Battle Over Homosexuality in Episcopal Church is Over

"Homosexuality is not a choice anymore than heterosexuality is. It is part of our human individual identity just like skin color, ethnic background, gender and right or left-handedness."

It's a pity for Bishop Spong that all the important research into this matter is ambiguous on this. Perhaps he ought to wait until some conclusive evidence for his thinking is forthcoming, which may be longer than he anticipates, since much recent research is pulling back from the existing understanding on which his claim is precariously based.

I agree the Episcopal Church is over.

Spong writes, "Those who are unable or unwilling to adjust to this reality, including the present Archbishop of Canterbury, will just have to become more and more irrelevant."

This is rich. After finally stepping down as bishop of Newark a third of the clergy were openly homosexual. Basically, Spong discriminated against heterosexuals to the hilt to foist his hellbent liberal ways on the diocese. The result? He essentially dropped by almost half the membership.

And now the national denomination will implement the same disastrous course. People are already leaving in droves. This will accelerate the declines.

The liberals may have "won" the Episcopal denomination battle. They have destroyed the denomination to "save" it. And other denominations are looking on and pulling back.

Anyway, to amplify one of the Bishop's points, here:

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

I know it better than many of you pontificators can seem to imagine. Never mind discern the true effects of your actions upon real people.

Your 'blessing' is not required.

Your acceptance of my equality as an American, *is.*

Always has been. Whatever excuses you've used for however long to not-see that.

Makes me glad that my gods don't care who I knock boots with as long as we're all consenting adults.

Bernie,
So would you be okay with same-sex marriage if the spouses promised before your god never to consummate their marriage?

Anyway Manderson, as for your Christianity, if I can politely commend you to what I wrote below to elainaver46 below, about what place LBGT people really *may have* in the human species, (as a positive, as you mentioned there being some virtue to seeing from your Bible, I say, look at the positives about LBGT people (especially being treated fairly and equally and as humans with rights and dignity) in *life.* )

It's a sad observation of mine that for too many Christians, your world is *always ending.* And you want everyone to be the same or else, what, you die?

It's a sad observation of mine that too many Christians never look ahead, except when it's in fear, to avoid facing what needs to be done *now.*

What needs to be done *now,* is that the hatred and injustice toward yet another long-oppressed part of the wholeness of humanity, needs to be fixed. All this time you spend hurting *me,* is time the lot of you aren't spending making sure there's a world for all our children to inherit.

I console myself that at least while you're focused on *me,* you aren't spending that time hurting anyone *else,* but this really can't stand.

I think you know it.

Whatever your religion.

Manderson:

"PaganPlace: Thank you for your response as well. I think the "slippery slope argument," as you call it, is much more substantial than you give it credit for."

I don't. Look at the actual civil law. If there's a slippery slope in the direction of polygamy, it's *uphill.*

Even if it became legal by royal fiat, that wouldn't mean the actual laws wouldn't have to be built deliberately.

If you'd ever *been* in a group relationship, you'd figure that out pretty quickly. As I said, it's actually easier to form a corporation with bylaws than try and claim it's as simple as marriage equality.

" The fact that legislation allowing polygamy wouldn't immediately appear, or that it would require more reworking of our legal code seem to me beside the point."

It's not beside the point of *civil law,* which is the substance of the matter at hand.

" Same-sex marriage proponents argue that this is a matter of fundamental rights and it doesn't matter how many states vote against it, or anything else, because this whole issue is a matter of fundamental human rights. Why can't polygamists argue the same thing?"

Why can't they? Of course, as I mentioned, a free society can't legalize and enforce the inherent inequalities in patriarchal polygamy where one man has rights over several women who have lesser rights as regards him and no rights as regards each other, but it's fully possible to arrange things so that anyone involved is as free to enter, be treated equitably within, and *leave* such marriages as anyone, in civil law.

So, I say, why not, indeed?

It's just not the same issue in the eyes of the law, any more than it was an issue when churches claimed *interracial* marriages would lead to polygamy and bestiality and incest and all the other things lumped into a certain category of 'sin' but are actually totally different issues.

There's actually a stronger book-religion case *for* polygamy than *against* gay marriage. That burden doesn't *fall* on gay couples wanting the same monogamy recognized for us as is taken for granted by straights.

"What I find strange about all this is that even as same-sex marriage proponents want to revise the traditional view of marriage, many still want to cling to the idea that whatever marriage is, it is to be between two people."

Actually, that's a bit of scaremongering *you* brought up. Actually, as I said before, I'm all for it. It's just not the same issue. And I've been in both places.

" In other words, they appeal to one fundamental aspect of the traditional paradigm while denying another."

No, it's just that your idea of a 'traditional paradigm' isn't the reality in a free and equal society.

Hrm, Thomas.

spidermean2 wrote: "God is love but it doesn't say that love means stupidity. God still punishes what deserves to be punished."

I sincerely weep for the boy, as that seems to be the sole compass of the world in which he dwells.

Who are you *really* worried 'deserves to be punished,' Spidey?

Under all that bluster?

PaganPlace:

Thank you for your response as well. I think the "slippery slope argument," as you call it, is much more substantial than you give it credit for. The fact that legislation allowing polygamy wouldn't immediately appear, or that it would require more reworking of our legal code seem to me beside the point. Same-sex marriage proponents argue that this is a matter of fundamental rights and it doesn't matter how many states vote against it, or anything else, because this whole issue is a matter of fundamental human rights. Why can't polygamists argue the same thing?

What I find strange about all this is that even as same-sex marriage proponents want to revise the traditional view of marriage, many still want to cling to the idea that whatever marriage is, it is to be between two people. In other words, they appeal to one fundamental aspect of the traditional paradigm while denying another.

spidermean2

You wrote, "Just like Thomas Baum's religion which is Catholicism, he and his religion continue to spread lies. The holy bread and water you were taking were never holy. They are just symbolism of Christ."

