.

It would require a Remit and a Manual change. But we can start with a Task Force to remove Sex from Marriage.

Are you drafting the proposal DKS?

I expect the Toronto Squad to raise this at the next GC and to make it church policy before anyone gets a chance to think about it.  All those who oppose will be seen as opposed to human rights or perhaps accused of killing kittens with hammer and thus shamed into silence.  The decree will simply come down from On High, as usual.

Alex has raised an issue.  Alex is a person in a pew, a grass roots person who sees something that might be a problem for him and for others and has raised it.  The people he has talked to and now we people on the Cafe have an opportunity to think about it.  If anybody sees a reason to take action the next step is to prepare a remit, and to go up through the courts - from the grassroots, up, and see if anything can be changed. 

Personally I always thought that sex was a part of marriage.  I didn't think a marriage was finalized until it was consomated.  I may be wrong.   I also realize that couples for various reasons might decide to abstain from sex, or that sex might be impossible for them.  I don't think the UCC or any other church goes into the bedrooms and checks these things out - but I do think that one partner or the other refusing to engage in sex (not occasionally, but as a regular thing) might be grounds for separation, annulment or divorce. 

As for sex before marriage - it has always happened - it always will.  Except perhaps in cultures where marriages are arranged at a young age.  Sex outside of marriage - that's adultery and I don't think the UCC or any main stream church agrees with it.

A quick question.  If all parties are consenting adults, would the UCC consider it adultery?

I think the UCC should take sex out of wherever it can get it. I mean, this is really helping the needy,

graeme

.

Let us all shed a tear for DonnyGuitar. A martyr in his own mind.

uh, what I read up-thread refers to "expressions of sexuality", not "sexual intercourse," so I am wondering whether part of issue is how you choose define that phrase?

You've also chosen to take the statement  that "marriage as an institution is SHAPED BY CULTURAL ATTITUDES that are patriarchal and oppressive.." and restate is as "marriage is patriarchal and oppressive", which says something completely different.  Perhaps some time should be taken to read the statement carefully for what it actually says and doesn't say?

 The UCC has tried to focus on what is good about expressing one's sexuality (vs the stereotyped "sex is bad and should only be resorted to if you want to get pregnant" school of thought), and reclaim the goodness of bodies, minds *and* spirits.

The statement also refers to nurturing children, and not every couple chooses to and/or is able to bring children into their life together.  The statement is meant to be inclusive of experiences, not dictating them.

shalom

Does it say that sexuality is exclusive to marriage or a part of it?  I don't see the problem that sexuality can be expressed within a marriage...cms

Quick answer. Yes.

You know Toronto Conference well.

Quick clarification, are any of the people involved married?  Sex out side of marriage is not adultery if no one is married.  It is if one is in a committed relationship with someone else (legally married or not).

ClergyChikita and Graeme make great points. 

However to follow up on ClergyChikita's post. I have the following,

I know that in the fifties the National Council of Churches in the US voted to remove reproduction from marriage.  This was a group of all the mainstream Protestant and Orthodox Churches in the US.

This was partially due to the introduction of wide spread use of birth control. They said companionship was enough of a reason for marriage.

Does it not then lead to believing that sex should also be removed. 

After all it is ableist. 

Secondly it leads to a discussion of sexual ethics, which could be a different issue.

As well might not marriage and the social benefits it gives be restricted to those who willing to take on the responsibility of raising children, either thru procreation or adoption?

If so why  discriminate against those who can not have sex, or who are GLBT, but are willing to adopt children?

.

Please do try to keep up DG. They didn't say it was sinful, they said it was adultery, which by the dictionary it is.

If you're going to try to lay a trap, please do try to be less obvious and less clumsy about it.

ummm, this affirmation was written 25 years ago...my goodness...

it is bound to have some stale language, and also be rooted in the needs, or concerns of the time.

it also says "rich expressions of human affections and sexuality"    

Without reading the whole statement, i do not know if they try to identify what a rich expression would be.....

but, your questins, alex, does the united church have a policy about sexuality outside of marriage...i don't know...but...does it have a policy of human affections outside of? does it have a policy regarding being a friend to a child and what it pertains?

My sense is you are widening the dialogue to a different topic, and then asking why didn't this statement include that topic.

I'm guessing your quote came from Gift, Dilemma and Promise: A report and affirmations on human sexuality

For those curious about the United Church written statements, you can see an overview / history in this document: http://www.united-church.ca/files/exploring/marriage/understanding.pdf

Per it's appendix, it draws on a number of documents.. sadly, the PDF is copy protected, so cannot copy/paste the references here.

.

I am just curious. I do want to widen the dialogue, but I am unsure where to begin.

