The Independent Gay Forum

Tom Scharbach | December 18, 2006, 10:14am | #

The willingness of the Virginia congregations to accept the moral authority of such a man, together with James Dobson's misuse of reputable social science studies in his Time magazine column, are just the most recent examples of the moral bankruptcy of the religious right. The religious right is dangerous, and I suspect that increasing numbers of straight folks are waking up to that fact.

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 10:28am | #

Time for James to show up and blame the split on the gay community choosing flamboyant homosexuals for its leaders...

James | December 18, 2006, 10:52am | #

OK, here I am!

I really, really dislike Peter Akinola. He really does not grasp Jesus' compassion. I can't imagine lining my church up with him. I hope we get to keep these parishs' buildings so it's clear they are not part of our church.

Our church is working very hard to be a welcoming place for gays. And not just because we need choir directors, either. But at the same time we offer acceptance, we offer accountability. God's plan for healthy sex is within the boundaries of a lifelong, sexually exclusive partnership--gay or straight. The Episcopal church recognizes the long and winding road some take to get there, but that is still the ideal. Our vows--the vows I hope to take someday--still say "forsaking all others, 'til death do us part." My criticism of the gay community is their lack of willingness to take those vows seriously.

Tim | December 18, 2006, 12:22pm | #

"My criticism of the gay community is their lack of willingness to take those vows seriously."

How many straight people take that seriously ?

dr | December 18, 2006, 12:44pm | #

"Our church is working very hard to be a welcoming place for gays."

So will your minister marry a same gender couple? Or is this a we love you, but what you might do in bed disgusts us and God situation?

RON | December 18, 2006, 1:38pm | #

(1 CORINTHIANS 5: 9,10) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, (v 10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Can it be more plain and simple than that or is it to hard to grasp. yes you can love the sinner but also hate, dislike, diagree HIS/HER sin at the sametime, that is possible to do. (SIN IS SIN according 1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-10) there's no gray lines.

Tim | December 18, 2006, 1:41pm | #

All humans are sinners. So what's your point ?

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 1:46pm | #

The willingness of the Virginia congregations to accept the moral authority of such a man, together with James Dobson's misuse of reputable social science studies in his Time magazine column, are just the most recent examples of the moral bankruptcy of the religious right.

Yes, because, you know, so many people agree with Gene Robinson that the Apostle John was Jesus's gay lover, and that his congregation needs to hear about his high school sexual fantasies as part of his sermon, and that he should support his fellow gays and say nothing when they advocate banning religion outright, call his parishoners "hateful lemmings", call the Scripture "fairy tales", claim that monogamous and faithful "normal" couples are "Stepford wives", says his congregants are "ignorant" and "superstitious" because they believe in God and are religious, and that gays who think similarly are inferior because they have "failed to throw off the yoke of oppression".

So, simply put, the choice to Anglicans is this: you can have a gay bishop who supports ridiculing everything you believe, or you can have one who supports what you believe but doesn't like gays. Granted, there are many liberals out there who think it's more important that a bishop be gay, but the vast majority of them prefer that a bishop actually believe, profess, and defend the religious teachings from which he claims authority.

Robinson is the perfect bishop for the gay left, as Mel White is the perfect pastor; tokens that can be hauled out for public display, but will not say a word as you mock everything for which they allegedly stand.

The Anglican Communion ain't the gay left.

dr | December 18, 2006, 2:00pm | #

"but the vast majority of them prefer that a bishop actually believe, profess, and defend the religious teachings from which he claims authority."

Problem- He was elected by his congregation. I guess he was good enough for them.

Plus, all the incidents you mentioned are either made up, or ripped out of context. I read about the incident where he supposedly claimed that John was Jesus's lover. It was obviously a joke. In fact, anyone not looking to distort the sermon to shriek about the gay left could have seen that.

In the same sermon/speach/whatever, he referenced his sexuality. He didn't talk about his sex life, just about life experiances in general. I didn't realize that was taboo for a minister.

As for the rest of the quotes, as far as I can tell, you, or other conservatives, have simply made them up. The only google hits on those quotes were actually links back to here, where you claim he said them.

So there we have it. Robinson wasn't ridiculing anything. He made a mildly off-color joke and talked about real world experiances to his church. The VA churches have joined with a hateful, spiteful little man, supposedly because of Robinson, who is not their Bishop.

But don't let that stop you for blaming gays for homophobia. Next on ND30's list- how the East Village makes Iran hang gay teenagers.

NorthDallasRetard | December 18, 2006, 2:14pm | #

Don't even try to call out ND30, dr. His lies and blind hatred at all the phantom "lefties" that fill his head are all he has to hold onto. Just read his rants with a jaundiced eye and try not to take him too seriously, it's obvious he's not really being serious anyway.

alex | December 18, 2006, 2:18pm | #

I think that it is telling that they are Virginia congregations that believe that we should all live under the values of a third world bishop.

dr | December 18, 2006, 2:18pm | #

Also, I forgot to mention, this has NOTHING to due with the fact that the Episcopal Church recently elevated a woman to the position of Presiding Bishop. Nothing at all. They're completely not using one more acceptable bigotry to mask a less acceptable one. Nope. Religious fundementalists would never, ever be so deceptive.

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 2:24pm | #

Problem- He was elected by his congregation. I guess he was good enough for them.

Of course. There are always going to be gays out there who believe that Jesus was gay, and there are always going to be liberals out there who don't care about blasphemy as long as the person doing and supporting the blaspheming meets their diversity quota.

But unfortunately, that's not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious "hateful lemmings", call the Scriptures "fairy tales", etc.

What you like to call "homophobia", Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You're merely using the fact that you're gay as some sort of smokescreen for it.

Tim | December 18, 2006, 2:27pm | #

For a supposed Christian, NDT, you're really full of hate and bitterness. I feel sorry for you.

Tim | December 18, 2006, 2:32pm | #

It's always refreshing when you meet a person who truely follows Christ's teaching. Loving, non-judgemental people who truely believe inloving your neighbor as yourself.

Personally, I'm an athiest. I try to follow the golden rule. I Christ came back to earth, he would be truely appalled at what is done in his name.

James | December 18, 2006, 2:37pm | #

I don't like Peter Akinola--I don't like Gene Robinson, either, for the reasons ND30 mentioned. I am a gay man who believes the Creeds and Scripture in an orthodox way. The passage from Corinthians quoted above, even from the most inerrantist Biblical standpoint, does not use the word "homosexual." That is the translator's choice, and it is misleading. The words in the Bible which refer to homosexual behavior have to do with Roman customs and prostitution, not two men in a lifelong, monogamous relationship.

Even the oft-quoted passage in Romans breaks down this way--1. It starts by describing heterosexual men. 2. These straight men rejected God. 3. These straight men worshipped idols. 4. God then left these straight men to their own devices, and their lusts overcame them. 5. They lusted after what was not natural to them--being heterosexual, they lusted after each other. Therefore, this passage has nothing to do with Christian men who are naturally homosexual in orientation forming lifelong, monogamous relationships based on love, not lust, and which are blessed by God. You don't have to be a liberal to refute anti-gay religious bigotry--you just have to be a better scholar. People like Peter Akinola are misusing the Bible to support their own prejudices.

Oh, and I don't like Mel White, either. I'm so glad I can say that. I'm glad whenever there's a Christian witness of any kind, but his brand of Christianity is too flamboyant and exotic for me.

dr | December 18, 2006, 2:54pm | #

"But unfortunately, that's not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious "hateful lemmings", call the Scriptures "fairy tales", etc. "

Provide quotes or shut the fuck up about it.

"What you like to call "homophobia", Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You're merely using the fact that you're gay as some sort of smokescreen for it."

I'm sorry calling a spade a spade is so offensive to you. I'm also sorry you can't see that religious homophobia has been around for a very long time, and feel the need to call out people who confront it. That's not bigotry, that's speaking the truth.

"I don't like Gene Robinson, either, for the reasons ND30 mentioned."

I'd like to hear you state those reasons in your own words. What creeds has he repudiated? How has he broken with an interpretation of Scripture? Please provide links.

CPT_Doom | December 18, 2006, 2:55pm | #

But unfortunately, that's not the majority of Anglicans. They tend to be touchy about people like Robinson, and especially about the gays he supports, who want to ban religion, call the religious "hateful lemmings", call the Scriptures "fairy tales", etc.

ND30 is completely correct that the Anglican "church" (being raised Roman Catholic, we were taught to question the authenticity of these heretical offshoots of the true Church - the Roman one) must be free to set their own theology and standards for their "priests" and "bishops." However, criticizing Mr. Robinson specifically, as well as characterizing all those gays (and presumably straights) who support him as being "anti-religious," is exactly the kind of bigotry that the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth fought against. If Mr. Robinson, because of his individual actions, is not fit to be a bishop, then fine, he as an individual should not have been elected. But to use Mr. Robinson, or any gay person or stereotype, to argue that no gays are fit for membership in the church, is bigotry, pure and simple. Just as the rabbi taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan, even though someone may live an "immoral" life according to your religious beliefs, that does not mean they must automatically be considered inferior, unworthy, etc. Yet that is exactly what people like Akinola promote, and that is despicable. I really wonder how these breakaway churches are going to function in modern human society if they are going to follow Akinola's theology - does this mean their congregants can't work with gay people? can't be served by gay waiters and waitresses? can't have gay teachers instructing their students? How unworthy will these churches find gay people, and how far will they be willing to go to force their bigotry on a society that is rapidly rejecting it?

(1 CORINTHIANS 5: 9,10) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, (v 10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Can it be more plain and simple than that or is it to hard to grasp. yes you can love the sinner but also hate, dislike, diagree HIS/HER sin at the sametime, that is possible to do. (SIN IS SIN according 1 CORINTHIANS 5:9-10) there's no gray lines.

I will never understand why people like Ron, who quote Saul, also known as Paul, a man who never met the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, call themselves "Christians." Since their religion is not based on the teachings of that rabbi, but rather interpretations of those teachings made by a relatively ignorant man in the first century CE (he was foisted on the non-Jewish communities of early Christians because of his disagreements with the true apostles), why don't they just refer to themselves as "Paulists," because that is what they are.

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 3:20pm | #

Provide quotes or shut the fuck up about it.

Here's a hint; google "Elton John" and "hateful lemming".

Or you can just go back over here and take a look.

