Sex­ual flu­id­ity

The Church of England - - LETTERS -

Sir, In re­sponse to points made in ‘The In­con­ve­nient Truth of Sex­ual Flu­id­ity’, I agree that amongst sin­gle young peo­ple, the sta­tus of ‘sex­u­ally fluid’ is a non­judge­men­tal and bi­nary-de­fy­ing de­scrip­tion of how they view their sex­u­al­ity. How­ever, as peo­ple age their thoughts may turn to com­mit­ment and some of them may marry (op­po­site­sex or same-sex part­ners). At this point, mar­ried peo­ple are ef­fec­tively say­ing to so­ci­ety and to the Church, ‘I have cho­sen to so­lid­ify my sex­u­al­ity and my sex­u­al­ity is straight/gay – please re­spect this’.

The re­spect given to mar­ried cou­ples (both op­po­site-sex and same-sex) hon­ours their com­mit­ment to both monogamy and in­deed so­lid­i­fi­ca­tion (and we cer tainly don’t sug­gest that peo­ple are go­ing to desert their spouses, their mar­riages, or their cho­sen sex­u­al­ity at the first op­por tu­nity).

The au­thor re­minds us that the St An­drew’s Day State­ment states that ‘at the deep­est on­to­log­i­cal level, there­fore, there is no such thing as “a” ho­mo­sex­ual or “a” het­ero­sex­ual; there are hu­man be­ings, male and fe­male, called to re­deemed hu­man­ity in Christ’. So then, let’s take this se­ri­ously, as­pir­ing to be­come ‘sex­u­al­ity-blind’ to our neigh­bour, not even notic­ing if they are in an op­po­site-sex or same-sex mar­riage and just do­ing our level best to sup­por t their in­di­vid­ual ‘re­deemed hu­man­ity in Christ’.

(I’ll take the op­por tu­nity to re­mind read­ers that the St An­drew’s Day State­ment also main­tains that ‘there can be no de­scrip­tion of hu­man re­al­ity, in gen­eral or in par­tic­u­lar, out­side the re­al­ity in Christ’ which might lead to a view that non-Chris­tian peo­ple are sub-hu­man, which, of course, isn’t the case.)

Jane Newsham,

Via e-mail

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.