You like to quote the bible so much, maybe you should actually read what Jesus said about the Eucharist.

If you recall, it says that many stopped following at that time but Jesus never, ever said that it was just a "symbol".

By the way, "Christ" is a title, Jesus is His Name.

I used to believe that the Eucharist was Jesus, but on the 29th of January of 2000, the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To Gimpi:

Thank you for your response. I'm not arguing that interpreting the Bible is a simple task. But the idea that any Christian who believes same-sex relationships are wrong is therefore beholden to any and every Old Testament law seems to miss how most Christians interpret the Bible. Any honest, relatively serious reading of the New Testament will demonstrate that the Christian is not beholden to the Old Testament law in the same way as ancient Israel. This fact is written across most pages of the New Testament.

But, Christians who believe that same-sex relationships are wrong do so because of what the Bible positively teaches about marriage from Genesis through Revelation, and also what it prohibits. The fact is that the New Testament is clear about same-sex relationships as well, again, by what it teaches positively about marriage (e.g. Ephesians 5), and negatively (I Corinthians 6 and 7). One would expect this from a series of documents written largely by ancient Jews, and that is what one finds.

spidermean2

You wrote, "God is love but it doesn't say that love means stupidity. God still punishes what deserves to be punished."

Love does not mean stupidity, Love does not mean intelligent either, Love is Love.

We will all be judged, you look at judgement in the purely human way of punishment and reward. God is the Judge, you aren't and neither am I.

Just because you believe that God is a petty, revengeful, egotistical tyrant doesn't mean that God is like that at all.

You also wrote, "Wait for the punishment coz it's coming."

If you are referring to the Wrath of God coming on the night of the sixth day, of course it is coming and it is going to come upon the whole earth but the dawning of the seventh day is also coming.

You also wrote, "Thomas Baum and Mr. Spong , you are servants of the devil for spreading falsehood"

I do not speak for Mr. Spong and I do not answer for Mr. Spong but I am here to tell the whole world that God's Plan is for ALL.

Christianity is not something for some to get a "get out of hell" card but is part of God's Plan for All of Creation.

God's Plan, which is referred to as "the mysterious Plan of God, will come to Fruition.

God chose me to speak, so I speak, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Technical note: Skowkronek:

"D@mn it! Why are words and phrases sometimes excised betwixt sending the post and it appearing?"

Are you using angle brackets for anything? Sometimes a board will read this as an attempt at HTML code instead of text.

*checking it out with a test of three types of parenthesis-like things*

[test] {test}

Not to divert the thread, too much, but for those who won't accept that sexuality is inborn: evolutionarily-speaking, (or, say, even 'by design:' ) Ever notice that most of the stereotypical 'traits' of LBGT people just *happen* to be the sorts of things that might be of great use to a group of humans who have ample population density?

Rather than just having more rival alpha-breeders straining the food supply, competing for dominance, and making still more mouths to feed, you get *helpers.* Able bodies and minds who aren't competing with your other offspring, (and your other offspring's offspring,) thereby depleting the resources the group lives off of, but rather, making a richer one for *other* kids.

Yeah, it's a stereotype, and partly social, but did you notice there's a tendency to *specialize in grooming and nesting behavior?* (One of the few things that still seem to be acceptable for us to do in a monolithic monotheist view of humanity. A lot of artists, decorators, builders, people in the helping and teaching and counselling and spiritual professions, and, yes, hairstylists. )

Why's this? Well, what do grooming and nesting, not to mention non-procreative sex *do* among other higher primates? That's right. Reinforce social bonds. Vital for naked apes, that.

Maybe rather than presuming we're 'going against the design,' ...you'd do well to consider the question of what we *do* in the design of the cooperative, talky, social primates humans are.

I'll tell you one thing, any mother in this society knows that rearing a child is *exhausting.* Much is said of it, but no one asks why. Maybe it's cause you kick the helpers Nature gave you to the gutter.

manderson7,

The reason I have for not understanding why the Old Testmant rules regarding diet, dress and such don't apply any more, but some of the rules governing sex still do is that I can't make sense out of it. People state this as though there's some sort of follow-up memo out there, clearly stating which rules still apply, and which don't. But they don't even agree on which ones are no longer in effect.

People talk about "a state of Grace," but the have vastly different meanings about what that is. Some Christian sects think the rules regarding women covering their heads apply, most don't. A couple support polygamy, most don't. Many regard female submission as vital, many don't. Almost none still call for the death penalty for infidelity and blasphmey, but a couple do. If Christians can't sort this out, what's an outsider to do?

Perhaps, my answer for myself might be helpful for someone. I mind my own business. I don't regard anyone else's marriages, clothing choices (ban the burqua, anyone?) diet, or love life as a matter of concern for anyone else. Not mine, not the governments, not religious leaders. Unless, and only when, they ask your opinion. I try to concentrate my energies instead the things I enjoy and on helping people actually who want my help, instead of fussing about behaviors that really don't affect anyone else, and aren't my business anyway. Any takers?

elainaver46

"Back when I was a teenager, there were very few, if any, gay teens at my school (40 years ago). I wonder why, all of a sudden, gay people are being birthed! What caused this phenomenon? One would think it has to be environmental, rather than hereditary, since it has not always been with our American society as it is today."

40 years ago, Stonewall was just then happening, and being gay meant you could be brutalized by cops with impunity. *No one* was out, most particularly in school, if they could help it.

Hereditary (as in genetic) links are unclear: it's more likely we all carry the genes to *produce* gay kids, since the mechanisms by which things like sexuality develop in the womb are pretty well-documented. It's easy enough to produce gay and 'transgendered' lab animals with a little disruption to the endocrine things going on there in development. In humans, a little chemical or emotional stress or whatnot could easily be 'responsible.'