Then we'll talk.

dr | December 18, 2006, 3:25pm | #

Yeah. That's from Elton John. Not a Bishop from NH. Try again. And be honest this time.

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 3:33pm | #

Unfortunately, dr, you missed the point.

Who do you think most loudly condemned Elton John's words -- Bishop Akinola, or Gene Robinson?

In fact, have you EVER seen Gene Robinson speak out against antireligious bigotry, especially among gays?

I guess he's too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies.

Anglicans recognize this, you know; unfortunately for Robinson, more of them are concerned with their faith and their religious beliefs than they are in meeting their minority quota.

dr | December 18, 2006, 3:40pm | #

Or maybe they simply don't give a damn what a British celebrity says. That's the simplest answer, and they would explain why only a handful of churches in VA are leaving the congregation. Or maybe its that anti-religious bigotry is a boogie man that fundementalists trot out to defend their own bigotry.

"Oh no, someone said something silly, our faith is in peril! If only our bishop would respond!"

Most people simply don't give a damn. Those that pretend to care have an agenda, like yours, which is to try shout down anyone from confronting religious bigotry.

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 3:48pm | #

ND30: "Anglicans recognize this, you know; unfortunately for Robinson, more of them are concerned with their faith and their religious beliefs than they are in meeting their minority quota."

Huh? What is your point here? From what I can tell you are delusional and borderline psychotic so asking you to flesh out a point might be a zero-sum folly. But, really, what the hell does your post above mean? You need to take some time off away from the keyboard because you have completely lost it. If you have such deep undying hatred for homosexuals, why post on gay websites?

Craig2 | December 18, 2006, 3:55pm | #

Fortunately, most New Zealand Anglicans don't want to be in close proximity with the Barely Anglican Right, so are likely to side with mainstream Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans than Akinola and his entourage.

Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 4:05pm | #

That's the simplest answer, and they would explain why only a handful of churches in VA are leaving the congregation.

You must not have read the whole article, especially the part which talks about the numerous other churches that are considering and/or planning the same thing. And that also doesn't take into consideration all of the different national churches outside the United States, several of whom have made it clear that they don't think much of Gene Robinson and his fellow antireligious bigots and blasphemers, nor will they suffer in silence to meet a diversity quota.

And for ColoradoPatriot, just as an aside; my point is that more people care about whether or not their pastor follows and preaches their religion than they do whether s/he is gay, straight, or anything else. Robinson is an example of the opposite, in which liberals thought they could get away with promoting a blasphemer and supporter of antireligious bigotry in the name of "diversity".

They forgot that, unlike them, other churches actually value the Scriptures, and don't consider them, as do gays, to be "fairy tales", or that religion should be banned, or that religious people are all "hateful lemmings".

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 4:27pm | #

ND30: "Robinson is an example of the opposite, in which liberals thought they could get away with promoting a blasphemer and supporter of antireligious bigotry in the name of "diversity".
They forgot that, unlike them, other churches actually value the Scriptures, and don't consider them, as do gays, to be "fairy tales", or that religion should be banned, or that religious people are all "hateful lemmings"."

What? You lost me again...Liberals (according to you, liberal gays) elected Robinson because he is a blasphemer? Do gays run the Episcopal Church or did they commit some sort of fraud on the rest of the parishners? Is Elton John a member of the Episcopal church? Why are you so hung up on the British man's opinion? Surely you don't honestly believe that he speaks for anyone but himself (and even then I don't see what his quote has to do with Robinson or the Episcopal Church). Are you saying that gays (I assume you are speaking of ALL gays besides yourself) would infiltrate a church for years and years until they held a majority and then vote in a "antireligious bigot"? Why would "gays" do that? More importantly, where do you buy your tinfoil hats?

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 4:55pm | #

Liberals (according to you, liberal gays) elected Robinson because he is a blasphemer?

No, they chose him because he's gay.

The fact that he was a blasphemer was inconvenient, but let's face facts; given that the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots, there weren't many candidates, and certainly not many, if ANY, who weren't like Robinson.

James | December 18, 2006, 5:11pm | #

I agree with ND30 so much on this thread that I am tempted to say, "You go, girlfriend (snap!)" --but I refrain.

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 5:25pm | #

ND30: "given that the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots..."

Please site a source for this assertion other than your own delusional blog. You seem to have a problem with facts and proper documentation, you should probably work on that before you post more hate-filled lies. You do realize that your delusional rants and your multiple lies hurts your credibility don't you?

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 5:34pm | #

ND30: "there weren't many candidates, and certainly not many, if ANY, who weren't like Robinson."

What? Could you please rephrase that in a way that makes some sort of sense? What exactly do you mean by "like Robinson?" Are you saying that most Episcopals are antireligious bigot gay blasphemers? Care to site a study on Episcopal beliefs that backs up your statement?

North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2006, 5:51pm | #

I gave two examples of gays and antireligious bigotry right above, thank you. Start with those.

What exactly do you mean by "like Robinson?" Are you saying that most Episcopals are antireligious bigot gay blasphemers?

Hardly.

My point was that the Anglicans wanted to elect a gay bishop.

The talent pool is very thin to start with because most gays are antireligious bigots. About the best they could find was Robinson, and he's a blasphemer.

That's what you get when your main consideration for choosing a bishop is their minority status.

ColoradoPatriot | December 18, 2006, 6:10pm | #

The only thing you "proved" is that Elton John once said something offensive to you. How does this prove that most gays are antireligious bigots? Do you have any proof other than random statements in blog talkbacks? Didn't think so. Please stop posting lies and then backing up those lies with links to your own blog...that is further proof of your dishonesty and bankrupt morals.

dalea | December 18, 2006, 10:19pm | #

According to a survery done by marketers on gay religious by GLCensus Partner (www.glcensus.org) Study - A Syracuse University and OpusComm Group research Partnership, something is now known about gay religious practices and beliefs. Per the study, gay people break down pretty much the way Americans in general break down by religious affiliation. Here is something from the survey:

More than 6 out of 10 (63.7%) respondents say they are affiliated with a particular religion; 38 percent say they are practicing members. The largest segment is Catholics (17.2%), although only 29.5 percent of those members say they are practicing. Six percent of respondents say they are atheists and almost a third (30.3%) say they have no religious preference.

With 8,831 respondents, the 2002-2003 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census is the largest and most comprehensive GLBT consumer study ever conducted. Prepared by GLCensus Partners (Syracuse University and OpusComm Group), the annual study fills the growing need among manufacturers and service providers for detailed information on consumer behavior and preferences of the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community.

Of those respondents who answered both the religious affiliation and currently practicing questions, there are 11 religions with 200 or more members. Among these, the highest percentage of those saying they are practicing members of their respective religions are: Pagan (84.6%), Metropolitan Community Church (79.4%), Unitarian (66.7%), Episcopal (57.6%) and Jewish (47.5%).

The survey can be found here: http://glcensus.org/press/08062003.html

The conductors of the survey are marketers. They make their living or fail based on the quality of their results. This group has been around a long time, with a long string of very successful results. The question about religion was asked as a side issue in surveys on general g&l consumer preferences. Since their findings on g&l preferences in products have consistently been found to be reliable, there is no real reason to expect the results on religion not to be.

Interestingly, the market researchers go gay and lesbian. They do not schlep in bisexual, questioning on and on. Just g&l.

It appears from this that about 2/3rds of us are at least nominally religious. What I find truly fascinating is that looking at those who are actively religious the most numerous are Catholics, followed by Pagans. Really there are more active gay & lesbian Pagans than Episcopalians. (Multiply the % affiliated by the %active to arrive at this finding.)

dalea | December 18, 2006, 11:19pm | #

Just when did the Episcopalians become a church defined by adhering to very specific doctrines? It is my understanding that Anglicanism in general is a 'broad' church open to a very wide range of Christianities. The technical term is 'latitudinarian'.

Which is what came from being a national church 'by law established'. In a country torn by centuries of religious strife. The national church simply became open to all sorts of religious expression by necessity. Looking at the Episcopal diversity, it is not at all clear to me why this hooha is coming up now. Except some right wing loons who are financing it.

One classic thread of Anglicanism is called Anglo-Catholocism, or the High Church Party. Bishop Robinson seems to be affiliated with that group. As have many gays over the years: Waugh, Maughm, Forrester. The High Church Party does away with all the tedious Bilbical haggling and hair splitting by finding its inspiration, and practice, in the demonstrably older practices of the Mass, the Eucharist, the Scaraments and the Tradition of the Church.

From this viewpoint, the Bible does not create the Church. The early Church created the Bible, as a commentary on its liturgy and practices and as a source book for stories. Since the Bible did not assume its current form until the 16th century while the form of the Mass has existed since before the reign of Diocletian, this strikes me as entirely realistic. And factual. All of which seems to be the position taken by the 'liberals' in this discussion. The 'liberals' appear to be following truly ancient paths; the 'conservative' appear to follow a modern path that began just over 100 years ago.

The idea of Bible supremacy has to be a modern notion. Because it depends on widespread literacy and the technology to produce books. Which did not exist prior to about 1500 CE. Or seriously in the Western World much before 1850. Indeed the idea of 'fundamentalism' did not come into existence intil the 1890's.

So, when did the Anglican/Episcopal church commit to Biblical Inerrancy? Never happened. The dissenters are modernists, the liberals are traditionalist.

Antaeus | December 19, 2006, 7:39am | #

"I guess he's too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies." ND30 keeps saying that as if it scandalized him. But Robinson said no such thing - and yes, I checked the article you provided so many posts back. I'm surprised nobody called you on it. Gene Robinson merely pointed out that Jesus was closest to his disciples, twelve celibates. That was his "family", not a nuclear one in which he filled the suburban cradle. Nowhere did Robinson fuel fantasies or allege the gayness of Jesus, which is a perfectly fine opinion, anyway.
What is dismaying is how ND30 feigns "shock, shock" at the very concept - and on a gay site. I doubt he's even a believer - but like Ralph Reed merely sought an absolutist, spiritual cover for his politics. Belial, get thee behind me!

raj | December 19, 2006, 7:41am | #

As shown here ("US millionaire bankrolls crusade against gay Anglican priests," The (UK) Guardian, Sunday October 12, 2003) and here ("Avenging angel of the religious right: Quirky millionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. is on a mission from God to stop gay marriage, fight evolution, defeat "liberal" churches -- and reelect George W. Bush," Salon, Jan. 6, 2004) (and possibly elsewhere), this brou-ha-ha in the Episcopalian church did not come out of the blue. It was specifically instigated by far right-wing interests financed by nutty multi-millionaire-by-inheritance Howard Ahmanson to defeat liberal churches. Ahmanson had been a devotee of R. J. Rushdooney's Christian Reconstructionism, which, of course, advocates execution of gay people.

