How about "spouse"?
John Barnett
On 24 June 2021 at 11:59 raygarfoot <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:e same when it comes to our partners of either gender?
John Barnett makes an interesting point about a lesbian feeling silly
referring to her partner as her 'wife'. The Oxford Dictionary derives the
word 'husband ' from the Old English 'husbonda', meaning 'master of house'.
Since it also defines a wife 'in relation to her husband', it implies that a
wife is not the master of the house and therefore has an inferior status,
quite apart from the rustic or uneducated resonance in the phrase 'old wives'
tales'. I think that language is very important because it defines
attitudes. We need to think about the implication of this for both
heterosexual and homosexual marriages. We generally assume that a person
described as a partner is unmarried, but a married couple are also partners.
The question is whether every time I refer about Ingrid to someone, do I have
to give them the message that we are duly married? Just as we can refer to a
woman as 'Ms' in order to avoid labelling her as married or unmarried, can we
not simply do th
Best wishes,
Raymond Garfoot.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Barnett <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:48
Subject: [methmins] Re: The Runaway Train
Yes, Martin, I could have worded it better, and I agree a joint
decision-making process would be preferable on this and other issues too, if
we and the Anglicans really want to grow together. They, or course, have the
additional problem of being part of a world-wide communion, much of which
would be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage. I suppose I was really
thinking that waiting to see what they would do, rather than rushing ahead of
them, would at least give us some breathing space before we came to our own
decisions.
I'm happy to be a supernumerary, as I don't envy those in the active work
who will have to deal with the pastoral situations that will follow the
Conference decision, whatever it is. Many years ago I lost a couple of
members because I was not prepared to condemn gay ministers, so I have an
inkling of what you will be facing. We need to remember that the majority of
our members, like me, grew up in the days when same sex relations, at least
between men, were a criminal offence, so we've seen great changes in our
lifetimes. I'm thankful we've moved on from those times, and I think most of
my generation would agree, but getting our heads round the concept of same
sex marriage nevertheless takes a bit of doing. It isn't just a problem for
heterosexuals either; not so long ago I heard an older lesbian on the radio
say she would feel silly referring to her partner as her "wife". A lot of
sensitivity will be needed.
John Barnett
> > On 23 June 2021 at 15:17 Martin Williams <sweccsuper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello John,
On the assumption that our thinking is the same as that of the
Anglicans (which isn't always the case) it would make sense for us to share
in a joint decision-making process. Quite apart from waiting to see what
they do (and by implication falling in line?) offering a massive hostage to
fortune, to do what you suggest involves us in acknowledging that we're the
junior partner in the covenant, which is true chronologically and
numerically, but certainly not theologically or ecclesiologically.
Blessings,
Martin
P.S. I too am sad to see Kevin go. I hadn't seen the content of our
own thread as being at all inflammatory, and I wonder whether he'd actually
intended to unsub from Groundhog Presbyters.
Rev. Martin Williams
'Seashells'
4A Rampside
Barrow-in-Furness
LA13 0PY
Email - martin.williams@xxxxxxxxxx
Landline - 01229 877882
Mobile - 07484 816555 (NOT a smart phone)
---------------------------------------------
From: methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of John Barnett <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 23 June 2021 15:02
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [methmins] Re: The Runaway Train
Sorry to hear Kevin has unsubbed. I guess there's a wide range of
opinions in this group, a bit like Methodism in general. I agree with you,
Tony, that whichever way Conference goes, there will be a loss of members,
which our denomination can ill afford.
I think it's a pity we couldn't have found a middle way, on the
lines of, "We won't conduct same sex marriages until we see what the
Anglicans decide to do (after all, we're supposed to be in a covenant with
them). However, if individual ministers wish to conduct a blessing of an
already registered marriage or civil partnership and the Church Council
agrees, that will be permissible". Among other things, that would save us
having to re-write the Methodist Worship Book, as if the legal bits had
already been said, we would be free to compose whatever words we felt were
appropriate for the occasion.
In practice, if Conference votes in favour of GILUU, I don't
imagine that hordes of people will be lining up to get married on our
premises. It will be folk we know; our own members, or their children or
grandchildren and partners who will request services. I suspect they will
receive a surprisingly positive response from many of our people who, if
you were to ask them now, would say they were opposed to same-sex
marriages. Hypothetical cases and real situations can appear very different.
John Barnett
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Virus-free. www.avg.com
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
>
