« Blogging: Here or There? | Main | Marriage Preparation »

29 August 2005

Comments

Elizabeth Bardsley

That Matthew Parris guy has a lot of insight for a man who doesn't believe. If it's obvious to someone who completely disagrees why is it not obvious to everyone??

ryan

Wasn't the Hooker thing just suggested as a *useful* theological model for Anglicans? I'd have to look into it but I'd be very suprised if it was a case of Hooker's perception of the limitations of the model were taken to be entirely binding, as opposed to everyone agreeing that this guy came up with a one true theory that nobody can challenge.

I never understood your attachment to the Parris article: "look, gay Christians! Here's a self-confessed homo who knows some theology and disagrees with you!" is pretty intellectually puerile. To address one of his points: I doubt there were many feminist voices in 1590 or 1950 either.

I'm not sure that reason disproves the validity of same sex relationships (in regards to Gagnon's "embodied existence" obsession with plumming : you do know that the prostate is the male g spot, right?)I don't think conservatives (like Gagnon) who make use of psychiatric denouncements (c.f. Gagnon's quoting of high mental illness rates in same-sex couples which exist even in non-homophobic cultures) have thought through the "live by the sword die by the sword" implications either.


Your old posts that came up on a "U2" search are good though
:-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

GadgetVicar serves with: