Eowyn

@YvonneCBC I did just last week! I told them that if the Conservative Party was ready to support real electoral reform in Canada and develop a scientifically sound and effective climate change action plan, than I'd consider it. Otherwise, nope.

Have you received a robo text from the Conservative party of Canada?

My new blog makes a biblical and theological case for #EqualMarriage. northernwoolgatherer.blogspot.com/2019/07/enlarg…

@RobLangmaid @MrBattista_ And what practical difference does that make? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm actually wondering.)

@Eowyn9 @MrBattista_ The issue there was it was added to a preamble not the actual Canon.

I have found it odd reading many tweets today that suggested that if you disagree with someone on doctrine you don't love them. Yet, I believe many who voted no still welcome people into the ACC no matter who they are, for them it is a matter future actions. #GS2019

@RobLangmaid @MrBattista_ But the final proposed amendment to the marriage canon did "treat all sides with love and acceptance", by specifically stating that "members are entitled to hold, teach and exercise either view" as long as they respect divergent views. Yet it seems that this wasn't good enough...

@MrBattista_ The challenge is order to do so you have to say someone elses doctrine is invalid and how they view scripture is wrong. Unless we can find a way forward that treats all sides with love and acceptance there is no path forward.

@kinkkink @RobLangmaid @MrBattista_ @mollypants It's in the Archives section. Here: anglicanjournal.com/wp-content/upl…

@RobLangmaid @MrBattista_ @mollypants Do you have a link to the article? I would be interested in reading it.

@MrBattista_ @mollypants A lot of my concern comes from listening to the voices of many first peoples elders for whom the marriage issue is also a core issue. ArchBishop McDonald had a good article in the Anglican journal explaining why many of the elders could not agree to the proposed change. #GS2019

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...has simply failed, to my mind, to give a satisfactory, rigorous, and self-consistent defense of its position on either Scriptural OR philosophical grounds. Thanks for listening; I am open to replies & discussion. God bless. 24/24.

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP So, in a nutshell, this is why I support (and will in all likelihood continue to support) this amendment to the marriage canon; not because I do not care about Scripture or philosophy, but rather because the other side 23/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...would we be forced to artifically employ to give such a result? I have asked (very openly and sincerely) conservatives this question before, and have never gotten an answer -- or not one that was philosophically coherent. 22/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...& that,in the human world, sexual orientation is largely innate and efforts to change it are mostly futile.On what basis, then, can we possibly conclude that it is "against nature"? What strange, absurd definition of "nature" 21/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...of both the human and the natural realms show us that it is anything but; that in the natural world (which God created and called "very good!"), sexuality takes an enormous, diverse, dazzling, awe-inspiring array of forms... 19/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP Here is another issue on which I (and many others who take my position) simply find the conservative position incoherent. We are told that homosexual relationships are "against nature"; and yet, study after study.... 18/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP He pointed out that what, to his mind, was lacking on both sides was a willingness to seriously grapple with philosophical issues (rather than just making arguments from Scripture) and, in particular, the question of "nature". 17/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP (Small note: I confused my numbering earlier; there was no tweet 13. Apologies.) 2) Now, a second issue. This was brought up by a speaker for the anti-amendment side last night (I cannot recall the name;please let me know if you do.)

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP Yet the so-called "conservative" approach would have us simply discard Christ's teaching in favour of Paul's. Is this an honest, loving, faithful way of reading & interpreting Scripture? Is it respectful to the text itself? 15/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...that the categories Paul mentions are relative to his time and place (e.g. pagan traditions of temple prostitution, sexually exploitative teacher-student relationships) while Christ's words have timeless and universal meaning? 14/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP So here we have an apparent conflict between Christ's own words and Paul's teachings. Must one or the other give way? Rather, does it not make more sense to take a second look at the texts in question from Paul, and realize that 12/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP And this statement appears to us who know such couples to be simply incoherent. If their relationship is "bad", where are the "bad fruits" that Christ's words would have us expect? And whence these "good fruits" that we do observe?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP often (as was pointed out) better than in many heterosexual relationships.And yet, those who opposed the amendment insist that such unions are -- for some mysterious, unexplained reason -- "wrong" by default. 10/?

#gs2019 @kinkkink @RobLangmaid @ReformationP ...convenanted, faithful unions. And we, looking at their relationships, see exactly these things manifested: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, 9/?