Accordingly, I *do* suspect there's been something of a demographic increase in the number of LBGT people out there. (No one was out in school if they could help it when I was a kid, too, and people would ignore it unless it was to use it against you somehow, anyway. ) But just look at our environment throughout the postwar period, and particularly since the Sixties: it's been a constant assault on our endocrine systems by all manner of plastics, chemicals, hormonal treatments for this and that, medicines, pesticides, flame retardants, food dyes, all manner of EDC's coming on and off the market as they're introduced, promoted, found harmful, and phased out. ...not to mention the constant stresses of overpopulation, Cold War doom hanging over everyone's heads, not to mention lower infant mortality rates among troubled pregnancies.

Everybody throws the dice on whether they're straight or gay or whatever in a lifetime. Recent history has been adding a lot more dice that might come up LBGT, though.

Congrats to the Episcopal church, though, on coming around to deal with reality. :)

"A question: if the US legal system allowed for same-sex marriage across the country, on what basis would it be denied to polygamous relationships? Why should they not be allowed to marry?"

This one's about the Episcopal Church, not the U.S. legal system. But, I'm tired of hearing this false slippery slope argument. Stopping discrimination against gay couples doesn't mean that the law codes for polygamy would suddenly appear.

Not that there's any reason to be categorically *against* it. It's just that the U.S. government can't establish the inherent inequality in Biblical-style polygamy. As long as the legal and civil part of such group marriages were free and equal under US law, though, there's no particular state interest in keeping the practice underground, where women in these relationships often have basically *no* rights or protections.

But it's a different matter. The law codes don't exist for these structures. Some group marriages actually form little *corporations* with their own bylaws and things.

"A second question: should non-romantic relationships (i.e. platonic or familial) be allowed to marry as well for some of the reasons advocated in support of same-sex marriage?"

Marriage doesn't really confer a lot that familial relationships don't, so that's pretty irrelevant. Last I heard, when people get married, the government doesn't actually check to see if you had sex. Maybe some churches do, I dunno.

People with spinal injuries who are basically incapable of sex can get married, after all. As long as they're straight.

Rev. Spong has given us some slight of hand by conflating a homosexual attraction--which is not a choice--with acting on it, which is a choice. The Bible and traditions of the church are quite clear that choosing to act on a homosexual attraction is to choose something that is immoral in and of itself. To consider sacred the unions of gays and lesbians--persons who have chosen to act on their same-sex attractions and are open about it--goes against the understanding of the Church as handed down in its oral and written traditions, and makes our modern, sexually-driven culture the standard by which the Church is judged, instead of the other way round. Acceptance of this way of thinking is marginalizing and eroding the Episcopal Church, and to make it normative for our society will do the same for the rest of us.

When a so-called church decides to celebrate sin, is the appropriate response to laugh or to cry?

Good questions, MAnderson7. Perhaps the answer is, they should. Adultery would retain its same essential meaning, certainly.

MeThinkingOutLoud, it's all about context. Notice Paul calls homosexual desire "lustful passion" - but not heterosexual orientation. Only fornication. So - Paul compares homosexuality to fornication. This seems logical - both deal with sexual conduct outside of a loving and stable, long-term relationship. For Paul, it was the only possible way for homosexual acts to occur - and what's more they were often between an adult and a child.

Paul's writings occur through a 1st-century world view. They must - he might have been divinely inspired, but he was a human and a product of his times. He doesn't directly condemn slavery. He requires women to be silent in the presence of men. He even mistakenly seems to think Jesus' second coming is very soon, as he recommends that we refrain from marriage and child-bearing.

So how do we read the New Testament? How did the Abolitionist come to his viewpoint? By applying the golden rule - Christ's litmus test. If the law isn't about either loving God with all your heart, soul and mind, if it's not about loving your neighbor - in short, if it's not about loving connections, then it's suspect. And read in this light, I find it very, very hard to condemn my fellow-man who loves someone with the same plumbing, and desires to do so in a constructive manner - Agape + Eros, just as with a heterosexual couple.

A question: if the US legal system allowed for same-sex marriage across the country, on what basis would it be denied to polygamous relationships? Why should they not be allowed to marry?

A second question: should non-romantic relationships (i.e. platonic or familial) be allowed to marry as well for some of the reasons advocated in support of same-sex marriage?

Well, I guess that article is all good and nice, but it fails to take into account Romans Chapter 1 "“God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another.”
" and then “Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity, or
1 Corithians Chapter 6, “Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion . . . will possess the kingdom of God.”

It's interesting that right after this verse, Paul points out - "Yet that is what you were", indicating people can change. The Corinthian Christians did.

So, I guess you will keep looking for someone to tickle your ears as Paul said, but the point is, if you are Christian, you are expected to follow the rules. If you don't want to be christian, do whatever you eant. But if you do want to be christian, why would you be judged any differently than the Romans, or the Corinthians, or the Ancient Israelites.

Propagating the disease. Homosexuality is a kind of disease usually inflicted on a child by a perverted adult. It could be sexual perversion or just plain physical or mental abuse.

Once it's not seen as a disease, it propagates real fast just like any disease unchecked.

John 8:7
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

There have always been private circles, and some sporadic quasi-public ones, in which homosexual behavior was accepted. They have always understood that homosexual activity is condemned by the Bible, in the same manner that onanism, serial divorce, fornication and adultery are.

Why is it that active homosexuals, who are relatively small in number, today demand so strongly the moral approbation of some fringe churches, while the fornicators do not?

I think that Henry VIII's imitators deserve equal time, if you ask me. Let's have unabashed sexual honesty!

Fornicators' Rights! Adulterer's Rights!

As Bob Dylan says, "country'll grow."

LONGBOW:

I'm a woman married to a man. On the day we met, we were incapable of producing a child together, and he has never had any desire to be a parent. I guess that according to you, our marriage is of no value. I beg to differ.
We did not marry in order to raise children together, nor did we marry for the greater good of society. We married because we love each other, we wanted to solemnize our commitment to each other in the presence of our friends, family, and gods, and our love for each other made us each want to ensure that the other had certain legal protections in place should one of us die or become incapacitated. Same-sex couples deserve no less.

