Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations

Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations

San Francisco Human Right Commission LGBT Advisory Committee published a report called Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations and this I suppose this is my 'review' of the document. You can find the PDF here: http://dl.d...
Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations

Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations

San Francisco Human Right Commission LGBT Advisory Committee published a report called Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations and this I suppose this is my 'review' of the document. You can find the PDF here: http://dl.d...
‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

They've done it again. Those busy bees at the centre of my denomination, the Church of England, have published another document that underlines their understanding of marriage:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1715479/marriagetextbrochureprint.pdf

And reading it it makes me angry, and sad, and more anger, then a little despair, pushed aside by rage, and levelling out at somewhere between livid and seething.

Theirs is not a faith I recognise. They seem a stubborn child, who has gone via it's own convoluted logic to come to a conclusion, and refuses to listen to actual reason when it's pointed out that they've made a mistake or twenty, by those with more experience and understanding, refuses to see how they're just simply wrong; instead, sticking with their viewpoint on the principle that of course they're right, if they've been right up to now, how can they be wrong?

What are we, CATHOLICS??

Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect to the Catholic church and community, but a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking - and however some parishes use incense and Latin, the CofE is still philosophically Protestant - is that Protestants left behind the belief that the Church never got things wrong. Protestantism accepts that the Church is a fallible institution, like anything human, and therefore accepts that the Church is perfectly within it's nature to change it's blinkin' mind.

This document reads like it was written by a medieval arsehole. They have no concept of what humanity actually is! Humanity is an infinite collection of combinations - sexuality is on a sliding scale, gender is on a sliding scale. I mean "persons are not asexual, but are either male or female" is just so outdated, it's embarrassing. Like so often when dealing with the church, this makes us cry out yet again for modernisation - get with the times, our understanding of what the human condition is is not longer the constricted, binary concept of yester-century that you guys seem to be working off. Get out in the fresh air guys, muck around with us grunts and you'll see, a) your categories are way off the mark and b) sometimes it isn't possible to define all the aspects of a person and c) you don't HAVE to define everything. They even state "The Church guards a common traditional understanding of marriage as a human, not only a religious act." Then guard the understanding that humanity is complicated, so marriage is not a set-in-stone, just-one-option thing, why don't you?

I'm going to get religious now. You have been warned.

God made a vastly complex universe. At least you've acknowledged that, Church of England. Yet God is vastly more complex. And a person is made in God's image ie just as complex; we don't understand God, so why would we be able to pin down that which is made in Her image?? The arrogance of thinking that the people of this planet are as easily confined to a 'proper ordering' of two boxes is astonishing.

To glory in God, to love His creation, to see the divine in all things and relish in the splendour of creation so that we can be the best that God made us to be, means to accept that an individual's gender, sex, and sexuality are separate things, to accept that God purposefully made an individual whatever combination of gender, sex, and sexuality they might be - the combination nor the components are not a mistake, something to be fixed, or anything wrong - and to accept that an individual may not be able to figure out who they are and what God means for them to be, and you have no right or authority to decide that they have only two options; accept that they may change their minds, several times, while figuring it out. And accept that this is natural, it is human, to be a minority and different to what is usual is in NO WAY unnatural, or wrong, or something to aspire against.

I am angry at the arrogance. I am angry at the stubbornness. I am angry at the illogical, unreasonable, and downright out-of-touch thinking. I am outraged at the clinging to words from Genesis, literal acceptance of an ignorant and bigoted understanding of humanity written by people with over two thousand years less experience, knowledge and understanding than the people sitting in the pews every Sunday right now. Listen to the people in the pews! Listen to the people visiting the church, to the people on the street, the people next door, people in every corner of humanity.

I agree that marriage is important; in fact, I agree with a lot of this document, but the thing is, anything you say about marriage, including most things about parenthood, is entirely applicable to any marriage, whatever the combination of gender there is between the two parties. Marriage is about complementarity, but two people complement each other, it's not the complementarity of gender that creates the bond of marriage.

And I agree that "marriage is a form of committed Christian discipleship for those who understand their own love as part of God’s love towards the world" - direct from the document, and yet, they cannot see the hypocrisy of not including some people and their love as a form of committed Christian discipleship, when Christian discipleship is grounded in an open arms policy, and the obligation to not exclude anyone. It's sickening.