In the RC church marriage is linked to procreation. Whether it is right or wrong they are clear on the subject.

We do not talk very much (if at all) about sexual ethics among heterosexuals in the hugher courtsof the UCC. The only references I could find about it was on the UCC web page concerning marriage. The reference is vague. http://www.united-church.ca/exploring/marriage.

I have had a few responses that have clarified the issue, and thank you to those that have. However it is still not clear. Is the church vague on purpose, or are they using the GLBT debate to clarif sexual ethics not just amonst GLBT persons but also heterosexual ethics.

I found it most curious in 1988 when many of  those who were pro abortion in m local church were against same-sex relationships. I do not know what the opinions were elsewhere, but the leader against allowing GLBT people to join the church in Aylmer was also pro abortion (and I must add not pro choice and anti-abortion, but clearly pro- abortion)

Maybe she was just an annomaly,(after all she said that our 58 year old unmarried closeted gay minister was the best minister Aylmer ever had)

I do find it curious that heterosexual people (especially members of the higher courts) who have been talking about sexual ethics among the GLBT feel that I have another agenda when I bring up sexual ethics when it concerns hetersosexual relationships.

Is it OK for heterosexuals to bring up sexual ethics and marriage amongst the GLBT community, but not OK for GLBT persons to talk about sexual ethics amongst heterosexuals?

Have the courts of the UCC debated heterosexual ethics ever?

Alex, are there different ethics depending on sexual practises? I would think that sexual ethics are the same for all, but I could be wrong.

You are wrong

Even your own Bible has widely differing sexual ethics, depending on when they were written.

About five years and three small kids takes the sex out of marriage naturally.  (e.g. put that away and get to your own side of the bed.)  Let nature take its course .

I would say ethics are different for different practices.

i.e. If one is pro-life then birth control is an issue for heterosexuals, but not GLBT persons

How so, witch?  I would think the same thing.  The ethics of a relationship built upon love are the same for either hetero or homo relations, IMO.  What do you see are different?...cms

Is there a problem with it being written 25 years ago? Scripture is 2000 years old. Does that make it less relevant?

For many, many years.

Most pro-life people are also pro-birth control with the exception of some Catholics.  Officially, the RCC is opposed to birth control (someone correct me if I am wrong), but in practise, I think that a lot, if not most, Catholics use it. 

Nonetheless, your point is a good one.  I tend to agree with what cjms just said, but I wonder if there are other aspects of same-sex practises which require different ethics. 

Well for one theing, Biblical marriage is more about commerce than love. OT marriages were business affairs where the woman was sold to her husband, whoi then owned her. AS property the woman had no right to choose sexual activities, and so in many cases was raped by the husband who purchased her.

Also the OT marriage included polygamy as a matter of course. Men were also permitted to have concubines, and even were permitted to have sex with maid servants, under certain prescribed conditions.

The brothers of men who died without producing children were duty bound to impregnate their sister-in-law, to create children for their dead brother. No mention of the sister having any choice in the matter.

And as if that were not enough, female captives of the genocidal wars against the inhabitants of the land the Isrealites wanted were forced to become the wives of the men who slaughtered their families. I can't imaging that raping the girl children of the people you slaughtered would be acceptable "sexual ethics" today, even for the most fundie among us.

There are many other examples, but these should be enough to show that "Sexuyal ethics" are not absolute, not even in the Christian Bible.

DKS, you never answered my question above (from earlier today).  You can respond privately if you wish.

IMO, yes parts of it are less relevant while other parts can be relevant for individuals even today...cms

Have they ever come to  an opinion? Are there any documents on it?

Oh Ok - I see where you are coming from.  I was speaking of sexual ethics today not how a middle eastern tribe lived thousands of years ago (no matter how caught up in this history some people tend to be).  I also don't believe in absolutes.  However can we agree that, in general, ethics are not related to the gender of the person in bed with you?...cms

Alex, I re-read your original post and wanted to respond to what you said above.

I am opposed to same-sex marriage but not to homosexual practices.  What one does with others in private is of no interest to me whatsoever.  There have been a number of polls which show that this is a majority view among those who oppose same-sex marriage. 

One of the very sad parts of the whole debate in Canada is that it was a war waged by the fringes without referring to the centre all that much.  Most people in Canada were quite happy with the civil union option but not for "homophobic" reasons.

I would not. Heterosexual sexual ethics need to consider that their is a potential for children. Thus sexual ethics  between two heterosexuals need to consider the effects on a third party, the child. As well there is the need to consider the effect on existing children. Is it OK to have 10 children? for example.