D@mn it! Why are words and phrases sometimes excised betwixt sending the post and it appearing?

*turns keyboard upside down and shakes it a little*

I am still wishing for a little "recommend this post" button to magically appear here. Works nicely over on the Hax coloumn.

What I can't stand is efforts to inject (narrowly defined) Christian values into law, where so many American's clearly disagree. Religions can decide what marriage is for themselves, but have no right to encode discrimination against peaceful, law-abiding people into government law.
Posted by: is_it_applicable | August 10, 2009 10:24 PM

Why, oh why, can't we have a little recommend here too?

The reason that the bible proscribes homosexuality is that the main problem confronting people living in small bands of hunters and gatherers was trying to maintain the population level of their group. They couldn't afford to have people of childbearing age not engaged in reproductive activities. This carried over into the period when the old testament was written. The new testament does not contain any proscriptions by Jesus against the practice. One might even suspect that a man who reached the age of 30 in that culture without getting married might have had those types of tendencies himself.

More for bewestbrook (this is a snippet from 30 July 2009; Welton Gaddy's blog):

""Let me point out an important difference between gay and hetero relationships." (Rohitcuny, I think)

Twaddle follows--hetero childless divorcing couples governed by the same laws as those unions with children (even if those children are adults) and how same-sex couples can't possibly be governed by them too. More twaddle about children and parentage...because hetero couples can't adopt, right?

Nonsense. No one in this country is married w/o a marriage license. Plenty of people are married without stepping foot into a house of worship--thank you county courthouse!

Two consenting adults. Simple. Straightforward. Fair. Let the wedding industry boom (on). Thus far, the number of gay couples Divorcing is neither numerous, nor statistically significant.

Well, it's significant to the participants, their families and their lawyers. But it doesn't hold a candle to the number of hetero couples divorcing.
For those who cite the economic and health benefits of marriage, that's great. Open up that level of legal stability, with its concommitant benefits, to ALL our citizens."

JPHT:

Pedophiles quitelikely are born with that quality. But there is a BIG difference between an adult acting on a desire for sex with a child who cannot give consent, and an adult acting on a desire for sex with another consenting adult who just so happens to have the same dagly parts (or lack thereof).

There may be an inborn predisposition for infidelity. But again, there is a BIG difference between a person violating a promise of monogamy, and people who wish to make and keep that same promise, regardless of their combined collection of genitalia.

Chris R wrote, "I resent when people equate homosexuality with race and skin color etc....It's a behavior. Now whether people are born with wanting to behave like this or not is not the issue for me."

No, with respect, same-sex orientation really isn't a behavior.

Really. It isn't. I knew I was gay for decades before I so much as held the hand of another gay person.

It's not about "wanting to behave" any way at all.

It's inseparable from who a person is, just as opposite sex orientation is.

I could be alone on a desert island and I would still be gay. And I knew I was gay long before I knew anything about any sexual behavior whatsoever.

I'm confused. If biblical references condemning homosexuality refer explicitly to men, and we're hanging our hat on these words, why are Lesbians similarly slighted by so many Christian denominations?

One of the few situations in which everyone's always been so darned gender-neutral...how ironic...

Although I am a lesbian and would desparately like the government to enable my partner and I to support each other and raise children with the same support straight couples are afforded, I also think that religions have every right to decide whether and to what extent they accept homosexuality. What I can't stand is efforts to inject (narrowly defined) Christian values into law, where so many American's clearly disagree. Religions can decide what marriage is for themselves, but have no right to encode discrimination against peaceful, law-abiding people into government law.

To elainaver46,

With respect, back when I was a teenager, I knew of no gay teens at my school (40 years ago).

Except for me.

I was terrified that someone would discover my secret. I lived in absolute terror, and it almost destroyed me.

Through prayer, introspection, and lots of reading I began to understand some things. I was (and am) a good, moral and responsible individual. Nothing happened in my life to "make" me gay. I grew up in the same house as my wonderful (and completely heterosexual) brother, with the two most wonderful, supportive, loving parents in the world-- always there for me.

Same-sex orientation simply wasn't an option my world talked about. It simply didn't exist in the world my parents raised me in.

But I knew I was gay. Long before I knew there was a word for it, or that there were other people in the world like me, I knew I was gay.

And despite a sometimes desperate effort to NOT be who and what I was, I was gay.

Eventually, I came to understand that it was neither a moral issue nor a particularly noteworthy trait. It was and is just a part of what makes me who I am. And I am a good, moral and responsible person.

I've since discovered that I was far from the only gay kid in my high school. I now know that more than a dozen kids I knew --some well, some just in passing-- were also gay.

I doubt that there was a high school in the country that didn't have a number of gay kids. Of course, there would be no way to know. It was too dangerous by far to be honest and to live one's life openly and with integrity. We wouldn't have survived.

Do I know what determines same-sex orientation? No. While I suspect that something this deep-seated is biologically-based, it really doesn't matter. It's a trait that some of us discover we have.

And it really doesn't affect you, or society writ large. In most respects, it matters mainly to those of us who are in love and who wish to share our lives together. Beyond that, I don't see that it really is something for you to spend much time even thinking about. Let us live our lives--fully, protect our loved ones and our relationships, and you'll scarcely know we are there.

Sort of like high school.

Only without the dreadful pain of having to pretend.

Even better, SPiderMean2 - do you believe that Christians should remain single of at all possible, and only marry as a last resort, and even then, only if their sexual urges become unbearable?

I can't believe that I am about to do this, but...

So - SpiderMean2 - since Paul is always on target, you believe that all Christian woman should wear head coverings, and never speak around men except in the role of a servant?