So ultimately, same-sex marriage is a legitimate, natural, and divine state of two people. So why refuse same-sex weddings? That's all the church has to do. The church isn't involved in marriage - that's between the spouses and God. The church's part is the wedding, a celebration and commitment ceremony, not some vehicle for binary, blinkered meddling. Sure, we'll probably have to continue to change attitudes so that the church can give "pastoral help to those who seek to engage with the challenges of life responsibly" to same-sex married couples too, but that's the next battle. We don't need that yet. For now,

stop being stupid.
‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

They've done it again. Those busy bees at the centre of my denomination, the Church of England, have published another document that underlines their understanding of marriage:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1715479/marriagetextbrochureprint.pdf

And reading it it makes me angry, and sad, and more anger, then a little despair, pushed aside by rage, and levelling out at somewhere between livid and seething.

Theirs is not a faith I recognise. They seem a stubborn child, who has gone via it's own convoluted logic to come to a conclusion, and refuses to listen to actual reason when it's pointed out that they've made a mistake or twenty, by those with more experience and understanding, refuses to see how they're just simply wrong; instead, sticking with their viewpoint on the principle that of course they're right, if they've been right up to now, how can they be wrong?

What are we, CATHOLICS??

Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect to the Catholic church and community, but a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking - and however some parishes use incense and Latin, the CofE is still philosophically Protestant - is that Protestants left behind the belief that the Church never got things wrong. Protestantism accepts that the Church is a fallible institution, like anything human, and therefore accepts that the Church is perfectly within it's nature to change it's blinkin' mind.

This document reads like it was written by a medieval arsehole. They have no concept of what humanity actually is! Humanity is an infinite collection of combinations - sexuality is on a sliding scale, gender is on a sliding scale. I mean "persons are not asexual, but are either male or female" is just so outdated, it's embarrassing. Like so often when dealing with the church, this makes us cry out yet again for modernisation - get with the times, our understanding of what the human condition is is not longer the constricted, binary concept of yester-century that you guys seem to be working off. Get out in the fresh air guys, muck around with us grunts and you'll see, a) your categories are way off the mark and b) sometimes it isn't possible to define all the aspects of a person and c) you don't HAVE to define everything. They even state "The Church guards a common traditional understanding of marriage as a human, not only a religious act." Then guard the understanding that humanity is complicated, so marriage is not a set-in-stone, just-one-option thing, why don't you?

I'm going to get religious now. You have been warned.

God made a vastly complex universe. At least you've acknowledged that, Church of England. Yet God is vastly more complex. And a person is made in God's image ie just as complex; we don't understand God, so why would we be able to pin down that which is made in Her image?? The arrogance of thinking that the people of this planet are as easily confined to a 'proper ordering' of two boxes is astonishing.

To glory in God, to love His creation, to see the divine in all things and relish in the splendour of creation so that we can be the best that God made us to be, means to accept that an individual's gender, sex, and sexuality are separate things, to accept that God purposefully made an individual whatever combination of gender, sex, and sexuality they might be - the combination nor the components are not a mistake, something to be fixed, or anything wrong - and to accept that an individual may not be able to figure out who they are and what God means for them to be, and you have no right or authority to decide that they have only two options; accept that they may change their minds, several times, while figuring it out. And accept that this is natural, it is human, to be a minority and different to what is usual is in NO WAY unnatural, or wrong, or something to aspire against.

I am angry at the arrogance. I am angry at the stubbornness. I am angry at the illogical, unreasonable, and downright out-of-touch thinking. I am outraged at the clinging to words from Genesis, literal acceptance of an ignorant and bigoted understanding of humanity written by people with over two thousand years less experience, knowledge and understanding than the people sitting in the pews every Sunday right now. Listen to the people in the pews! Listen to the people visiting the church, to the people on the street, the people next door, people in every corner of humanity.

I agree that marriage is important; in fact, I agree with a lot of this document, but the thing is, anything you say about marriage, including most things about parenthood, is entirely applicable to any marriage, whatever the combination of gender there is between the two parties. Marriage is about complementarity, but two people complement each other, it's not the complementarity of gender that creates the bond of marriage.

