|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 11:33:09 GMT
I have not removed anything today. I don't know what you mean. Go look again before you start attributing bad faith to people who merely disagree with you. You're right, my apologies. So I won't attribute bad faith to you - just inconsistency, or a very bad memory, or possibly both: Where did I ever claim the "majority" of female clergy were lesbians? You do seem to want me to draw that conclusion, marchesa: I should not be in the least surprised to learn that the majority of those women priests were lesbian Comments?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 11:38:06 GMT
I have no problem in standing by this speculation, actually. It has not been shown to be inconsistent with the scant info available about the sexual preference of female clergy.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 11:41:10 GMT
Woman priest compares Church of England bishops to wife beatersA woman priest tipped as a future bishop has compared senior Church of England figures to wife beaters. In an article on her blog titled “The Battered Bride of Christ”, The Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, questioned why women should stay in an “abusive institution”..... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9286807/Woman-priest-compares-Church-of-England-bishops-to-wife-beaters.html------------ Now what was I saying about Female Clergy donning the mantel of 1960s militant Women's Libbers? The C of E "an abusive institution"? Isn't that overstating the case a bit, ma'am? What a whinger!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 13:26:15 GMT
Apart from the lesbian clergy there is also the matter of deaconesses - clergy in waiting, as it were.
What proportion of them are gay, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 13:42:37 GMT
I'm sure you'll tell us, soon.
In fact, there's a significant number of them who are firm believers in a male-only priesthood, and deaconess is as far as they're prepared to go. But don't let that stop you speculating.
(Are you ever going to pass my message on to Nick?)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 13:53:26 GMT
So let's hear more about the views and numbers of deaconesses, please, jean.
What does a "significant number" mean as a proportion?
Are there more deaconesses than deacons? Give us the figures. I have not been able to locate current stats on C of E deacons/deaconesses but obviously you're consulting someone in the know.
You're a blathering DENIER, I'm afraid, jean, and I don't know why because you should be CELEBRATING lesbian ascendancy in the C of E. Are you backtracking on your "solidarity" for some reason?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 16:33:30 GMT
Go look again at Reply #377 on Jun 2, 2012, 7:38am before you start attributing bad faith to people who merely disagree with you, you misanthropic prat. You always turn to character assassination when you can't win the argument. I'd apologised to you for my mistake long before you edited in that last bit, marchesa. But, more important, I didn't fail to win any argument. You challenged me to show Where did I ever claim the "majority" of female clergy were lesbians? and that's what I did: I should not be in the least surprised to learn that the majority of those women priests were lesbian And then you said I have no problem in standing by this speculation, actually. The total number of ordained men in the Anglican church in 2010 was 8,087, and of ordained women, 3,535. You may have more up-to date figures. But assuming that the overall figure for ordained gay people, men and women, is between 10 and 15% of the total, even if the 'majority' of women priests who are gay is the smallest possible at just over 50%, it doesn't leave much room for gay men, does it?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 16:38:20 GMT
...you should be CELEBRATING lesbian ascendancy in the C of E... I can hardly celebrate what doesn't exist, marchesa. More important, I would never celebrate the takeover of any religion by a bunch of atheists whose intention was to infiltrate and subvert it for their own ends, which is what you're presenting to me. I'm quite glad that's not happening, as far as anyone can tell.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 16:49:34 GMT
And I also said
Go look again at Reply #377 on Jun 2, 2012, 7:38am before you start attributing bad faith to people who merely disagree with you, you misanthropic prat. You always turn to character assassination when you can't win the argument.
A mealy-mouthed apology for an outlandish accusation of bad faith when your modish fiddling has already deleted a whole post of mine is not enough, jean.
All you do is stone wall. You don't have an argument worthy of the name in this particular discussion. You just claim "ignorance". Not good enough.
All the data presented on this thread has been found by me. You lose, lady!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 17:04:22 GMT
And I also said Go look again at Reply #377 on Jun 2, 2012, 7:38am before you start attributing bad faith to people who merely disagree with you, you misanthropic prat. You always turn to character assassination when you can't win the argument. I know you did. And I said I didn't know why you edited that in when I'd already apologised. Sheer incompetence on my part, marchesa - it's that simple. Far better to say I don't know what neither of us can possibly know than draw wild conclusions on the basis of nothing very much. (You are going to tell Nick what I asked you to tell him, aren't you?)
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 17:07:29 GMT
All the data presented on this thread has been found by me. No, there's some in my #477: The total number of ordained men in the Anglican church in 2010 was 8,087, and of ordained women, 3,535. You may have more up-to date figures. But assuming that the overall figure for ordained gay people, men and women, is between 10 and 15% of the total, even if the 'majority' of women priests who are gay is the smallest possible at just over 50%, it doesn't leave much room for gay men, does it? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 17:22:36 GMT
I think I had already found that Telegraph report on the C of E data on the ordained and quoted it before you got to it, m'dear.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 17:41:23 GMT
I had already quoted that Telegraph article with the ordinations numbers on 2nd June on MCL, Reply 377, actually. That's probably where you saw the figures first.
And you should also note that I did not there claim that there WERE a majority of lesbians in the C of E female clergy but stated "I would not be in the least surprised to learn....."
I also found the GLBT Anglican Coalition figures on gay clergy. Why? Because you had no inclination to present them or find them yourself because they don't support what you claim to be your "own experience". Like your pal aubrey, you probably think they are "not important". Nothing seems to be important when it does not support your case.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2012 17:45:15 GMT
The only case I have is that you are talking nonsense, entirely unsupported by any of the data you've collected.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 17:55:38 GMT
Well why do you quote the figures yourself then?
I merely show that there is a greater proportion of lesbians in the Church than in the population as a whole. This comes as no surprise to me, though it does to you, jean, purportedly.
I think you are being disingenuous in pretending ignorance.
Does the concept of continuing militancy against "patriarchy" amongst lesbian/feminists offend or embarrass you in some way? I must admit the outpouring by Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes about the Church being an "abusive institution" does rather bring her "cause" into disrepute.
Google shows her hysterical blog claim as having nearly a million citations to date. Uh-oh! Will this damage her search for that bishopric?
|
|