Those who were financed by Ahmanson have used tactics that would have made Josef Goebbels proud to foment dissent in the Episcopalean ranks.

raj | December 19, 2006, 7:50am | #

Antaeus | December 19, 2006, 7:39am |

"I guess he's too busy talking about his Jesus and John sex fantasies." ND30 keeps saying that as if it scandalized him.

Did NDXXX really write that? It says more about NDXXX's rather fetid and scatological imagination than anything else.

I guess that my referring to him as NDXXX is more correct than I would have imagined.

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 11:33am | #

Nice try, Antaneus, but this is what Robinson said:

In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life."

Now why else would he bring up that whole "disciple who Jesus loved" thing, as well as the fact that Jesus "travelled with a bunch of men" in response to a question specifically related to homosexuality? It isn't even Scripturally correct, given that Jesus had many female disciples as well.

Robinson tried to paint Jesus as gay to rationalize his own sex life, and it backfired rather remarkably.

And what I find entertaining, Antaeus, is that, despite your insistence that there's "nothing wrong" with claiming that Jesus is gay, that you have to try to claim that Robinson wasn't saying that. Robinson was reinforcing what you believe -- why can't you support it?

Or is it because you leftists who like to accuse others of pushing propaganda are afraid to let people know what you believe?

Don Norte | December 19, 2006, 12:03pm | #

The religious right is under attack as more and more gays and lesbians in positions of power are "outed" or "open" about their sexual orientation. I am seeing a movement to create an environment of hate and using this sort of religious propaganda to control free thinking in the name of GOD. Oppression is plain un-christian regardless of your faith.

NorthDallasRetard | December 19, 2006, 12:08pm | #

Further proof of ND30's inability to grasp complex (and even not-so-complex) ideas. Why is it that you can't seem to communicate with anyone without resorting to personal attacks (hehe...I know this is odd coming from someone who posts under a name that is indeed a personal attack, however justified)? You again post this quote from Robinson and act like we should all be outraged (OUTRAGED!!!) by this act of faux-blasphemy. Robinson was pointing out facts about Jesus and his disciples (and yes, one was described as "the one Jesus loved") that have beed bandied about for centuries...there is nothing outrageous or blasphemous here. Your attempts to paint Robinson as some sort of radical (anti-) Christian is as laughable as your other tired retorts and conspiracy theories. What do you seek to gain from your hateful diatribes here? I think you just want to get more hits to your pitiful and stupid blog...why else would you endlessly link to it and claim it as your "proof"? Please stop resorting to attacks and lies on this board, you are doing nothing and are making yourself a laughing-stock. Please seek help for your psychotic delusions.

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 12:53pm | #

One classic thread of Anglicanism is called Anglo-Catholocism, or the High Church Party. Bishop Robinson seems to be affiliated with that group. As have many gays over the years: Waugh, Maughm, Forrester. The High Church Party does away with all the tedious Bilbical haggling and hair splitting by finding its inspiration, and practice, in the demonstrably older practices of the Mass, the Eucharist, the Scaraments and the Tradition of the Church.

Not unlike the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, which banned the Bible and substituted the canon law in its place.

Why? Because canon law was easier to rewrite to suit the moment. Because the Bible was so widespread and known, deletion or insertion of passages to suit the Church's need would be too blatant; however, invoking "tradition" instead was quick and easy.

The confidence and arrogance of leftists like Robinson in lying to their flock and claiming "tradition" as equal to Scripture is well exemplified by dalea's statement that the Mass, the Eucharist, etc. predate the Scriptures.
What leftists like Robinson who wish to abolish Scripture so that their own words can be substituted do is to conflate the fact that the canon of the Bible, or list of books that were to be commonly included, was still technically in flux (and would, in a most technical sense, remain so for centuries); however, what they ignore is that the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Acts, the Hebrew Bible, and the writings of the Apostles were well-established and accepted by this time, and it is from all of those that the Mass, the Eucharist, and their other rites were created.

However, dalea, thanks for making it obvious that Robinson and his fellow leftists like Schori believe that the Mass, Eucharist, Sacraments, and Traditions, which he and his fellow bishops are rewriting at will, came BEFORE the Bible, and that the Bible is subordinate and inferior to all of those.

And you people wonder why Akinola looks so good to Episcopalians right now. Maybe it's because he doesn't ignore Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles, or pretend that Article XXV does not make it clear that the Sacraments are ordained in the Gospel.

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 12:59pm | #

Robinson was pointing out facts about Jesus and his disciples (and yes, one was described as "the one Jesus loved") that have beed bandied about for centuries...there is nothing outrageous or blasphemous here.

Had Robinson merely been repeating the Scriptures, that would be one thing; after all, John IS referred to as "the disciple that Jesus loved" in there, and it is clear that the twelve apostles were all men.

However, what Robinson did was to cite both of those in response to a question about homosexuality. He could have pointed out that the Gospels don't talk about it; however, he tried to claim that homosexuality was OK because Jesus was gay, and as proof he cited the fact that Jesus surrounded himself with men and that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

And what I think is funny is that you leftists have already said that "there's nothing wrong with Robinson claiming Jesus was gay". Why, then, are you so upset when it's pointed out? Say that Robinson was correct in claiming that Jesus was gay, if you believe it so vehemently.

Dave in Los Angeles | December 19, 2006, 2:11pm | #

The thing that makes this conversation, and conversations like it, so difficult is that it ends up being several conversations all at once...and we allow that overlap to cloud what we're really talking about. I'm gonna take a few issues seperately.

First Issue: Is homosexuality really condemned by God or the Bible?

Certainly some religious people from a wide range of faith communities would cite six passages in the Bible as being in condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior. On the reverse, other religious people from THOSE SAME faith communities and others have said that...

a) Long-held INTERPRETATIONS of the meaning of some of these passages are incorrect and those passages actually condemn things other than homosexuality.
b) Some TRANSLATIONS of certain passages have added homosexuality in word or idea only in recent history. Some would have us believe this is the work of God, others don't believe that to be true.
c) Some Biblical authors (ie...Paul) had a conception of same-sex sexual behavior that didn't take into account contemporary views on sexual orientation, and referred to these things only in terms of prostitution.

I could break these down specifically, but this is the basic argument. In an effort toward full disclosure, I fall on the "not believing the Bible or God condemns homosexuality" side.

With that, I'm an openly gay person who considers myself to be religious. I attend an Episcopal church every Sunday and attempt to practice the way of Jesus in my life every day. I am certainly NOT a "religious bigot" because I am religious myself and value MY right to practice my religion as I believe is correct.

Second Issue: Do we have a right to challenge people who believe homosexuality is a sin and use that belief to advocate for the oppression of gay people?

The simple answer is...absolutely and without question. Religious freedom ONLY extends to the government's role in maintaining one's right to practice their faith, NOT to another citizen's right to engage us in discourse over our beliefs. So for Elton John to call people who hold anti-gay beliefs "hateful lemmings" is nothing more than his OPINION, and does nothing to keep religious people from practicing their religion. It also doesn't necessarily refer to ALL religious people (thereby making him "anti-religious") but to people who hold these specific beliefs. The term "bigot" in reference to this statement is actually incorrect as well, since bigotry as a concept refers to hatred based on IDENTITY, not based on BELIEF. Therefore, if Elton John hated all Catholics by virtue of their identifying as Catholic for example, he could be called a bigot. But not in this case.

Third Issue: Do most gay people hate religion?

Do we even need to discuss this? There are gay people who hate religion. There are gay people who love religion. There are even gay people who love the very religions that people like Dobson come from, whether or not they agree with his views. Certainly there are plenty of gay people who have become disenfranchised by virtue of the VIEWS of people like Dobson, but to say that we all hate religion is a broad (and yes...BIGOTED because it is a) untrue and b) in reference to a group of people based on identity) generalization.

Fourth Issue: Was Jesus gay?

Yes. Jesus was gay. And No. Jesus wasn't gay. If we believe in Jesus, we know Jesus came to die for ALL of our sins, and we were ALL created in the image of God. Jesus, unlike us, was not born with original sin, lived a sinless life and wasn't put here to HAVE sex. He WAS put here to teach us how to LOVE and to DIE for our sins. Robinson's comments could have been interpreted as saying that Jesus was gay, but he never actually comes out and says this, so we shouldn't assume that's what he was saying.

Final Issue: The split of the Episcopal Church.

It's a shame, but homosexuality isn't the biggest issue the church is dealing with. The female archbishop was a MUCH bigger controversy. The two issues together are obviously too much for a few Episcopal churches to handle at this point, and they feel the need to split off. This happens all the time throughout history, and at the end of the day, it's relatively minor.

I hope this'll help frame this conversation a bit better. Whether you agree with my actual points or not, I hope it'll help us clear up what we're really talking about. Thanks for reading.

NorthDallasRetard | December 19, 2006, 2:15pm | #

Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a "communion" between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition...much older then Christ. Do you honestly believe that Robinson was stating that "Jesus was gay"? That is a ridiculous over-simplification of the points he was trying to make about sin and you know it, stop f*cking around with quotes to make them fit your conspiracy-minded agenda. I'm not upset that someone says "Jesus was gay" so don't make the claim to the otherwise, to do so is dishonest and a blatant abuse of this board. The historical sin of homosexuality is that it didn't produce offspring; the sin did not lie in the sexual act. Since there was no "gay" identity in the time of Christ (we were still a couple millenia away from that), He couldn't be classified as such. Did Jesus have sex with men? Who the f*ck cares. Next psychotic ND30 talking point please...

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 3:43pm | #

Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a "communion" between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition...much older then Christ.

Then let leftist Robinson publicly confess that he doesn't believe that Christ initiated the Sacrament, or that the Bible has nothing to do with it, and that he's just following an ancient tradition of god- or goddess-worship from some other society.

The more I find out from gay leftists like you what Robinson actually believes, the more convinced I am that these congregations are right in leaving.

Do you honestly believe that Robinson was stating that "Jesus was gay"?

Yes.

