The discussion of the need not to discuss sex continues apace.
I feel the need to interject something. I notice that many of the participants in this discussion of the need for non-discussion are Yoder fans and that blogging mega-star Ben Myers objects to “the unbridled theologisation of marriage and the so-called ‘family unit’.”
With those points in mind, I would humbly suggest that the conclusion we should draw from Jesus’s unmarried state, etc., is not, first of all, that he was not a participant in any erotic activity — a position that seems to maintain the normative link between sex and marriage and assume that Jesus would necessarily abide by that — but rather that “marriage and family values” are among the powers and principalities of which Jesus was “independent.” (Note also that marriage is among those things that Paul says we should use, if we must, “as if not.”)
The upshot then would not be that we should just stop talking about it and certainly not that we need to make faux-radical statements about the irrelevance of sexuality to the definition of humanity. Instead, we should take a radically anti-family stance.
(I of course await comment on what Rowan Williams would think of this before embracing it as my final position.)