I look at it this way. In the old days, if you were fornicating, you were always having sex with someone else's wife, always. That's not true anymore. If you're gay, that's really not true. Jesus' discussion about marriage and sex seems to have little to do with our goin-to-the-chapel kinda marriage culture. When he is recorded as addressing sexuality, it is actually remarkably consistent, and his concerns or points of view seem to be these: 1) is someone getting used, then thrown away? 2) are these two brought together by God? 3) and this is especially to the women "caught in sin", you're just hurting yourself by living this way, God isn't going to hurt you when "he" gets ahold of you but for your own sake, stop.
I don't see anything in any of this that is relevant to marriage licenses, rings, ceremonies, witnesses, church weddings, marriage encounters, courtship, canon law, doctrines and disciplines, decrees, ecclesiastical permissions, virgin vs. non-virgin, celibacy, or anything of the sort, though I would argue that chastity as a state of being may be a central theme in Jesus' teachings about relationships.

I'm 58 - after my thirty year marriage ended I thought I would try dating. News break: I want to be pretty sure I will remember a bloke's name before I get into bed with him. I have not the smallest difficulty with single clergy having sex in the context of a relationship. I have a huge problem with being blackmailed into bed by random blokes. No, the blackmail did not succeed. No, I am not looking for anybody to date.

My expectation for me and others is relationship first, sex afterwards. Not, sex and then see if you vaguely like the bloke.

I wonder if it is different for male priests.

Just because some people have overly idealistic views of priests doesn't mean that priests themselves have to buy into such nonsense.

I agree the church on sexuality is usually irrelevant. I know of gay priests who were not so long ago were told by their bishops that it was okay to have one-night stands but that a relationship was unacceptable.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I almost did not read the article. I though the caption "Clergy and abstinence" meant it was about Primates abstaining from meetings.

My expectation for me and others is relationship first, sex afterwards. Not, sex and then see if you vaguely like the bloke.

Rosemary, you've seen the cartoon of the male and female brains, pie-chart style?

To men, "relationship" is a tiny sliver, of the big pie slice "SEX".

To women, "sex" is a tiny sliver, of the big pie slice "RELATIONSHIP"!

;-/

JC Fisher

This is one more reason why we in the church need to get better about talking about sex. Because then maybe we could articulate a better ethical approach than simply "don't do it."

A healthy sexual ethic ought to encompass more than just the presence of a ring on the finger. And as Clint Davis points out, we've got a decent amount of resources to draw from in Scripture (and tradition and reason/experience too) to begin and continue a conversation about what sex means, and how we can enter into sexual relationships that express love of God and neighbor.

So it is fine for men to demand sex and walk off the moment they realise they will have to wait for it, is it?

Is the question directed to me, Rosemary?

I couldn't possibly answer (except obviously, it's legal according to civil law).

JC Fisher