The first is from a Presbyterian and I won’t waste your time by posting it here because it’s just a longwinded request that I meet him in person. The second is from a Methodist and contains an actual response. Its verdict? …Mixed.
Dear S.Your question really got me to thinking. Personally I have no issue with people living an asexual life style.
Dude, it’s not a lifestyle; didn’t you read? Still, I guess it’s a good thing you’d “have no issue” with it…
As far as we can tell Jesus was asexual.
Well, He could have been bi for all we know, but yes.
Celibacy is an honored choice in the UMC.
I get the sense he doesn’t understand what asexuality itself refers to, but at least he isn’t talking about how sex is necessary to continue the species, so that’s good.
As far as marriage is concerned I would assume that the church would affirm some kind of civil union rather than marriage.
Beg your pardon?
I’m not sure the church has a stance on this. The main thing as far as Methodist doctrine goes the main thing is that relationships be safe and emotionally/physically healthy.
Okay that’s nice, but in this three-sentence paragraph
that I interrupted, he seems to be discounting the validity of nonsexual marriages. Or at least, as best as I can figure. What does he mean, “the church would affirm some kind of civil union” instead? What if that’s not what the pair of sweethearts asked for? If, hypothetically, the two of them were both out as asexual (and had no intent to have sex with each other), would the church refuse to perform a marriage? Would they try to pressure them into making it a civil union? I’m not sure how to interpret the phrasing here.
However, on a practical note, I doubt that the issue would ever come up.
Well, if it came with the risk of the church affirming some kind of civil union rather than marriage, then yeah, I can imagine people deciding not to say anything.
I’d guess that many marriages that used to be sexual are no longer. This might be due to age or health reasons or loss of interest.
Anyway. That’s all I can come up with off the top of my head.
Sent from my iPhone
This reply is a mixed bag. It’s unclear whether he understands the distinction between asexuality and “an asexual lifestyle”, but his acceptance of lifelong celibacy is a mark in his favor. Then he goes and spoils it by suggesting people in nonsexual relationships should seek civil unions and not marriage. What’s up with that? He doesn’t even provide a reason for it; he just assumes that’s what the church would arrange.
It appears he has forwarded/cc’d the email to two other people, so maybe we’ll hear back from these folks after he’s had more time to think on it.