To Skowronek: So if marriage is about procreation, then only fertile, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry? Would couples have to agree to have children before they could be married? Who would police the fertility rule? How long would couples have to reproduce before their marriage was dissolved for non-compliance? How silly all of this is. Everyone's knickers in a twist because two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other.
Posted by: bewestbrook | August 10, 2009 4:35 PM

bewestbrook,

You have grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick with that statement. Try referring to my current and past postings on the subject.

Here's on to start you off:

"Dishonesty has eaten at the soul of ..."
Everything and everyone.
It is refreshing to see people's experiences and strengths as they pertain to a job (or calling, if you prefer in this situation) being evaluated, rather than their gender or their monogamous partnering.
Posted by: Skowronek | August 10, 2009 2:44 PM

IAMWEAVER wrote "That's OK, because Paul's words aren't Gospel".

If one understands the Bible, one would notice that what Paul have said is happening right now. There are things yet to happen and as I see it, he is still right on target.

People who dismiss the words of Paul are just plain ignorant.

khote14 , I've read about that so called "gay gene". It's not true. There is no such thing as a gay gene. To some people, it's a case of LACK of reading comprehension.

Mr. Spong's title is blatantly a lie, and misleading. Look up "homophobia" in the dictionary, sir. You do your cause no justice with this remark.

On the other hand, I have yet to run into anyone, anywhere, that can come up with black-and-white proof that homosexual acts inside a long-term, loving relationship similar to a marriage violate the Golden Rule. At best, I see vague hand-waving, and something about "children", and "the way it should be". This is a Problem (with a capital P).

Every other sin mentioned in the New Testament is clearly a case of not loving others as you love yourself. There might be times when the sin is excusable (stealing when starving, perhaps), but even then, it's still violating the golden rule.

As far as I can see, Paul's condemnation of homosexual acts makes perfect sense in the 1st century, when many acts were between an adult and a youth - and all acts were outside any kind of loving, long term relationship. In the social context in which Paul wrote, this makes homosexuality no better than any other form of fornication, and often worse. But it wasn't fornication - so it needed to be identified as a problem in itself. Paul was an amazing man - but he wasn't God. There are a number of passages in the New testament letters that show him replying to and initiating messages from a first-century mind set. That's OK, because Paul's words aren't Gospel :).

Also , I don't know waht "gene" are you talking about. There's no such thing as a "gay gene".

Wow, that's great spidey, you don't know what something is nor how someone else can understand it, so it's not true.

Given your complete lack of understanding of anything not diarrhea-ed from your bible, the world must be entirely false.

You're not making a good point for your side on this. In fact, you are continually reaffirming that believers such as you know nothing, want to know nothing, and are in fact severely retarded by both nature and nurture.

I do so appreciate your posts on this forum. On those rare occasions when I consider that I may in fact be simply feeling bigotry against your kind, you help me realize that my opinions of you believer retards are valid and justified.

Also , I don't know waht "gene" are you talking about. There's no such thing as a "gay gene".

fstanton66 wrote "Bravo to Mr. Spong for his piece. Scientists have mapped the "gay" gene "

Another idiotic post. As if mapping a gene means undertsnding it. Upto know, nobody understand what these "maps" mean. It's like a writing on a wall which nobody understands.

When you read scientific articles, use your brain sometimes.

Bravo to Mr. Spong for his piece. Scientists have mapped the "gay" gene, so there is no excuse for so-called Christians to discriminate and spew hatred and recriminations against gay people. If they do so, they are reflecting their own personal prejudice and small-mindedness. Christianity is supposed to be inclusive. If some Christians are not inclusive, then they are no better than extremist Muslims who declare jihad against all infidels. They are both the same, and that "ain't good."

Cause and effect. Some things demonstrate the effect fast like the concept of gravity. In a split second you can see the effect of a dropped egg.

The effect caused by some stupidity like homosexuality takes sometimes years.

The reason why many nations, even how godless like China, bans gay partnership is because these guys have seen the bad effects of homosexuality in their long history.

Some idiots just never learn.

I never once encountered a homosexual trying to convince me that I should be gay, to convert me from my straight ways. Never once did they knock on my door, they never told me that our founding fathers were really like them, that I would burn in some eternal torture for not believing what they believe.

I could not give a flying F what they do or say or think or feel, and since they never bothered me with it I have nothing to say about it.

But I sure am sick of you christian idiots forcing your crap on all the rest of us. If these gays keep you up at night then I'm all for them doing just what they want to do.

There is no such thing as homophobia. God is not afraid of it but is angered by it. Prepare for the punishment to come.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

Christians are not afraid of homosexuality. They only feel pity for these people coz they know what punishment is awaiting these guys.

If wise people see dumb people jumping to the fire, their initial reaction is to stop the dumb people. I don't know where these idiots view this act as a form of fear.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Ah yes, I get it. Well try this one for size.

Hate the mindless, delusional, cowardly, juvenile, absolutely insane beliefs of the believer, but don't hate the believer.

Why is it when we say you christians are idiots for believe this crap we're hypocrites and bigots, but you give yourself permission to do the very same thing to people who do just what you are doing yourself?

I guess I shouldn't blame you, it's not your fault. Something went wrong somewhere, something didn't develop correctly or you were infected before you were sufficiently mature to be able to perceive the damage. You're a pathetic bunch of deluded children, but it's not your fault.

Hate the belief, but not the believer. Is that how we should do it? Should we take our cues from your method of dealing with it?

Just like Thomas Baum's religion which is Catholicism, he and his religion continue to spread lies. The holy bread and water you were taking were never holy. They are just symbolism of Christ.

The stupidity continues.

You don't take Chirst in the form of literal bread and water or wine. It is thru understanding the word of God. That is the true bread and the life giver.

Now this is the word of God :

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion."

God is love but it doesn't say that love means stupidity. God still punishes what deserves to be punished.

Wait for the punishment coz it's coming.

Thomas Baum and Mr. Spong , you are servants of the devil for spreading falsehood.

