| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2007 08:43:43 AM |
| Object: |
What Would Methodists Do Without Experts? |
ABC News reports that in 1991, the United Methodist Church--Hillary
Clinton's denomination--considered "changing its view that homosexuality
violates Christian teaching."
During its deliberations, the church sought an expert opinion from a
physician, James Holsinger, who produced an eight-page paper titled
"Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Holsinger's paper did not address
the question of whether "homosexuality violates Christian teachings."
Rather, it discussed reproductive anatomy and the medical risks of certain
types of male homosexual activity.
Ultimately, the UMC did not change its position. As noted here [1], Mrs.
Clinton's church still adheres to the view that "the practice of
homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed
practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as
ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."
The separation of church and state notwithstanding, the United Methodists'
deliberations on homosexuality have suddenly become a subject of interest to
the U.S. Senate, because the president has nominated Holsinger to be surgeon
general. According to ABC, "Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as
prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on
Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic,
if not downright bruising."
So what did the paper say? ABC's Web site headlines the article "
'Homosexuality Isn't Natural or Healthy.' " It puts these words in quotation
marks even though they are not a direct quote. We have read the paper and
will link to it as soon as we get done warning you that it contains a lot of
discussion (in clinical, not vulgar, terms) of the mechanics of sexual
intercourse as well as other, less familiar sexual behaviors. OK, here's the
link: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf
These are Holsinger's two main claims:
a.. - The sexes are "fully complementary."
b.. - Compared with ordinary intercourse, erotic activity that involves
the alimentary tract poses far greater risks of injury and infection.
The first of these is obvious to all human beings and probably most lower
mammals as well. The second is obvious to anyone who has occasion to think
about the subject. (To those readers who would rather not, our apologies.)
At some level this is sort of funny: Mrs. Clinton's church had to find
itself a medical expert to explain the facts of life. But what is chilling
is that Holsinger now finds himself under political attack for stating the
obvious.
This column takes a live-and-let-live approach on this subject, pretty much
across the board. Mrs. Clinton's church's position on homosexuality is
nobody's business but Mrs. Clinton and her coreligionists'. What consenting
adults do in private is no one else's business either.
But when political activists try to render the complementrity of the sexes a
taboo subject, and when one of the two major parties seems ready to accede
to this Orwellian effort, something is seriously askew in our political
culture.
[1]: http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1324
.
|
|
| User: "curmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Methodists Do Without Experts? |
08 Jun 2007 03:43:50 PM |
|
|
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:k-SdnYrLTbySwPTbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
ABC News reports that in 1991, the United Methodist Church--
Hillary Clinton's & George W.Bush's denomination
considered "changing its view that homosexuality
violates Christian teaching."
GEORGE W. BUSH is a card carrying member of the
United Methodist Church.
Believe it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Methodists Do Without Experts? |
08 Jun 2007 05:59:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:43:50 -0600, "curmudgeon"
<briticanlankey@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:k-SdnYrLTbySwPTbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
ABC News reports that in 1991, the United Methodist Church--
Hillary Clinton's & George W.Bush's denomination
considered "changing its view that homosexuality
violates Christian teaching."
Yep, and speaking as a member of the UMC, that debate almost resulted
in a schism where the bigots in the South almost split with the rest
of the church (and vice-versa), comparable to the recent near-schism
in the Episcopalian church. Fortunately, the bigots lost because the
leadership of that southern faction realized that they'd lose.
GEORGE W. BUSH is a card carrying member of the
United Methodist Church.
Believe it or not.
We'll excommunicate him sooner or later.
And the students and faculty of Southern Methodist University (Laura
Bush's alma mater) are fighting to overrule the university's Suits and
trying to keep the GWB Presidential Library off its grounds.
We Methodists tend to be more practical than anything else, but that's
more a result of the massive influence the midwest has on the church
(a quiet influence that the bigots in the South don't want to admit
to). But honestly, Bush and his administration are so insane that
pretty much nobody mistakes him for an actual Methodist anymore.
-- Rob
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Methodists Do Without Experts? |
09 Jun 2007 07:00:31 PM |
|
|
In article <thmj63hevn5bbmbqia7jsng0m13gtsev7n@4ax.com>,
Rob Jensen <ShutUpRob@aol.com> said:
Yep, and speaking as a member of the UMC, that debate almost
resulted in a schism where the bigots in the South almost split
with the rest of the church (and vice-versa), comparable to the
recent near-schism in the Episcopalian church. Fortunately, the
bigots lost because the leadership of that southern faction
realized that they'd lose.
Why is that fortunate?
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