What I also believe is that leftists like yourself are spinning so hard because you know very well that's what he meant. That's why you're doing this, "it was OK for Robinson to say Jesus was gay, but it's wrong for you to point out the fact that he did"; it's all about PR, because you know your leftist bishop won't keep his support once people find out what he truly believes.

Like I said, be honest. State publicly that Robinson believes that Jesus was gay, that the Scriptures are crap and were made up, and that the Sacraments are nothing more than some old ritual carried forward.

Antaeus | December 19, 2006, 3:54pm | #

Hey ND30, why don't you admit that if Jesus were gay, you'd find him unworthy of worship? Come on, friend, I'm just smoking you out! Would you worship a gay Jesus?

raj | December 19, 2006, 3:57pm | #

NorthDallasRetard | December 19, 2006, 2:15pm |

Actually ND30, the combining of wine and bread to form a "communion" between oneself and a higher power is a very old tradition...much older then Christ.

I don't know whether the tradition is older than Christ, but if you think about it, since in the christian tradition the bread->flesh and the wine->blood, the "communion" ceremony is little more than ritual cannibalism.

James | December 19, 2006, 4:05pm | #

The question is not whether gays are "relgious." A lot of people have a misty, mystical appreciation of a God-presence--which doesn't call them to any sort of moral action.

The question is, are there a lot of gays who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and want to follow his direction? My decision is to only have sex with those men that Jesus wants me to have sex with. My life partner is His decision and His choice. And I predict He will give me only one--or maybe He'll call me to be single. The point is, Jesus is my Lord, and He has the final say. These are vows I took at my baptism.

How many gay men have submitted their lives in this way to God? How many of them make themselves accountable to their church to help them discern what God wants for them?

Most gays, IMHO, like the tingly feeling they get from saying "Jesus" or smelling the incense or critiquing the church decorations--but they just do what they want without any concern whether God wants them to do it or not. And if someone tries to hold them accountable, they just scream "Homophobe!" and walk away in a huff.

I want a church who helps me discern what Jesus wants for my life, not to tell me that whatever I do is OK. Is that what most gays want?

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 4:11pm | #

So for Elton John to call people who hold anti-gay beliefs "hateful lemmings" is nothing more than his OPINION, and does nothing to keep religious people from practicing their religion.

You must have missed the first part of that quote.

Elton John has said organized religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into "hateful lemmings".

"Religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it is not really compassionate."

It's kind of hard to practice one's religious beliefs when they're banned, isn't it?

Now, to this:

With that, I'm an openly gay person who considers myself to be religious. I attend an Episcopal church every Sunday and attempt to practice the way of Jesus in my life every day. I am certainly NOT a "religious bigot" because I am religious myself and value MY right to practice my religion as I believe is correct.

Well, unfortunately, Elton John says that your organized religion should be banned and that you shouldn't have that right.

If a religious rightist says homosexuality SHOULD be banned, gay leftists have treated that as an all-out attack; they have not ignored it as an "opinion", or have disallowed it being applied to other religious people because it was only one person's opinion.

But when Elton John says religion SHOULD be banned, gays are insistent that that should be ignored as HIS opinion, that it doesn't apply to all gay people because it's only his, etc.

Next up:

Do we even need to discuss this? There are gay people who hate religion. There are gay people who love religion. There are even gay people who love the very religions that people like Dobson come from, whether or not they agree with his views.

What you forget though, Dave, is that gay people who fall into the latter two categories are inferior to those in the first, according to gay leftists.

Indeed, given your beliefs, you should know what these gay leftists say about people like you who have held on to their religious beliefs and believe that they are important:

On the other hand, I don't find it admirable that he was unable to throw off his yoke of his christian upbringing, which would have freed him from that there was something missing in his life that he believed needed correcting. More than a few of us have.

Put bluntly, the fact that there are gay Christians and religious folk out there does not change the fact that the majority of the gay community looks down on them, mocks them, and considers them inferior for not "throwing off their upbringing".

Now, indeed, Dave, I am on board with you in several respects. But the difference between us is that I am no longer willing to minimize the depth and breadth of antireligious bigotry that exists in the gay community. Your statements would be substantially correct if that wasn't a consideration, but it is the twelve-ton elephant that sits in the corner of the room.

Until leftists like Elton John and several of the commentors here stop cloaking their antireligious bigotry with their sexual orientation, or leftist gays like Robinson stop trying to twist religion to avoid having to criticize gay peoples' behaviors, we will have this problem.

ColoradoPatriot | December 19, 2006, 4:36pm | #

What a miserable person ND30 is...really and truly worthy of derision and scorn. Why do you have such hate for your fellow homosexuals and Christians? You are an abusive person who is obviously very VERY unwell. I'm tired of asking you for proof to your varied lies and deliberate abuse of quotes. Please seek help for your deep mental illness and stop spreading lies on this board.

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 4:54pm | #

Hey ND30, why don't you admit that if Jesus were gay, you'd find him unworthy of worship? Come on, friend, I'm just smoking you out! Would you worship a gay Jesus?

Of course I would worship a gay Jesus. Or a married or female Jesus, for that matter.

However, the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was gay or married; they do say that he was male.

Where Robinson errs, Antaeus, is that he wants Scripture to say that Jesus was gay; therefore, he cites things to attempt prove his point, like John being "the disciple who Jesus loved", or the fact that the Twelve Apostles were all men, or that sort of thing.

This works if you are a casual Episcopalian or secular leftist; however, to anyone who has seriously read the Scripture and its history, you know two things:

1. Jesus had several female disciples who traveled with him and supported him as well.

2. The Gospel of John, in which the reference is made to the "disciple who Jesus loved" was originally written in Koine Greek, which has several different words for "love" with drastically different meanings. The ones used in the phrase Robinson mentioned are for brotherly love and for self-sacrificing love, not for romantic or sexual love.

In short, Robinson tries to make of Jesus's sexuality a certainty of which the Scriptures say naught -- and in an attempt to ignore or bypass what Scripture DOES say, far more clearly, rather than dealing with those passages directly.

ColoradoPatriot | December 19, 2006, 5:52pm | #

ND30: Ok, I'll bite..."Where Robinson errs, Antaeus, is that he wants Scripture to say that Jesus was gay" Please site your source for Robinson "wanting" the scripture to say that Jesus was gay (and, please, don't just post Robinson's quote referenced above...and no link to your own blog either). Don't look too hard though ND30, because it doesn't exist. This is just another of your countless lies.

Also from the same post, "The Gospel of John, in which the reference is made to the "disciple who Jesus loved" was originally written in Koine Greek, which has several different words for "love" with drastically different meanings. The ones used in the phrase Robinson mentioned are for brotherly love and for self-sacrificing love, not for romantic or sexual love."
Please site your sources for this claim. On another point...how does the love of Jesus for John compare to the love of King David for Jonathon?

Randi Schimnosky | December 19, 2006, 6:14pm | #

North Dallas 30 said "What you like to call "homophobia", Dr, is very little more than the natural reaction of people to your antireligious bigotry. You're merely using the fact that you're gay as some sort of smokescreen for it."

North Dallas, you don't even believe that yourself. You just look like you're profoundly ignorant at best and mentally ill at worst when you spout such absurdities. Every LGBT, and for that matter, every straight person, knows its the other way around - gays are anti-religous because of anti-gay religious bigotry. Gays are merely responding to a bible their told says gays should be put to death, that says gays should be tortured for an eternity for having a loving monogamous same sex relationship. You can falsely rant all day and night (and I'm sure you will) that anti-religious gays came before anti-gay religionists but it just reinforces the image of you as a bitter self-loathing fool.
You say "the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots..." but Dalea has shown you wrong with his study. Certainly many LGBTs are anti-religious and with good reason. We're sick of your buy-bull bullshit saying gays should be put to death and tortured for an eternity. That's what came first North Dallas and you know it, that's why LGBTs like me are sickened and disgusted with your religion. My hatred of religion is a direct result of the anti-gay bigotry I've dealt with over and over since I accepted my being bisexual and transgendered. Now that's all that religion has become, that is all it clearly represents, anti-gay hatred and bigotry. That has become the sum total of religion for many LGBTs, and its the fault of religion, not LGBTS

North Dallas 30 said "If a religious rightist says homosexuality SHOULD be banned, gay leftists have treated that as an all-out attack; they have not ignored it as an "opinion", or have disallowed it being applied to other religious people because it was only one person's opinion.
But when Elton John says religion SHOULD be banned, gays are insistent that that should be ignored as HIS opinion, that it doesn't apply to all gay people because it's only his, etc.".

North Dallas 30, that's because religion started the war on gays, not vice versa. Thats because the majority of religious people are attacking gays and justifying it by saying the bible itself says gays should be killed and eternally tortured. There's no comparing Elton John's opposition to religion with religion's attack on gays, they are not even remotely the same thing. Who we love is at the core of our being, its innate, central and integral to our very lives. Religion is merely a choice. To oppose being gay is to oppose the very person. To oppose religion is to oppose a superficial choice.

Jesus was clearly gay by the way:

That there was indeed a secret gospel and an initiation into the mysteries of the religion now known as Christianity is dramatically attested by the "Secret Gospel of Mark," found in a manuscript discovered by Morton Smith in 1958, in the Monastery of Mar Saba southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek text found by Smith appears originally to have been composed at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria. [10] Clement is replying to one Theodore who has been upset by claims that there was a secret gospel of Mark which differed from the canonic (official) version. Clement tells him that indeed there is a secret gospel used by the Alexandrian church for initiation into the Christian mysteries. He gives several examples of material present in the secret gospel but absent in the canonic one. One of the more interesting "secrets" revealed by Clement tells us:

…Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. [11]

10] Titus Flavius Clemens (ca. C.E. 150 - ca. 211), Prominent early church father.

[11] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 447.

North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2006, 8:24pm | #

You say "the vast majority of gays are antireligious bigots..." but Dalea has shown you wrong with his study.

And you show Dalea wrong with your post.

If dalea's study is true, Randi, people like you who are complete antireligious bigots, hate religion to its core, and consider gays who follow religion to be "self-loathing".....are a tiny, tiny, fringe minority.

What it also shows, if it is true, is that, despite how religion has treated them, the vast majority of gays have NOT become antireligious bigots; therefore, your argument that your antireligious bigotry is only a natural outgrowth of how you were treated by the religious because of your sexual orientation is not supported by the evidence.