WallyWutMD

You wrote, "It is mankind who must adjust his heart to in order to hear the Word of God."

And what is the "Word of God"?

In case you do not know, the "Word of God" is LOVE, since God happens to be a Being of Pure Love, it is that simple.

Don't worry, God's Plan which includes God becoming One of us is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

awatts1

You wrote, "He made the rules"

Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you", He did not say, "except for...", did He?

Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I AM?"

I, personally, say that Jesus is God-Incarnate and that the only "rule" is LOVE and since God is a Being of Pure Love then the "rule" just happens to be God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Anyone notice that the bigoted hate speech coming from the Christian bashers far, far outnumbers the critism coming from Christians.

For all of the Christian-haters' baseless bleating abut hypocrisy, it is they who are the true hypocrites and bigots.

This is fairly elementary if you keep emotion out of it. As a general principle, marriage is the glue for family and family is the glue for society. Society needs marriage to succeed and marriage is worthless disconnected from family. As a natural matter, there is nothing family-oriented about gay relationships. Elevating them to the status of marriage fundamentally changes the institution. How, precisely, remains open to speculation. But without children as the great maturing factor and glue that helps keeps two people together, it's easier to break up a marriage. Accordingly, we can reasonably anticipate a far higher divorce rate that will turn "marriage" into more of a mockery than it's become in the last 40 years. That is no better for society than no-fault divorce has been. I wish gay people all the best if that's how they want to live their lives, but they should leave marriage alone as a matter of policy.

Coloradodog: "I don't hear any of you Huckabees calling for capital punishment for Senator Ensign. Oh, ye hypocrites!"

Nor are we calling for capital punishment for anyone in sexual sin - gay, straight, single, or married. In fact, many of us Christians are against capital punishment altogether.

Oh, ye strawman-purveyors!

Bobdog: "When Christians make it about religion, then they turn it into hatred"

Yet your stereotypical comments were far more hateful than anything I've heard from Christians in a long time. Is hypocrisy a Canadian trend too?

Well said, your Grace.

Leon Jester
Roanoke, VA

elainaver46, 40 years ago gays would have been killed or kicked out of school if they disclosed their orientation. I was beaten up in high school because someone thought I was gay (even though I was not sure myself). It has NOTHING to do with environment. As a gay man who was in school 40 years ago, I can tell you that I was gay then and I am gay now. The difference is that other than people like you, I don't have to worry too much about being beaten up for disclosing that I am gay.

ALL THIS JEZUS/GOD HOKUS/POKUS IS A SCAM A TOTAL RIP-OFF. RELIGION POISONS ALL IT TOUCHES!

I am so impressed. Perfection must be nice.

Bishop Spong should have resigned a long, long time ago. It is amazing to me that he has the nerve to lecture others about integrity.

A deity that condemns homosexual behavior is a deity that isn't worth the time of day, much less worship and devotion. And if I believed in any of this religion stuff then, yes, I would rather go to "hell" than spend an eternity in the company of such a petty, stupid god.

Religious people pick the god they want to worship. Hateful people choose a destructive, hateful and murderous god to worship. Loving people choose a god of love, justice and mercy. The question facing both Christianity and Islam (and to some extent Judaism and Hinduism) is, which version of the god is going to prevail. It seems likely that the hateful worshipers will win control of their religions. Non-hateful worshipers are going to have to choose between giving up their god or fighting to put their version of their god back in charge.

Episcopalians may have triumphed in the service of a loving god, but it's also true that they are losing members. It could be that religion in the modern world is becoming a haven for psychopaths and little else.

Someone wrote: "To those who like to quote small parts of the Bible to justify their hate (usually it is those who have not actually read the thing in its entirety and thereby miss the point...):

How many of you enjoy bacon or pork bar-b-q? (Leviticus 11: 1-8)

Does the outfit you are wearing right now have more than one type of fabric in it? (Leviticus 19:19)

Men, do you cut your hair or shave your beards? (Leviticus 19:27)"

It is amazing to me that so many think this is such a "slam dunk" argument. The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole clearly alter the relationship of the Christian believer to the Old Testament Law. For example, in the Old Testament the temple in Jerusalem is hugely significant. Not for the Christian. In the Old Testament, circumcision is the primary sign of the covenant. This is not the case in the New Testament. Anyway, examples like this are legion. I just don't get why people feel this is such a clever, intelligent argument.

The writer's comments lead one to ask a fundamental question- is a church supposed to be based on a doctrine in accordance with what we believe God teaches or based on whether a person is a "good leader" and/or the current trend of society?

There is no doubt that one can be a great leader regardless of sexual orientation. In looking at this strictly from a Christian theology (which is somewhat difficult given that even among Christianity, theologies can differ quite extensively), one could reasonably make the argument that a doctrine of hating anyone including homosexuals is probably not in line with Christian theology given that in the Bible, Christ loved and taught love of all people, "including sinners." But one must not mistake acceptance and love of a person for an acceptance of conduct. Christ clearly rebuked behavior that he found unacceptable e.g. telling the woman caught in adultery "to go and sin no more."

The author uses the term "discrimination." This is an interesting word to use because almost all religions have an established code of conduct of what is "right" and what is "wrong" which is in and of itself a type of discrimination. If a religion truly feels that certain conduct is wrong given their reading of the scriptures and belief structure (whatever that conduct may be), why should the church be forced to conform to those seeking to change the doctrine? If people feel so strongly that a church is wrong in its beliefs, why not split off and create their own church that permits this type of conduct?

As for the question of nature vs. nurture in this debate, I don't know whether people are born that way or not. But what I do know is that we all have natural inclinations, both good and bad. But if we truly believe the faith we profess, we will do our best to control those inclinations not in harmony with our faith and act in accordance with what our faith teaches.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to marry four wives or no wife. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

As long as you provide for those four wives and don't put them on the dole, I would agree. Too many plural marriage devotees however don't provide for their offspring. Warren Jeffs and his followers had second. third and fourth wives on the state as "single mothers".