I would tend to put that under the topic of outcomes of sexual intercourse.  Intercourse without protection can have ethical consequences.  Although the specifics may differ between men and women, I still think that the general principles apply regardless of gender...cms

It might interest you to know that when I came out in 1980 almost al gay men were radicals who opposed marriage. We saw marriage as institution that was used to control women or to protect children.  It was unheard of for men to have children at the time. Now if you listen to GLBT radio there are ads for surrogate mothers in India for rich western gay men.

Our main agenda was to change the law so that people who were gay could not be fored or discriminated against in the provision of services.

We were also concerned about the sexual exploitation of GLBT children and the plight of those living in institutions.

That is however not to say that gay men opposed lesbians from being married as it is not un common for lesbians to have children.  Often lesbians would have children, but then one of the parents would abandonned the family and refuse to provide child support.  Under the law there was no way at the time to force them to do so.

Marriage only became an issue for gay men when well to do gay men started to get involved in the GLBT movement. This is because marriage involves property rights.

alex, I think we might be mostly in agreement.  I do not think that marriage is fundamentally an institution used to control women although at different times in history it has been used to do exactly that.  However, I do think that people who identify as homosexuals should not suffer any civil disability.  I also think that people involved in committed same-sex relationships should have the same civil rights as others with regard to property rights, spousal rights, and so on.

I am somewhat more reluctant with adoption rights because I think that the ideal family unit for raising children is male-female, but that also ties into my feelings about marriage in general. 

I have to leave now for the day but I wanted to respond to you since I might not be back online for a few days.  If the thread is dead by then, I will respond to you privately.

Regardless of what the ideal family is like, we need to accept that GLBT do have children. We also need to reconise that we have large numbers of orphans in the world.

Because of this I am opposed to surrogacy for both GLBT and heterosexuals, but support adoption for all.

As Christians I believe we need to do our best for orphans and provide them with homes. Rather then leave them in institutions.  While in Canada most orphans have disabilities, in the US most orphans are biracial children of white women. World wide there are millions of orphans for reasons of poverty.

It is ironic, but in New York State gay white men wishing to adopt usually end up adopting biracial children from the southern US.

This is partially because of racist policies that make black families ineligibly to adopt because of their lower incomes.

So white racist homophobic republicans from the south actually support policies that place their bi-racial grand children in the homes of liberal rich ableist New York liberal gays.

It goes to show that race is actually still a bigger issue among southern Americans then is sexual orientation.

While gay men are largely abliest when it comes to adoption.

However I believe that adoption should be decided based on the best interests of the child, without regard for income, or sexual orientation of the parents.

If there were no orphans left in the world then we might be able to afford to debate whether those who are gay, or poor should be able to adopt, however that is not the case today.

See the links above.

Does the activity separate someone from their relationship God and with others? If so, then it''s a sin.

Does it take advantage of another? Then it's a sin.

The words "consenting adults" are legal terms which lose meaning in theological discussions and can be used as an easy out. I think it's irrelevant to a theological discussion.

DKS, I hate to be a pain in the arse (that is, any more than I already am), but I don't quite follow you.  How could sexual relations between consenting adults separate them from their relationship with God and take advantage of others?  If a couple decides between themselves that they are free to have sex with others, is it adultery?  I honestly don't understand your answer. 

How can I be more clear? The use of the words "consenting adults" is a legal term and not a theological one. it unhelpful to use it in a discussion of faith and morals (yes, morals exist). If a sexual relationship between two people is coercive, hurtful and or degrading, then it separates them from God, who desires all of us to have wholesome, positive and recreative experiences of each other. If it separates us from God, then yes, it is sinful.

Whole = healthy. Separates us = sin.

Well now.

Look what we have here. Hmmm?

Shiny red race cars, electric guitars, golf balls and clubs arguing sex.  All that's missing is a cigar. Hmmm?

Typical men. Over compensating are we, boys?  Hmmm?

Especially you, Mr. DKS.  Don't pretend we don't see through that nick, DKS.

Pray your warm, soft tingly parts don't kindle damnation's eternal flames.

How is sex between adults who love each other sinful? Even if they don't love each other, how is it is sinful?  If they agree to have sex outside of their marriage, why is that sinful?  That is what I am asking.

.

Damn right. And it IS my car! My secretary calls it my Mid-Life Crisis. My wife is blonde. What man wouldn't want a nice, red car and a blonde companion in the passenger seat? Bonus points for naming the make, model and year of car.

Please re-read what I have said. I am not sure I can say it more clearly, other than to add that you apparently don't accept or understand the concept of sin. And sin is that which separates us from God.

churchlady - re your statement about red cars, guitars, and golf balls and clubs = men.  Don't women play golf (or drive cars or play guitars for that matter)?  Maybe you better check some profiles before you make a statemnt like that. 

i have a red car.