I will accept dalea's study as true if you are willing to admit the following:

1. Gays like yourself who completely oppose religion do so for reasons OTHER THAN how they were treated by the religious because of their sexual orientation, inasmuch as dalea's study claims that the majority of gays do NOT completely oppose religion, despite being treated the same way because of their sexual orientation.

2. Gays like yourself who completely oppose religion represent a tiny fraction of the total population of gays.

Meanwhile, as to the Secret Gospel of Mark, I don't feel you would make an apt student to whom to explain the Gnostic heresy, the worldview of Clement of Alexandria, or even the fact that many scholars contest whether or not the author is the historic Clement of Alexandria. It's not that you couldn't learn it; it's just that you've made obvious that what you want is a gay Jesus, and you won't accept anything else.

James | December 19, 2006, 9:13pm | #

Perhaps what you are experience as "anti-gay bigotry and homophobia" is the attitude of mature adults who say, "It's great that you're gay--we love you for it--but could you please take off the Gwen Stefani wig, find a nice young man, have kids and settle down?" Maybe they don't hate you because you're gay--maybe they hate you because you're a whiny perpetual adolescent who happens to be gay.

James | December 19, 2006, 9:18pm | #

By the way, the above was a comment for Randi. As for ND30, you go, girlfriend (snap)!

Randi Schimnosky | December 19, 2006, 10:57pm | #

You're pretty funny North Dallas. So, which is it, do I show Dalea wrong with my post or is he right and I am a tiny tiny fringe minority?
Earlier you were ranting on and on about how all gays are anti-religious bigots. Now when you want to disparage me personally suddenly you completely contradict yourself and and want me to tell you gays who completely oppose religion represent a tiny fraction of the total population of gays. Your characterization of the situation changes 180 degrees depending on which way you feel best works to disparage whomever you happen to be arguing with at the time.

Your claim that you will accept Dalea's study as true depending on what I say just shows how insincere and irrational you are. The validity of the study is independent of anything I say. I only represent myself, I certainly don't claim, as you do, to speak for all gays. However, no doubt at a later time you're going to use what I say as another excuse to lie and we'll later see you claiming all gays have said the things that I am solely responsible for.

I beg your forgiveness for being presumptuous, but do you think there's maybe a tiny tiny chance that after living my live for 45 years I might know my motivations just a wee bit better than you who don't know jack shit about me? Talk about arrogance from mental illness. Let me assure you I despise religion because of all the anti-gay religiously justified bigotry I heard from religious and even non-religious people - yes non-religious anti-gay bigots use your despicable buy-bull to justify their bigotry too.

Now as we both know you will eventually do another 180 degree turn and get back to the lie that all gays are anti-religious bigots. Pray tell me, if its not the endless ranting about how its sinful to be gay, about how gays should be put to death, about how gays are going to burn in hell, about how we shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship, let alone get married because "god" says so, just what the fuck is the reason you think I and other LGBTs despise your religion?!?!! What insane rationalization can your twisted mind come up with for a reaon why we hate religion, if not that? Who the hell do you think you're kidding.

Frankly, I don't care if Jesus was gay or not, it doesn't mean much to me. He is after all just a fictional character in a fairy tale.

James at December 19, 2006, 9:13pm said

"Perhaps what you are experience as "anti-gay bigotry and homophobia" is the attitude of mature adults who say, "It's great that you're gay--we love you for it--but could you please take off the Gwen Stefani wig, find a nice young man, have kids and settle down?" Maybe they don't hate you because you're gay--maybe they hate you because you're a whiny perpetual adolescent who happens to be gay."

James, your ignorance is unsurprising seeing as you, like North Dallas, know nothing about me and my experiences. You see, those "mature adults" said nothing of the sort. Contrary to your pollyanna fantasy they said "Its terrible that you're transgendered, we hate you for it, we don't want to see you with a man, we don't want you to settle down with and marry that man, don't come around here with him and embarrass us, that's a sin.".

James, I have a wonderful man, its you and North Dallas that's come here out of bitterness to gay bash because no gay man will have you.

dalea | December 20, 2006, 12:15am | #

The study is not mine. Sad to say, but I did not do it. It belongs to Syracuse University, I just reported on it. Please let them have the glory and obliquity.

What the study does show is that only 6% of gay people are total non=believers. With another 30% unattached. Which leaves 64% of all gay people nominally attached to some religious tradition. What struck me as interesting is that the most numerous of active religious gays were either Roman Catholics or Pagans. Add in New Agers and Buddhists, you suddenly begin to realize that nonChristians religions have a very large foot hold in the g&l community.

Perhaps the question put to NDXXX and JohnBoy, is why do you find nonChristian religions making such progress among gays? AFAICT the most influential gay and lesbian religious figure is Zusanna Budapest, GrandMother of Dianic Wicca. This may not be Christian, but it surely is religion.

As to NDXXX's identity, I have long supected he is ExGayWatch's main heresy hunter, the loathsome Timothy Kincaid. Timothy is the scourge of all who are not securely in the narrowest of snakehandling venues.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 1:57am | #

So, which is it, do I show Dalea wrong with my post or is he right and I am a tiny tiny fringe minority?

(shrug) You tell me.

The problem here is, Randi, that you use being gay to defend your antireligious bigotry, even though dalea's study supposedly claims that being gay in the majority of cases does NOT make you an antireligious bigot.

Furthermore, you insist that "many gays" feel the same way you do, but dalea's study supposedly claims that the majority of gays ARE in fact religious.

So which is it?

Perhaps the question put to NDXXX and JohnBoy, is why do you find nonChristian religions making such progress among gays?

Because the standards of right and wrong in these religions are based solely on the individual. Gays and lesbians are drawn to whatever can be used to justify their behavior and avoids placing any sort of restrictions on it.

In Christianity, for instance, it would be wrong to misrepresent your HIV status in order to have sex with another individual, because a) it would be lying and b) it would be putting another individual into harm's way against their will. But in paganism, since you set the rules and standards, and no one else is allowed to judge your actions, you can do whatever you like, since your own passions are the only justifications needed. Indeed, if you read the Charge of the Goddess, it makes it clear that the only rule is that there are no rules. Drug use, unprotected sex, orgies, public nakedness, and all the other things that the gay community favors are not only allowed, they are encouraged as acts of worship.

Furthermore, one should keep in mind the fact that this sort of "progress" was seen among these types of religions during the '60s and '70s too -- especially among young people who thought Christianity or more-conventional Judaism was "repressive" and "judgmental", and preferred religions that allowed them to do whatever they wanted AND wasn't the same as their parents.

However, we don't see Buddhist temples or pagan groves everywhere; instead, we see the enormous churches with the very same theology that these young people found so awful now being filled with them, twenty or thirty years later.

Why?

Because people figured out things: for instance, that sex as worship produced STDs, not ecstasy, that while it's all well and good for you to trip out on LSD to get closer to the goddess, things are different when it would involve your kids doing it, and lack of consequences or judgment for the behavior of others left your wallet being constantly stolen because someone else believed THEY needed it.

I keep wondering at what point most gays will stop and say, "You know, there might BE something to those 'traditional values' at which we used to laugh." But I seriously wonder when, since an epidemic of a killer STD wasn't enough to make us put on condoms, and full knowledge of what the end results of drug use is hasn't stopped us from shooting up or snorting at rates that frankly boggle the mind.

Perhaps it's because the only thing on which most gays can agree is that everything bad that happens to them is a) because they are gay and b) somebody else's fault.

Tim | December 20, 2006, 7:14am | #

NDT represents internalized homophobia at it's worst.

Michigan-Matt | December 20, 2006, 9:06am | #

Wow, NDXXX, what is it about the anti-God, religious bigots from the GayLeft taking cheap seat pot shots at you? They really have some problems with projection of self-loathing hatred... and there are more than a few kooks commenting here --I loved the one who offered he was an atheist and then tried to instruct you about what Jesus would or wouldn't do if personally present on this Earth. LOL. There's an idiot who needs to be in search of a brain. Let alone the ones like raj who get banned from site after site for his uncivil conduct.

I think S Miller does a great disservice to gays by tossing out this latest red meat to the rabid anti-God, religious bigots of the GayLeft.

If anyone takes a moment to listen instead of emoting bitter hatred and hate-mongering, they'd know that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is out-of-step with a large segment of the rank&file membership and Bishop Robinson's nonsensical disputation of convention is not the focus of their disgust... it's just another piece of straw on the camel's back. It's a symptom of the problem --not the problem as SMiller would like the GayLeft to believe. It is exactly as you put it, NDXXX. The growing leftward drift of the American Anglican Church is the issue for these two mainstream parishes.

When the message from the pulpit no longer resonates with the people in the pews, it's time to find more authenic moral leadership.

In my parish, we have nuns who think selective abortion is morally netural and that the church is best served by liberal politics, liberally practiced. I wish our parish could walk away from the Bishop, too. But I doubt if we took a vote, like the 2 Virginia churches did, that it'd be 90-92% in favor of detachment like it was with them... isn't that just self-determination?

I doubt the anti-God, religious bigots from the GayLeft commenting here will ever grow in maturity to understand or comprehend that simple and fundamental apsect of moral leadership. Sometimes, our leaders leave morality in the dooryard in order to embrace liberalizing tenets of politically correct policies. Given the GayLeft's moral relativism, I fear they'll never understand. It's why they can't understand the WOT or support the troops and their mission.

Tim | December 20, 2006, 9:14am | #

You are a sad, sad man.

raj | December 20, 2006, 9:48am | #

From today's Washington Post:

Episcopalians Against Equality

raj | December 20, 2006, 9:59am | #

Tim | December 20, 2006, 7:14am |

NDT represents internalized homophobia at it's worst.

Nah. It has been noticed on other web sites, and indeed by other commenters, that NDXXX, in addition to being an innumerate dissembler, is also what I refer to as being a blo(g)viater. That is, he posts numerous rambling lengthy comments asserting facts that are poorly--if ever--sourced, and draws conclusions from those poorly- or un-sourced facts that are generally rather silly. And he does it on and on and on until virtually everyone else is bored to tears and goes away. He almost always makes sure that he posts the last comment on the thread. He is obviously of the belief that the one that posts the most column-inches of comments, and who posts the last comment, on a comment thread, is the winner of the argument.

It is, to be true, a childish tack to take, but that's the way he is.