That does "pick my pocket".

There is nothing sadder than a person who claims to posess "exclusive" truth. That attitude provides cover for much hatred and mischief.

«But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson»

«Posted by: willandjansdad1 | August 10, 2009 4:50 PM»

It does me no injury for my neighbor to marry four wives or no wife. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

in the middle, i think the libs say that romans 1 is hate speech. anyway,the bible does discribe them as having itchy ears. they are faithless heartless ruthless and merciless.

willandjansdad1:
That'll work great until the Judgment Day.
Until then, who needs Jesus, eh?

Sorry Sparky...I don't worship Jesus. I don't accept his divinity. In America that is not a requirement for citizenship.

Sorry to break that to you.

I'm ashamed to admit it but I harassed a gay guy in high school many years ago...

To all gay folk...I apologize. I now defend your rights through my chosen career.

willandjansdad1:

That'll work great until the Judgment Day.

Until then, who needs Jesus, eh?

AimeeBEDC:

You do not understand Christianity.

Christians are not under the Law of Moses, which you quote. Jews are, but Christians are not.

Christians are under grace, not law.

As for New Testament references, read Romans 1.

As an employee of the Unitarian-Universalist denomination, I invite all gay people to be welcomed among us.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

That explains the difference between murder or pedophilia and homosexuality. Gay people have no negative impact on society greater that their straight brethren and sisteren. Leave 'em alone.

Bishop Spong:

Is it true you have denied the resurrection? How can you be a bishop? Why don't you just quit and start your own religion?

Bottom line on homosexuality: The God of Love has declared clearly in His Word that this is not His intention for men and women.

What happens when Love encounters Sin? The Wrath of God.

A word to the wise.

Jesus did not bend his message to fit the popular culture. His message will be relevant long after "Bishop" Spong is long gone.

As for "homophobia", I actually love homosexuals; I love them enough to tell them the trutht that their behavior is not only a sin, but is disfunctional.

I resent when people equate homosexuality with race and skin color etc.

It's a behavior. Now whether people are born with wanting to behave like this or not is not the issue for me.

If I thought for one minute that this movement in the church was to expand and enhance my Christian growth to further mature in what Christ calls "sacrificial love for each other" I'd be all for this.

But I unfortunately view this issue as the same old issue the Church has been struggling with forever, when people bring whatever lifesytle and behavior to the church and want it affirmed and blessed. This is not a gay or heterosexual issue, but a genuine human one of needing to be affirmed. And whether gay or straight, its the Church's job to minister to all....not provide affirmation to sexual behaviors/appetites...straight or gay. The marriage covenant with my wife involves a much deeper spiritual meaning than because we're born with the same sexual appetite. I figure what is being said here is that whether gay or straight, that same spiritual covenant is to be applied to marriage period, irrespective of who's getting married. I can't buy into that thinking.

To somehow make a holy communion out of gay marriage and imply this is on the right side of history is faulty thinking. There is nothing new about how people behave sexually. To now affirm a particular type of sexual behavior in the church and equate it with some kind of human enlightment and being anti-homophobic is to missed the big picture argument.

Nanook here, from Canada, where we've been marrying gays for years...and guess what...the sky has not fallen, we have not been beset by a multitude of plagues, nor has any god whatsoever brought his wrath to rain down upon our sinning heads. The family unit is as strong as it ever was, not one single religious bigot has been forced to perform a gay marriage, and all the hatred and vitriolic venom spewed by so-called "good" Christians has subsided because - guess what - gay marriage is a great big nothing. Gay marriage is not about religion. When Christians make it about religion, then they turn it into hatred - something Christians do suprising well considering how perfectly good they tell themselves they are in the eys of their own god. Christians are the ones who make gay marriage an ugly issue; God certainly doesn't. Canadians told Christians where to shove Leviticus a long time ago - and we're a whole lot happier today because we did. I'm heading back to the 'gloo for a little nose action. See ya, eh?

To Skowronek: So if marriage is about procreation, then only fertile, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry? Would couples have to agree to have children before they could be married? Who would police the fertility rule? How long would couples have to reproduce before their marriage was dissolved for non-compliance? How silly all of this is. Everyone's knickers in a twist because two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other.

I think individual denominations should be free to do as they please. In general though, I find the argument that someone is born a certain way to justify behavior as dangerous.

For example, what if tomorrow we found out that pedophiles are genetically predisposed to those actions (we already have strong evidence that they cannot get rid of their tendencies). Would that justify their actions? I don't think so.

There's also been some scientific literature looking at genetic predisposition toward infidelity. Would that justify infidelity? Nope.

The reason is that people are still able to make decisions and decide on their actions. That is different from skin color or gender, over which people have no control.

I think the Bible is clear in condemning sexual activity between people of the same gender (it is not only in the Old Testament, it is also in Romans 1:26-27). It does not condemn homosexuality or being gay though.

Dear Bishop Spong,
Phobia is not equal to phobia.

Right is not equal to right.

Hate is not equal to hate.

Gay is not equal to gay.

Marriage is not equal to marriage.

Priesthood is not equal to priesthood.

Jesus is not equal to Jesus.

God is not equal to God.

Let us enter His court with praise and approach His throne in worship in order to ask humbly His truth on this matter. He shall not be silent. He shall respond with His truth. Then, the ecclesial communities will know the Way.

The Episcopal Church is loosing market-share as if it were 8track tapes.

Posted by: Revcain777 | August 10, 2009 3:19 PM

Interesting that you refer to someone's faith as "market share".

Homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual behavior is. God made men and women to complement each other physically and allows them to bring new life into the world.
Homosexual behavior is in direct opposition to His will, thats why its sinful. He allows all of us the free choice to chose our behavior but that doesnt make it holy. It never ceases to amaze me that we humans can find a way to rationalize virtually any behavior.

