. You have a substantial argument. I don’t want to belittle it by saying that no one can disagree with me. Most of the world does. (Those in the US who believe as I do are risking a lot — schism with those in the rest of the world, in all denominations. This is sobering to me, but I trust that the faith that I have seen in believers who are gay is genuine, and I will not deny this) Thank you, Tony, for being articulate and compassionate in stating what you believe. You are an excellent spokesman for it. An _honest_ adversary is valuable, and I love you for being one. Your comments are welcome by me. — Tsam
Response:
"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncc18q4.7vg.tony@home.cigardiary.com… > This may be a problem if you believe that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) > defines the totality of God’s truth. We don’t believe it does.
I think the same problem is there Tony — how does one decide whether something is "God’s truth" or not? I find it very difficult to accept homosexuality without having to admit that the Bible is in error — and it’s not just a matter of translation or copying or interpretation or particular Old Testament circumstances. Paul is pretty clear on the subject and I think it’s almost sophistry to try to argue otherwise. (Yes, I’ve skimmed the arguments; now I’m going to have to study them!) Job writes "I know that my Redeemer liveth." He doesn’t write "I believe." He also doesn’t say how or why he knows that. In the same way he writes that I write I *know* that homosexuality is accepted by God. I cannot produce for you the experience that leads me to write that, any more than any of us can produce whatever led Job to write what he wrote. *That* I know that to be the truth casts in doubt all other sources of truth — not completely, of course, but it does take them off the pedestal. If I were a Roman Catholic I suspect I’d have to leave the church — the inconsistency between what I personally know about God and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches are so in conflict I don’t think I could accept the decision process that has led to that teaching and so I’d be in constant doubt about any of what it teaches. I know that would be short-sighted, for much of what it teaches is of course sound, but my heart wouldn’t be in it. I think God very wisely has set things up so that there *is* no single source of truth — we cannot rely solely on our own experience of God, the Bible, or the community — but that all three must be in constant loving tension. If they are not, one or the other of them will become God for us and that of course is idolatry. Ted
Response:
"Ignoramus32760" <ignoramus32…@NOSPAM.32760.invalid> wrote in message
news:c9q8gh$49k$0@pita.alt.net… > In article <WZ%vc.1385$uX2…@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tsam Nami wrote: > > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay > > male) couples. We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment > > that all married couples seek. > Sounds like you belong to a church of Satan. > Would your church also solemnify blasphemy? Would it invite atheists > to make speeches from the pulpit, in the name of "openness"?
Can you understand that I choose to be true to what I honestly believe, and that pretending to believe otherwise would be wrong? I see a similar honesty in you. Our congregation tries sincerely to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. (You’re entitled to your own opinion of what that means, but so are we.) When we discussed this, with the ELCA’s "Journeying Together Faithfully" materials that Seeker/Ted alluded to, our congregation largely accepted the radical (addressing the root issue) position that I had reached through my own studies: Marriage _has_ changed from Biblical times. Polygamy and sex with ones own slaves is no longer accepted in Jewish (except for some ethnic sects) and Christian communities. Slavery has been rejected. These changes to marriage are IMO pleasing to God, because they move toward monogamous fidelity. I do not claim that God loves promiscuity in anyone. The commandment to not commit adultery applies equally to gay and straight. (Marrying a straight person and pretending to be straight, if it can not be followed through for a lifetime is sinful, IMO.) Today it is possible for same sex couples to form faithful relationships. In Biblical times, marriage was seen more as posession of women than as a partnership. In that setting it was not possible to picture homosexual acts except as selfish adultery (or fornication). It was not even possible to imagine faithful same sex couples. This change is critical. It opens up the possibility of marriage to such couples, especially if one views marriage as being done by the couple and God, not by a congretation or minister. The condemnation of lifeling committed gay couples depends on the belief that they can be forbidden from marriage by earthy authorities. I believe that Christ honors true faith in Him, and that gay people who trust that they can honor Him with a life of faithful committment are rewarded for their faith with the sem opportunity to marry that I have. > (I am an agnostic, but IMHO, christian churches should follow the bible). > > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant > > condemnation of gay _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are > > barely mentioned. IMO religious conservatives have little basis to > > condemn _faithful_ lesbian couples. > The Bible is not a comprehensive list of all sexual perversities. It > does not say that one must not allow himself to become a recipient of > an intercourse being penetrated by elephant’s trunk. Does not mean > that such a perversity is acceptable for a god fearing Christian.
Bestiality _is_ condemned in Leviticus. A list of relevant species would add nothing. The Bible does condemn gay male acts many times, but there is only one passage that condemns gay female acts, and which aspect of the acts it condemns is ambiguous, as I have described above.
Response:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:49:26 GMT, Tsam Nami – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote: > "Doug Laidlaw" <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message > news:1ds4p1-kcg.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au… >> Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on > its >> kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian >> relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view that >> the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration that >> "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that sort >> of thing at pre-school level. > I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay male) > couples. > We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment that all married > couples > seek.
