Missing the point

As always, there are people who read what they read and make 'clever' comments, the like of which display that their pseudonyms are perhaps rather fitting! This is certainly true of the comment, "You are suggesting that if Dr John co-habited with a woman, he'd be "living in sin". For, as my previous post states, a fair number of people were shocked/amazed/stunned/[add your favourite here] at what appeared to be duplicity and double-standards over the situation reported. Mind you, I like the writer's deduction - sees a parallel and is not afraid to give it a name.

To help clear up the asinine correspondents confusion, let me spell out the nature of the flak I received in an easy to follow manner.

The situation as it was presented to me, by members of churches and those who were antagonistic towards church, was that having been in a relationship and having convinced people that this was no longer the case (I assume they meant a sexual relationship) the other person was moved into the house in a different role. Many people were of the opinion that had the relationship been heterosexual then there was no way the woman would have been allowed to become part of the household of their 'ex', even if they were merely 'friends'. Makes sense I guess - but this was not the case when the framework was homosexual. Double-standards? Many thought so (and told me so too!). Now, you will note that 'I' am not suggesting anything, merely reporting what was conveyed to me and voicing my concern at the potential for damage.

Now, this is obvious and pretty much an even-handed and logical approach to the affair from people who know what they know from papers and the media. Perhaps we need to berate the media for having a field day with this issue?

The point was made that JJ, "Is in a Civil Partnership which, if only for inheritance purposes, has been accepted by General Synod." This seems to be correct, it's about inheritance and nothing else! Signing consent forms as Next of Kin (NoK) and stuff like that. No confusion here at all - it's not 'Gay marriage' at all, is it? This should appease some :) and render others as wrong!

We then encounter something odd in that it is suggested that, "Logically, I am suggesting Dr John should marry his partner to make their relationship licit. Or am I against that as well?" What a funny statement and question combination! I don't see that I have 'logically' suggested anything of the sort and applaud the skewed mind that extrapolates something so entertaining, but erroneous, in deductive and Biblical processes. Having not made the point nor engaged in whether I am 'for it' I return only to the comments and the damage previously done, and potentially waiting in the wings, with regard to consecrating this chap then and now!

Catch 22 is a novel (and a good one at that) and the logic in which the book is quoted is as sound as the Biblical knowledge displayed. There is indeed a choice - problem is the popular choice (taking views of many Christians and other denominations and non-church people) isn't popular with a small minority who continue to present their desires as the majority view. Coupled with Rowan's comments to TEC recently, isn't he now potentially guilty of doing what he has chastised the American Anglicans for?

Excellent dialogue - displays that those who wish to have what they will will also eschew logic, the appearance of things (to both Christian and secular people), Biblical tradition and practice.

I knew this was going to be a problem. Where are Ezra and Nehemiah when we need them?

That'll be all now Donkey :) Pax