BTW, don't mind Matty from Michigan. Over at gay"patriot".net once, he tried to tell me that FDR was responsible for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was all I could do to stop from rolling on the floor laughing.

ColoradoPatriot | December 20, 2006, 10:06am | #

ND30: "However, we don't see Buddhist temples or pagan groves everywhere..."
I guess that depends on your perspective your f*cking asshole...here in Denver there are plenty of Temples (Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, Bhai, ets) and quite a few "groves" (wtf does that have to do with anything?). Thank you for exposing yourself to be the bigot with your comments towards religions other than Christianity...its nice to know how you really feel about "other" religions. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again but you know NOTHING about statistics and your attempts to hold an individual person up as an example of why a study is flawed prove that you have ZERO comprehension skills. You sir are a complete and total ass. Please take your hate speech and half-baked conspiracy theories to gaypatriot with the rest of you sycophantic brethren.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 11:26am | #

here in Denver there are plenty of Temples (Buddhist, Jewish, Pagan, Bhai, ets) and quite a few "groves" (wtf does that have to do with anything?).

Indeed there are. And there are a lot MORE Christian churches.

Thank you for exposing yourself to be the bigot with your comments towards religions other than Christianity...its nice to know how you really feel about "other" religions.

You're not dealing with a leftist or someone consumed by liberal guilt, ColoradoPatriot. There is a new generation of people out here who have realized that when you scream "bigot" or "homophobic", that's codespeak for, "I don't want this to be examined".

Why are you so afraid of the Charge of the Goddess being discussed? Don't you want people to know that gays like paganism because it makes of unrestricted sex and nakedness a religious act?

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again but you know NOTHING about statistics and your attempts to hold an individual person up as an example of why a study is flawed prove that you have ZERO comprehension skills.

What I am simply pointing out, CP, is that the survey results are contradicted by the reality of Randi's, Raj's, yours, and numerous other statements.

If the survey is correct, you and your fellow antireligious bigots are a distinct and tiny minority in the gay community. Your refusal to admit that and your insistence that you represent gay mainstream thought leads me to challenge the survey results.

NDT represents internalized homophobia at it's worst.

What you and yours need to realize, Tim, is that being able to criticize the actions of gays is not "homophobic".

And the minute you do realize that, you'll be amazed at what it does to our HIV rates, drug use, etc.

ColoradoPatriot | December 20, 2006, 11:42am | #

ND30: Hold on, you lost me again...you criticize me for calling you a bigot and then you turn around and level the same charge at me? You also accuse me of being anti-religious, please give me ANY (as any, at least, ONE) example of how you could accuse me of this. Please try to untangle this web that you have wove...are non-Christians not religious according to you? How would you justify being a Christian with your deep hatred of "other" religions? You ask, "Why are you so afraid of the Charge of the Goddess being discussed?" When have I ever given and indication to that point. I don't care about Pagans and their orgies, I don't care about the Charge of the Goddess and I don't care about your fruitless opinions. Are you honestly blaming HIV/AIDS on Pagans? What a joke you are. Please seek help for your severe mental illness.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 11:43am | #

North Dallas, don't ask me to make up your mind for you as to whether or not the study Dalea quoted is correct. A single person's motivations (mine) for hating religion are irrelevant to the judgment of its validity. That you are willing to make this judgment on that basis emblazens your irrationality and insincerity for all to see. You were the one adamantly insisting that the vast majority of gays are anti-religius bigots and no doubt down the road we'll hear you making that same lying assertion again.

Many gays feeling the same way I do is consistent with 30% of the respondents saying they are not affiliated with any religion - 30% of gays is many gays. To a lot of people atheist is a dirty word and many non-believers don't want to label themselves that way. Technically I am not an atheist myself seeing as I don't entirely rule out the possibility of some sort of a god - I am just certain there cannot be a god as described in judaism, christianity, and Islam. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere can exist.

You're wrong about Wiccans having no rules. They have one - do whatever you want but hurt no one. That is the essence of morality and it most certainly rules out the possibility of an HIV positive person having sex with another without telling them.

The abrahamic religions are on the other hand the essence of immorality. If you'll read the old testament its obvious that the abrahamic god is a psychotic trible god of war. Its page after page of "god" killing or ordering the killing of men, women, children and babies. An omniscient god that creates imperfect humans knowing they will break his rules and he will eternally torture them is the essence of evil. I'll take the Wiccan's "Do whatever you want but hurt no one" any day. If that were at the heart of eveyone's philosophy rather than Abrahamic religions there would be no war and conflict in the world.

Dalea, I am certain North Dallas is not Timothy Kincaid. I've never seen Timothy lie repeatedly like North Dallas and blame one person for what another has said, or for that matter to entirely make up things and claim someone has said them. Timothy documents his claims with something relevant and verifiable, unlike North Dallas. I've never knowin Timothy to adamantly blame all gays for the actions of a few gays.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 11:58am | #

North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 11:26am

We're sick of your straw man argumentation North Dallas. I never said I represented gay mainstream thought. I'm prepared to accept the survey results, what about you? You want to have it both ways, you want to argue that that I am a tiny minority and that the survey results are contradicted by my statements. You can't have it both ways and your schizophrenic argumentation is obvious for all to see.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 12:00pm | #

Where is Christ in all of this, by the way?

Christ is not a set of doctrines, he is a way of being, of living a life of self-sacrificing love for others. I do not sense this Christ in what the people in Falls Church and at Truro have done, or in the words of the new Bishop with whom they seek to align themselves. Rather, I sense bigotry and hate and a tendency to turn old doctrines into idols, and worship them, rather than actually following what Jesus advised his followers to do.

It's sad for the Episcopal Church, but I suppose that it's always a temptation for Christians to turn *something* into an idol, whether it's Bible, doctrine, hierarchy, or whatever, rather than taking up the real challenge of living a Christian life.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 12:02pm | #

And by the way, North dallas, a few people hating religion is entirely consistent with the survey results.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 1:14pm | #

You're wrong about Wiccans having no rules. They have one - do whatever you want but hurt no one. That is the essence of morality and it most certainly rules out the possibility of an HIV positive person having sex with another without telling them.

The problem is, Randi, that, in that model, you are the one who defines what "hurting others" is, since no one else is allowed to judge your actions. If you don't consider what you are doing to someone else to be hurting them, it's not a problem. Adultery is not wrong, for instance, because it can be rationalized as you helping out the wife whose husband isn't giving her enough sex; you aren't actually hurting the husband, only punishing him justly for his deeds, and you are giving the wife what she wants.

Christianity, on the other hand, very clearly defines and standardizes what hurt is. In reference to the example I just gave, adultery is expressly forbidden; indeed, Christians are exhorted to, when an opportunity like that presents itself, turn away from doing wrong to their neighbor and encourage the wife to seek a resolution within the bounds of her marriage.

But that delays sex and revenge, and that's why gays don't particularly like it -- and why a religion that has no arbitrary rules of conduct and depends on the definitions of the individual involved on what is and isn't good is so popular among them.

I never said I represented gay mainstream thought.

You're still dodging what I asked you to do, Randi; admit that you and yours are a tiny minority AND that your chosen reason for rejecting religion -- how you were treated based on your sexual orientation -- is fallacious, given the fact that you claim the majority of gays ARE religious.

The problem here is that leftists like you have had the floor way, way, WAY too long in the gay community. I want you to publicly admit that you are a tiny minority whose excuses for hating religion are not practiced by the vast majority of gays.

Michigan-Matt | December 20, 2006, 1:14pm | #

Tim writes to the cheap seats: "...he tried to tell me that FDR was responsible for the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was all I could do to stop from rolling on the floor laughing."

O/T a tad but hey Tim, if you can't read or learn from history and the extensive research done in the last 5 years by trained historians with access to FDR notes not available until 2000, so be it. Laugh away on FDR's complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor... the tin foil hat jiggles on your head comically when you do. It's kind of cute if pathetic.

Or wait... are you one of those DailyKos GayLeftBorg types that argues Bush designed the attacks on 9-11? Ahhhh, now it makes sense.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 1:23pm | #

ND30: Hold on, you lost me again...you criticize me for calling you a bigot and then you turn around and level the same charge at me?

Two individuals with remarkably-different actions.

You also accuse me of being anti-religious, please give me ANY (as any, at least, ONE) example of how you could accuse me of this.

How you've treated me and James.

Please try to untangle this web that you have wove...are non-Christians not religious according to you?

That depends entirely on how one chooses to define religion.

How would you justify being a Christian with your deep hatred of "other" religions?

This answers very nicely the "bigot" question from above.

All I have done is to simply point out that these other religions support things like orgies, public nakedness, etc. as expressions of belief -- but you consider that "hate".

Are you honestly blaming HIV/AIDS on Pagans?

No. But I am pointing out that their belief systems and practices are particularly suited to perpetuating it.

Michigan-Matt | December 20, 2006, 1:23pm | #

And not to be out done, Randi tosses up the ultimate "religious bigot, GayLeft Gone Wild" stance: "The abrahamic religions are on the other hand the essence of immorality. If you'll read the old testament its obvious that the abrahamic god is a psychotic trible god of war."

You actually believe this crap? You need to get out of freshman philosophy and mature, bub. That, or stop taking those lessons from the raj.

Michigan-Matt | December 20, 2006, 1:39pm | #

Nova, you ask a good question in "Where is Christ in all of this, by the way?"

By "this" you mean the effort of the two Virginia churches to break away from the left-leaning AC leadership? Or do you mean in the comments posted here by the fractal religious bigots from the GayLeft? If it's the latter, it's moot since those commenters have already offered they are alternatively: atheist, anti-God, religious bigots or some variation... we don't even have a couple of the usual GayLeft agnostics coming out here yet (but now that I've given them the option, I'm sure they'll glum on).

If it's the former, I think the churchmembers have made it clear that they think the more liberalized, less structured, less doctrinal, less Scripture based views of many of the current AC leaders are out of touch with Jesus and the central focus of his brief mission on Earth.

You offer an backhanded indictment of doctrinal teaching --I have to tell you, the current AC plan to "make it up as we go" ain't exactly a prudent course for religious formation.

We'll always have the arrogant "fixers" who want to rewrite doctrine into comfortable, non-challenging squishy set of "suggestions" for today's Christians... but like the mega-churches who preach the merits of personal greed and practice relativistic morality, these are people and ideas crafted for immediate consumption... like popcorn, it's gone and forgotten before the movie is over.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 1:49pm | #

A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere can exist.