With 33,000 flavors of non-Catholic, Christian churches, you can always find one that will support what you want to do. > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of > gay > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian > couples.
This may be a problem if you believe that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) defines the totality of God’s truth. We don’t believe it does. > For gay women _and_ men, the prospect of children and relationships that > need > not be hidden are causing profound changes. Given an alternative to a > living > between the closet and the bar, many are responding by growing up. IMO this > is a wonderful development.
This is fine and dandy, but I also believe that people shacking up should not be portrayed at times when young, impressionable children might be watching, but in the US they are (some soap operas are borderline pornographic) -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Response:
"Tsam Nami" <tsam-n…@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:WZ%vc.1385$uX2.28@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of > gay > _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO > religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian > couples.
Well, Tsam, I suspect the reason lesbians are unacceptable to the conservatives is that if they accept them they have little logical reason not to accept gay men either. And you well understand that do so would require a rather revolutionary shift in how they go about reading the Bible. A week from next Wednesday our church is starting a six-week study of the issue of homosexuality as recommended for all churches in the denomination in advance of next year’s annual convention, where the subject is supposed to be voted on finally. It should prove an interesting and unfortunately probably quite divisive six weeks. Ted
Response:
"Tai" <tainu…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ib92fFl6tipU1@uni-berlin.de… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Doug Laidlaw wrote: > > Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing > > on its kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a > > Lesbian relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed > > the view that the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just > > an illustration that "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. > > Shouldn’t have that sort of thing at pre-school level. > Oh rubbish, Doug. It’s a huge storm in a teacup. Playschool is popular in > our house because we have a 3 year old and the piece I saw had two women > taking two little girls on an outing. The "two mummies" mentioned once and > would have escaped the notice of most of the intended audience. Many > children have two mums in the form of a mother and a stepmother, anyway, > although they probably don’t go on outings together very often! > (Playschool is a generations long preschool program shown during school > hours for children up to 4 or 5 years of age.) > I’ve been discussing this in an aussie based newgroup and, as I said there, > my son is only just working out there’s a difference between boys and girls. > The furore is way over the top and the ABC doesn’t deserve the caning for > producing quality children’s television. > Actually I’m so peeved at the ridiculous fuss I’m damn well going to email > them my support!
It sounds, Tai, as if the program could have either been showing one of the openly lesbian couples that I see at my church, or my very conservative cousin who has raised a daughter with her mother. — Tsam
Response:
"Doug Laidlaw" <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
news:1ds4p1-kcg.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au… > Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on its > kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian > relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view that > the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration that > "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that sort > of thing at pre-school level.
I do not find this OT at all. My church accepts lesbian (and gay male) couples. We marry them, honoring the same lifelong commttment that all married couples seek. Why are _lesbians_ unacceptable? There is no significant condemnation of gay _women_ in the Bible. Unlike gay men, they are barely mentioned. IMO religious conservatives have little basis to condemn _faithful_ lesbian couples. For gay women _and_ men, the prospect of children and relationships that need not be hidden are causing profound changes. Given an alternative to a living between the closet and the bar, many are responding by growing up. IMO this is a wonderful development. — Tsam
Response:
Doug Laidlaw <laidl…@myaccess.com.au> writes: > Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on its > kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian > relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view that > the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration that > "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that sort > of thing at pre-school level.
Shouldn’t have _what_ sort of thing? Are you saying pre-schoolers shouldn’t have two moms? ABC doesn’t have much control over that. Are you saying ABC should _pretend_ nobody has two moms?
Response:
Doug Laidlaw wrote: > Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing > on its kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a > Lesbian relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed > the view that the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just > an illustration that "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. > Shouldn’t have that sort of thing at pre-school level.
Oh rubbish, Doug. It’s a huge storm in a teacup. Playschool is popular in our house because we have a 3 year old and the piece I saw had two women taking two little girls on an outing. The "two mummies" mentioned once and would have escaped the notice of most of the intended audience. Many children have two mums in the form of a mother and a stepmother, anyway, although they probably don’t go on outings together very often! (Playschool is a generations long preschool program shown during school hours for children up to 4 or 5 years of age.) I’ve been discussing this in an aussie based newgroup and, as I said there, my son is only just working out there’s a difference between boys and girls. The furore is way over the top and the ABC doesn’t deserve the caning for producing quality children’s television. Actually I’m so peeved at the ridiculous fuss I’m damn well going to email them my support! Tai
Response:
Australian National Broadcaster the ABC has been blasted for showing on its kindergarten program a pre-school girl with two Moms in a Lesbian relationship. The responsible Government Minister expressed the view that the ABC was becoming too "politically correct." Just an illustration that "politically correct" doesn’t mean what it says. Shouldn’t have that sort of thing at pre-school level. Doug. — ICQ Number 178748389. Trouble is only opportunity in work clothes. – Henry J. Kaiser.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.