And I agree that "marriage is a form of committed Christian discipleship for those who understand their own love as part of God’s love towards the world" - direct from the document, and yet, they cannot see the hypocrisy of not including some people and their love as a form of committed Christian discipleship, when Christian discipleship is grounded in an open arms policy, and the obligation to not exclude anyone. It's sickening.

So ultimately, same-sex marriage is a legitimate, natural, and divine state of two people. So why refuse same-sex weddings? That's all the church has to do. The church isn't involved in marriage - that's between the spouses and God. The church's part is the wedding, a celebration and commitment ceremony, not some vehicle for binary, blinkered meddling. Sure, we'll probably have to continue to change attitudes so that the church can give "pastoral help to those who seek to engage with the challenges of life responsibly" to same-sex married couples too, but that's the next battle. We don't need that yet. For now,

stop being stupid.
The Laramie Project

The Laramie Project

I just watched the amazing HBO film production of the play The Laramie Project as research for working in the costume department on an up-coming stage production of it at the Silk St Theatre, London.I spent most of the time watching it with the feeling...
The Laramie Project

The Laramie Project

I just watched the amazing HBO film production of the play The Laramie Project as research for working in the costume department on an up-coming stage production of it at the Silk St Theatre, London.I spent most of the time watching it with the feeling...
Forgetting that I’m bi

Forgetting that I’m bi

I think I've talked about this before, but I just have the compulsion to talk about it now.How can people forget? People forget I'm bisexual, like they might forget I don't like pink, or something. It feels ludicrous to me. They don't forget about the ...
Bisexual History

Bisexual History

Hello dear readers,I have a favour to ask. My fabulous church LGBT group, which I have mentioned frequently on here, has asked me if I'm interested in doing next month's session.It's LGBT History Month in Feb, and the group had trans history last year,...
Bisexual sacrifice: Is it worth it?

Bisexual sacrifice: Is it worth it?

Yesterday, after the Christmas break, I moved back into my term time accommodation, and whilst I was unpacking, my dad told me an anecdote from his New Year's Eve. He was talking to a long-time friend of his and my mum's, and unsurprisin...
Being C of E this week: same-sex marriage

Being C of E this week: same-sex marriage

This blog post follows the news that the UK will be legalising same-sex marriage with a quadruple lock to protect religious freedom.

I understand that the provision about the Church of England in the newly proposed legislation for same-sex marriage is a legal thing to do with Church of England canon law not being in conflict with common law. It makes sense, legally, when you read about the details.

The major problem for me is the truly idiotic stance of the CofE against same-sex marriage in the first place, never mind this hoo-hah about their own caveat in the law.

The true meaning of marriage is committing yourself to the one person you love and will share your life with, plain and simple. It is a social declaration of this commitment, and a legal contract that binds you to them in the eyes of the law - whilst still an individual, you are half of an intrinsically interconnected whole.

It is complete bollocks that marriage is anything to do with the "complementarity" of the "distinctiveness of men and women" (as the official line of the CofE goes). Bollocks! Just because straight people are the majority, and so the concept of a social contract started with them does not mean the man/woman element is intrinsic to what marriage is in society!

I just don't understand this official view of my church. The people who think this in the CofE must not have much interaction with society and the world around them, because they are simply behind the times - society does not consider marriage to be what the CofE considers it to be.

The Government's response to the consultation has it right - "At its heart, marriage is about two people who love each other making a formal commitment to  each other. We do not believe that this commitment is any different whether it is made by a same-sex couple or an opposite sex couple. We believe that by allowing same-sex couples to get married we are further strengthening the institution of marriage." As a bisexual, I can wholeheartedly standby the assertion that the commitment is not different whether your partner is the same or opposite sex!

We Anglicans are not Catholics, who believe that marriage is "based on “the biological complementarity of male and female and on the possibility of children”", and it is disturbing that we seem to be anywhere near this line of antiquated thinking. It is unreasonable to not realise that Christianity has no grounds on which to be against same-sex marriage, and the church is falling behind society by hanging on the views on marriage that the people of this country have left behind them. And I'm disappointed in me church.

The Archbishop of Wales: "What can the church do to show that this relationship is not simply something between my partner and I but that somehow God is in our midst as well and longs for our wellbeing?"

The official view doesn't make sense, it does not reflect what society and many CofE Christians think, and it breaks my heart. Come on now, my dear Church of England. Open your eyes.