If you look at Christian doctrine, Randi, there is really only one thing that you need to worry about doing, and it's outlined very clearly in John 3:16 - 21.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

What you are doing is what mankind has done since time immemorial, which is to use human reason to explain why you do NOT believe. But the simple fact of the matter is that, if God could be completely explained by human reason, He wouldn't be God; He'd be human.

Christ is not a set of doctrines, he is a way of being, of living a life of self-sacrificing love for others.

Novaseeker, you're a parent; what would happen, for instance, if you laid out a set of rules for your child, but made it clear that, if he broke them, there would be no consequences, and if he caused himself or others damage by breaking them, you would fix/clean/repair/pay for it?

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 1:50pm | #

But don't you see?

The anger that is generated over issues like this, the labelling, the in/out grouping ... it's fundamentally at odds with what we see Christ doing in the Gospel. It's hard to see it as Christian, and it's hard to distinguish it from what we see the Pharisees doing in the Gospels, and which Christ himself seemingly endlessly critiqued. If anything, Christ's message was "don't worry about details like that, worry about love and the rest will flow from that" ... it wasn't "hey, of course I criticized these religious people here who were focused on doctrine and law and that kind of stuff, and I gave them cute answers about 'love' and stuff like that, but that's just because they were the *wrong* doctrines and laws, and after I go, I perfectly expect and fully support that you will erect similar bodies of doctrines and laws, and exclude people because of them, because, hey, that's like different and stuff, 'mkay?".

I mean surely people are free to believe what they want to believe, and to emphasize what they wish to, but to my eyes it's glaringly at odds with the Christ we see in the Gospels. Alas, even the apostles were constantly trying to keep people away from Christ because they were tax collectors or prostitutes or children, and he constantly had to keep correcting them from doing so. Human nature changes slowly, it seems, if at all.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 1:54pm | #

"Novaseeker, you're a parent; what would happen, for instance, if you laid out a set of rules for your child, but made it clear that, if he broke them, there would be no consequences, and if he caused himself or others damage by breaking them, you would fix/clean/repair/pay for it?"

That's not on all fours with what is happening here, because it begs the question of what is "wrong" and "against the rules".

As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained? That's why these splits are happening ... it's because people think these are "against the rules" (and not just the canons). In this specific case, they're putting their idea of what the rules are ahead of showing love for others because they think that these rules, as they understand them, are more important.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 2:24pm | #

In this specific case, they're putting their idea of what the rules are ahead of showing love for others because they think that these rules, as they understand them, are more important.

In that case, Novaseeker, how do you explain these?

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Luke 17:1 - 2

He (Jesus) told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

John 4: 16 - 18

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

John 2: 13 - 16

Now, it wasn't very "loving" of Jesus to say such things about millstones, or point out that a woman was sleeping around, or physically assault people, now was it? Looks an awful lot like he was, oh, enforcing the rules, rather than just love, love, love, right?

What you and Robinson are doing, novaseeker, is trying to ignore what you don't like in Scripture and keep what you do. God becomes a kind, benevolent, permissive parent, who allows the child to do whatever they like and cleans up whatever mess they leave behind them.

Your question is a good example:

As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained?

What you are saying is that, because you are gay, you may believe that homosexual love is not wrong and is not a sin; plus, you are going to force the Anglican Church to allow you to be married or ordained, based on what you believe, and anyone who thinks otherwise you're going to blast as a "bigot" or "homophobe".

Now change "gay man" to "child molestor" and "homosexual love" to "child molestation". In order for you to be consistent with your, "if you think it's OK, it should be OK for everyone else" mantra, you now need to apply exactly the same there.

James | December 20, 2006, 2:25pm | #

Here's the point, Novaseeker, that you seem to be missing--being gay is OK; they are ways of expressing being gay which are MORALLY WRONG. It is morally wrong for older men to exploit teenagers. It is morally wrong for HIV+ not to inform their partners. It is morally wrong to have an open relationship. It is morally wrong for a gay couple to get divorced for any other reason than adultery. You will note that everything in this list is also morally wrong for straight couples. The gay community keeps screaming for acceptance, yet it is not willing to be accountable for those forms of homosexual, or just plain sexual, expression which are morally wrong. If someone suggests that Mark Foley was MORALLY WRONG to exploit teenagers under his care, we hear cries of homophobia and hypocrisy. On the one issue where you'd think even James Dobson and Rosie O'Donell could agree--that Mark Foley is a creepy old guy--we find the gay community more worried about homophobia than sexual abuse.

Does the gay community have any moral values upon which it bases its actions? Just asking. Is there form of homosexual activity that we all agree is simply wrong? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 2:32pm | #

North dallas, I never said others weren't allowed to judge. Its inherent in that philosophy that others judge and that's why there's a legal system to resolve disputes over whether or not someone has been harmed.

Adultery is clearly wrong under the harm no one philosophy, again you raise a straw man. I never said adultery was okay and yet you lie saying that's my belief based on my philosophy.

North Dallas said "You're still dodging what I asked you to do, Randi; admit that you and yours are a tiny minority AND that your chosen reason for rejecting religion -- how you were treated based on your sexual orientation -- is fallacious, given the fact that you claim the majority of gays ARE religious."

You really are a putz. Why would I lie about my motive for hating religion just to please you? What the majority of gays feel about religion has zero to do with how I feel about religion and why. You're the one dodging the issue - tell me, if its not the endless ranting about how its sinful to be gay, about how gays should be put to death, about how gays are going to burn in hell, about how we shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship, let alone get married because "god" says so, just what the is the reason you think I and other LGBTs despise your religion?!?!!

I said right from the beginning that you were wrong when you said the vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots. I pointed out that Dalea proved you wrong with the study he quoted and you insisted my statements proved the study wrong. I agreed all along that it seems likely that a most 30% of gays are anti-religious, now how about you, how about you admit you were wrong when you said the vast majority of gays are anti-religious? How about you admit you lied when you said "she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as "Stepford wives"."

North Dallas said
"Christianity...very clearly defines and standardizes what hurt is...Christians are exhorted to...turn away from doing wrong to their neighbor".

Exactly wrong. Christianity unconditionally opposes gay relationships without ever defining what the hurt is. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationship, loving and monogamous, or promiscous - it doesn't distinguish between the two. And if In fact contrary to your lie that Christians are exhorted to turn away from doing wrong to their neighbour Christianity says gays must be put to death when they are harming no one. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationships, loving and monogamous, or promiscous - it doesn't distinguish between the two. When a gay is condemned for having even one loving same sex relationship there is no additional disincentive to having many promiscuous relationships. The buy-bull by setting an unrealistic boundary of no gay sex in essence sets no boundary at all.

Michigan Matt at December 20, 2006, 1:23pm said "You actually believe this crap?"

Matt, to name but a tiny portion of crap in your buy-bull, examples of your psychotic god of war:

Numbers 31: 1,9,10,11,16-18

Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
Deuteronomy 20: 13,14
Joshua 8: 24
Joshua 11: 12,20

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 2:43pm | #

Exactly wrong. Christianity unconditionally opposes gay relationships without ever defining what the hurt is. Your buy-bull indiscriminately opposes all gay relationship, loving and monogamous, or promiscous - it doesn't distinguish between the two.

So you're saying, Randi, that the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, and the Episcopal Church, all of which claim to be Christian, unconditionally oppose gay relationships and gay sex?

This is why leftists like you need to be minimized, Randi; your tendency to use being gay as an excuse for your socially-unacceptable and hate-filled bigotry is screwing us over immensely. You and your fellow antireligious gays are so hateful towards Christians, you mock even denominations who allegedly ARE OK with gay relationships and gay sex as worshiping a "psychotic god of war", and say that their beliefs are "buy-bull".

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 2:48pm | #

If someone suggests that Mark Foley was MORALLY WRONG to exploit teenagers under his care, we hear cries of homophobia and hypocrisy.

Correction. If Mark Foley were a DEMOCRAT, we'd have heard cries of "homophobia" and "hypocrisy", just as happens when you bring up the example of Gerry Studds or Barney Frank. Moral outrage in the gay community is a function of political and religious affiliation, and has nothing to do with application of a consistent moral code.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 2:59pm | #

North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 2:24pm said "Now change "gay man" to "child molestor" and "homosexual love" to "child molestation". In order for you to be consistent with your, "if you think it's OK, it should be OK for everyone else" mantra, you now need to apply exactly the same there.".

Your comparing being gay to child molestation is outrageous hateful bigotry. Being gay harms no one, child molestation clearly does. Marrying the one person a gay loves most harms no one, it is morally acceptable and good. The immoral people are those who seek to control lives other than their own when no one is getting hurt. They want the unjust right to massively affect someones life, their right to marry, when it affects them not at all.

James, you're deluded. No where did any gay person defend Mark Foley with cries of homophobia. No where does your buy-bull say being gay is okay, it says all gay love is morally wrong and the vast majority of christians agree with that. It doesn' matter how moral and monogamous you are, they despise and mock you for being gay regardless. You need to learn who your friends and enemies are, you have it exactly backwards.

Alex | December 20, 2006, 3:07pm | #

So you're saying, Randi, that the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, and the Episcopal Church, all of which claim to be Christian, unconditionally oppose gay relationships and gay sex?

As a Unitarian Universalist born and bred I can tell you that very few members (either congregations or individuals) will make the claim to be Christian.

There is, in fact, an important difference between the approach to religion of the groups you mentioned and the Literalists (aka: Fundementalist Christians).

They believe in the inerrency of the Bible, usually in all arena's: Moral, historic, and scientific.

In Unitarian Universalist circles, we believe that religion needs to be a grounding and inspiring force, but does need to be evaluated in light of current knowledge and conditions. The bible is insperational...inspired even...but not literal.

As Rev. John Burhens put it: "The bible is not literally true, but it is eternally true."

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 3:08pm | #

Your comparing being gay to child molestation is outrageous hateful bigotry. Being gay harms no one, child molestation clearly does.

Ah, but Randi, you're JUDGING again. Remember, you and your fellow leftists say that you have no right to pass judgment on anyone else's personal life or sexual desires. Why are you trying to control the lives of others, when it's not your own that's being affected? How does a child that isn't yours being molested have one bit of anything to do with you? Why do you feel the need to "butt in" and "massively affect someone else's life" when it doesn't affect you?