To Elainaver46:

You may not have seen gays in your school, but they were there. Case in point - I just re-connected with a guy that I had known since kindergarten through 12th grade. I only found out when I found him on Facebook that he was gay. He's been with his partner for as long as I've been with my husband.

So yeah, you probably did have gay classmates. You (and they) just didn't know about it at the time.

To those who like to quote small parts of the Bible to justify their hate (usually it is those who have not actually read the thing in its entirety and thereby miss the point...):

How many of you enjoy bacon or pork bar-b-q? (Leviticus 11: 1-8)

Does the outfit you are wearing right now have more than one type of fabric in it? (Leviticus 19:19)

Men, do you cut your hair or shave your beards? (Leviticus 19:27)

Does anyone want to apply the standard mentioned in Leviticus 20:10 to Governor Mark Sanford. (Well, I am betting that his wife does...)

Does anyone call the priest and have their bathroom torn out when it has mildew in it? (Leviticus 14:33-42)

Anyone out there supportive of deportation of illegal aliens? You are breaking God's law! (Leviticus 19:33)

All of these are forbidden in Leviticus right next to the two verses mentioning man to man (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) sexual relations. Interesting that so called Christians will cling to two of those verses but when asked about the others they usually say "But Christ fulfilled the law so it doesn't apply anymore".

Episcopal Church? What's that? Does it still exist?

So now you tell us being gay is a "sin". Why do you pick some scriptures to define "sin" and ignore others? Is not adultery with your friend's wife a "sin" punishable by death? (Leviticus 20:10)

I don't hear any of you Huckabees calling for capital punishment for Senator Ensign. Oh, ye hypocrites!

All well and good. But...the fact is the Episcopal Church has been loosing membership for decades. It is a dying denomination. Yes, one can point to a pocket here and there where the church is doing well, but bottom line: The Episcopal Church is loosing market-share as if it were 8track tapes.

Okay, horray, the Episcopalians, who don't believe much of anything about, say, the existence of a Deity, are happy to act as a gay dating club. Only the Waashington Post could think that was a "religion" story. Just possibly it would be worth a look at denominations that are not dying--but that would not be fashionable, would it?

I don't think I've ever read anything more ignorant than the comment of ELAINAVER46, unless of course it is those sections of the Bible which exemplify the hatred of and prejudice towards gays that have been around for as long as there have been humans on this 5 billion year old Earth. ALAINAVER46's ignorance "has to be environmental, rather than hereditary, since it has not always been with our American society as it is today". Oh well, kudos to the Episcopalian Church in America. To hell with the Anglican Church in Africa!

How great! I wonder which organization devoted to forcing people to follow the rules of an imaginary deity will endorse homosexuality next?!?!

The irony of this article, specifically this statement is absolutely priceless:

"This is a pity, but a leader who is on the backside of the tide of history will be constantly compromised and embarrassed."

Which side of the tide is religion on again? Cheers...

...and MURDERERS existed before gays...so...I guess slaying your brother is acceptable human behavior? Murder like homosexuality is indeed 'natural'...AND sinful.

WallyWutMD,

And I suppose you have a bat phone up to Heaven, so you know what it is that God thinks. Do you converse nightly? How utterly arrogant.

Gay people have been on this earth longer than Christianity. And I can tell you from experience (I am looking at you Elainaver46) that gay people are born gay. We are not shaped by our environment -- unless of course you are speaking about the gay men and women who hide in straight marriages because they are afraid of society's wrath... then yes.

The Episcopal Church's problem is that its members are too educated to believe superstitious nonsense.

The Anglican Communion's problem is that it's popular in places like Nigeria that aren't.

"Dishonesty has eaten at the soul of ..."

Everything and everyone.

It is refreshing to see people's experiences and strengths as they pertain to a job (or calling, if you prefer in this situation) being evaluated, rather than their gender or their monogamous partnering.

John Shelby Spong,

The Word of God does not make adjustments for the sake of mankind. It is mankind who must adjust his heart to in order to hear the Word of God. If you are trying to find salvation through your own version of God's Word, then it is you who will find himself left behind on the day of Christ's return.

The battle over homosexuality may have ended in the episcopal church, with the schism that has resulted in a number of churches leaving, but it is not over in the far larger Anglican Community. It's interesting to say that the Archbishop of cCantebury is on the "backside of history," when the most dynamic segment of the Anglican Community --the third world is strongly opposed to ordaining homosexuals. The U.S. Episcopal Church is a dying institution and increasingly irrelevant. That is not true of the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

It has been around a long time you are right. Does that make it any more wrong. Sin is sin I know but to knowingly sin when God tells you it's wrong in any age is thumbing your nose to the God that created you. The God that you say you believe. He made the rules. You change them and it turns into something totally different. You change the rules of football and it becomes soccer. You take God's word and twist it to your own destruction.

John,

My lesbian rabbi would approve.

Farnaz

"Back when I was a teenager, there were very few, if any, gay teens at my school (40 years ago)"
____________________________

Did you go to school in Iran where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says there aren't any gays, either?

There always have been, are now and always will the gays among us. The small and shallow god of Abraham created them specifically for the rest of us to hate, beat-up, bully, scapegoat, castigate, condemn, judge and exclude. Don't you read the Bible?

WHAT???? homosexuality has been here since the begining of time! Maybe there were not openly gay teens in your school, but there were gay classmates. 40 years ago when you were in school kids were beat up, outcasted or worse killed over being openly gay! what in the world makes you think they would want any part of that. Being a teenager is hard enough without adding on to it. Now beacuse we are more accepting kids are finally comming out, but not all of them! I am proud of the Episcopal church and I am proud to be apart of it!!!

Back when I was a teenager, there were very few, if any, gay teens at my school (40 years ago). I wonder why, all of a sudden, gay people are being birthed! What caused this phenomenon? One would think it has to be environmental, rather than hereditary, since it has not always been with our American society as it is today.