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 3:15pm | #

"Here's the point, Novaseeker, that you seem to be missing--being gay is OK; they are ways of expressing being gay which are MORALLY WRONG. It is morally wrong for older men to exploit teenagers. It is morally wrong for HIV+ not to inform their partners. It is morally wrong to have an open relationship. It is morally wrong for a gay couple to get divorced for any other reason than adultery. You will note that everything in this list is also morally wrong for straight couples."

But what does that have to do with the split of these parishes from ECUSA? Is Gene Robinson in an open relatiionship, exploiting teenagers and the like? No, he isn't. Yet it's an outrage to these people that he was ordained simply because he is a non-celibate gay man.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 3:18pm | #

North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 2:43pm.

Those Christians represent a tiny minority of Christians, the vast majority are anti-gay bigots. Your buy-bull is clear, all gay relationships are condemned, loving and monogamous or otherwise. No wonder you're so full of anger and self-loathing, you follow scriptures that loath and condemn you regardless of whether you hurt anyone or not.

Deuteronomy 7: 2
"When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it - don't make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 3:19pm | #

"Now, it wasn't very "loving" of Jesus to say such things about millstones, or point out that a woman was sleeping around, or physically assault people, now was it? Looks an awful lot like he was, oh, enforcing the rules, rather than just love, love, love, right?"

Actually the one case where he lost his temper he was very much enforcing the rules, and the rules had to do with making religion a mockery.

Regarding the woman at the well, note the lack of condemnation. Clearly there is disapproval, but there isn't condemnation. There isn't "I can't be in communion with you, you unrepentant sinner" ... as we see in these congregations.

ColoradoPatriot | December 20, 2006, 3:19pm | #

Still waiting for some citations from you ND30...I asked you for ONE example of how I am anti-religious. You came back with, "you treat me and James bad." What a complete tool and worthless liar. So, here's a challenge for you numb-nuts, prove that ANY statement you've EVER made here about ANYTHING with some sort of documentation other than your own blog...can you do that at least?

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 3:26pm | #

North Dallas said "you and your fellow leftists say that you have no right to pass judgment on anyone else's personal life or sexual desires. Why are you trying to control the lives of others, when it's not your own that's being affected? How does a child that isn't yours being molested have one bit of anything to do with you? Why do you feel the need to "butt in" and "massively affect someone else's life" when it doesn't affect you?"

I never said any such thing you liar. I said "Do whatever you want but harm no one".

No one has a right to massively or minorly affect anyone's life when no one is being hurt, its that simple. That's the essence of morality and you can't find a single example of a problem with that morality without your leaving out the "but harm no one" commandment.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 3:34pm | #

"What you and Robinson are doing, novaseeker, is trying to ignore what you don't like in Scripture and keep what you do. God becomes a kind, benevolent, permissive parent, who allows the child to do whatever they like and cleans up whatever mess they leave behind them.

Your question is a good example:

As a gay man, do you believe homosexual love is wrong, is a sin, and should bar people from being able to be married or ordained?

What you are saying is that, because you are gay, you may believe that homosexual love is not wrong and is not a sin; plus, you are going to force the Anglican Church to allow you to be married or ordained, based on what you believe, and anyone who thinks otherwise you're going to blast as a "bigot" or "homophobe"."

Again, I ask you the question: do you think it is immoral or not?

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 3:40pm | #

Actually the one case where he lost his temper he was very much enforcing the rules, and the rules had to do with making religion a mockery.

Sort of like what happens when a gay bishop misquotes Scripture to claim that Jesus was gay and the Apostle John was his lover, or claims that the Mass and other trappings of the Episcopal Church predate the books of the Bible, and thus should substitute for or supplant it, or supports people who make of God a "psychotic god of war" and who call Christianity "buy-bull".

But then again, I thought your point was that there were no rules, that everyone was free to do as they saw fit, and that the church had to accept it. Isn't that what "self-sacrificing love" means?

Regarding the woman at the well, note the lack of condemnation. Clearly there is disapproval, but there isn't condemnation. There isn't "I can't be in communion with you, you unrepentant sinner" ... as we see in these congregations.

Go read John 8:11, and tell me what it says at the end.

And to wrap up, CP:

So, here's a challenge for you numb-nuts, prove that ANY statement you've EVER made here about ANYTHING with some sort of documentation other than your own blog.

The citations I've taken from the Bible.

Hey, you asked for it. :)

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 3:57pm | #

North Dallas said "Sort of like what happens when a gay bishop misquotes Scripture to claim that Jesus was gay and the Apostle John was his lover, or claims that the Mass and other trappings of the Episcopal Church predate the books of the Bible, and thus should substitute for or supplant it, or supports people who make of God a "psychotic god of war" and who call Christianity "buy-bull".".

I knew it wouldn't take long and you'd start lying and blaming other people for stuff I said. "People" didn't say that, I did, me, I'm solely responsbile for it. Don't go trying to blame all gays for it. And Gene Robinson didn't support me saying that, that's yet another lie of yours. By the way now that I've repeatedly acknowledged that no more than 30% of gays, according to the study dalea quoted, hate religion like I do, its time you acknowledged you were wrong when you said "the vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots" and that you lied when you said "she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as "Stepford wives"."

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 4:05pm | #

Again, I ask you the question: do you think it is immoral or not?

Actually, what you asked this time is a different question than your first, novaseeker.

In answer to your question, gay sex, or being gay, in my opinion, is no more inherently immoral than its heterosexual counterparts. It's what you do with it that can render it immoral, just like heterosexual sex.

That being said, though, I do not believe that churches are under any implicit or explicit requirement to sanctify gay marriage or ordain gay people. I base this on two things; one, the fact that the Bible does explicitly mention and sanction heterosexual marriage, but not gay marriage, and two, Paul's injunctions of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10 about the wise exercise of Christian freedom.

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 4:43pm | #

No one has a right to massively or minorly affect anyone's life when no one is being hurt, its that simple.

Well, according to such gay luminaries as Harry Hay, sexual encounters with older men were exactly what little boys needed to reach their full potential, and were in fact not harmful at all.

Hence the problem. In Harry Hay's version of paganism, "harm no one" did not place any sort of prohibition on sex with little boys, and in fact, was encouraged as a help to them. When "harm" is defined solely by the individual carrying out the behavior, there is no reason for restraint and no limit to the human mind's endless capacity for rationalization.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 4:56pm | #

North Dallas, don't forget the Christian "morality" demonstrated in 2 Samuel 6,7

"But when they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled and Uzzah put out his hand to steady the Ark. Then the anger of the Lord flared out against Uzzah and he killed him for doing this, so he died there beside the Ark."

Talk about morality, God's faithful servant tries to protect his holy Ark from damage and God kills him for it. And let's not forget Exodus 1,2

"Then the lord said to Moses, "Go back again and make your demand upon Pharoah, but I have hardened him and his officials so that I can do more miracles demonstrating my power. What stories you can tell your children and grandchildren about the incredible things I am doing in Egypt! Tell them what fools I made of the Egyptians and how I proved to you that I am Jehovah."

Yeah, that's morality all right, force the humans into conflict so you can show off how powerful you are.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 5:00pm | #

"Actually, what you asked this time is a different question than your first, novaseeker.

In answer to your question, gay sex, or being gay, in my opinion, is no more inherently immoral than its heterosexual counterparts. It's what you do with it that can render it immoral, just like heterosexual sex.

That being said, though, I do not believe that churches are under any implicit or explicit requirement to sanctify gay marriage or ordain gay people. I base this on two things; one, the fact that the Bible does explicitly mention and sanction heterosexual marriage, but not gay marriage, and two, Paul's injunctions of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10 about the wise exercise of Christian freedom."

So your approach is that authentic Christian teaching requires gay people to be celibate, I take it? Or is it something else? I'm just trying to understand what your own view is.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 5:10pm | #

No one said harm is defined solely by the person doing the behavior, you idiot. Harm is defined by the person being harmed and by the judges and legal system that is necessary to mediate disputes. You ignorant hateful bigot, the vast majority of gays, like the vast majority of straights alike acknowledge that a child isn't able to make an informed decision to have sex with an adult and that its harmful. Your wild distortions trying to portray pedophilia as generally supported by the gay community are indicative of your mental illness.

Harry Hay doesn't speak for anyone other then himself and I certainly don't believe your uncited word for what he might have said anyway. On the other hand the pope speaks for most Christians and he says you're intrinsically disordered and I agree. You're so used to being abused by Christians and your buy-bull you've got stockholm syndrome and you're identifying with your abusers.

Randi Schimnosky | December 20, 2006, 5:25pm | #

My previous comment was to North Dallas at December 20, 2006, 4:43pm

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 5:26pm | #

So your approach is that authentic Christian teaching requires gay people to be celibate, I take it? Or is it something else? I'm just trying to understand what your own view is.

I take the same view of celibacy that Jesus did.

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Matthew 19:11 - 12

Or, as Martin Luther put it, "Marriage is good, virginity is better, but purity of heart is best."

Simply phrased, sex has an enormous capacity to work itself in and elbow your responsibility to God and your fellow man out. What Jesus is saying in this example is that you should, with that in mind, practice sexual restraint to the level that you are able. However, Jesus, as the Son of God, is fully aware that not all people are gifted with celibacy -- and that is why He talks about the importance of committed relationships in the passages prior. Indeed, it's one of the few areas where he tightens the rule from the Old Testament.

So, to summarize, celibacy is not required, because not everyone can be celibate. However, the fact that celibacy isn't required doesn't mean that all other responsibilities and restrictions are out the window. Luther rather wryly pointed out how much easier on several levels it was to be a monk or priest and have celibacy than have to deal with the travails of a significant other and family. Jesus's point was exactly that; with terrestrial pleasure comes terrestrial pains and responsibility.

Novaseeker | December 20, 2006, 5:40pm | #

"However, the fact that celibacy isn't required doesn't mean that all other responsibilities and restrictions are out the window."

I understand that, but if you think that what you wrote above is the authentic Christian teaching that applies to gay sexual relationships as well as straight ones (which is actually rather close to my own view), then what do you think that the position of churches should be on this issue?

North Dallas Thirty | December 20, 2006, 6:02pm | #

No one said harm is defined solely by the person doing the behavior, you idiot.

Really? Where in the pagan morality