Okay, last chance, taking all bets. Anybody have any final guesses of what’s gonna happen?
God bless.

While the flesh if finite, the soul is infinite.
I imagine what will eventually happen is this; people will continue to grow old and die, some later than others, and when we do we will come to know the Divine on the terms in which we are most strongly called to him/her/it. The equality and unity of the universal soul permeating all of existence will wash away the petty needs and divisions our limited minds knew in our mortal life. As our souls are released from the fleshy coil we inhabit, we will, for an instant or an eternity, become suffused with all that is, was, and ever shall be. When that happens, on whatever terms we understand it to happen, questions about racial differences, religious differences, gender differences, or sexual orientation differences will cease to matter. We will be whole, complete, as raindrops returned to the sea.
While I care passionately about attaining equality for all people here on Earth, I know that my existence is but a tiny beat within the heart of time.
But on a more here-and-now level;
Whatever these religious institutions choose to do should be their own decision. I believe in Freedom of Religion, and the freedom religions have to set their own standards without government interference; and vice versa. Whatever changes will come to various faiths grappling with questions of same-sex marriage, or divorce, they must inevitably come from within.

IMO, they will probably split.
This isn’t the first time (nor will it be the last) that those who advocate for the letter of the law (as they understand it) and those who advocate for the spirit of the law (as they understand it) find it difficult, if not impossible, to reach an agreement and live in harmony together. And, I can’t help but feel that the Creator just shakes his/her (figurative) head in sorrow at the squabbling.

This article is riddled with errors of fact.
The House of Bishops meets regularly. They did not convene to discuss homosexuality.
The Anglican Communion only dates to the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. All the Churches of the Anglican Communion are independent, autonomous, and self-governing. The Anglican Communion is a voluntary association of those churches descended from the Church of England.
The genuine dispute is about power: who gets to decide who’s in, who’s out, who can be ordained, who cannot be. There is still lingering misogyny, and all the break-away parishes/dioceses are also places that do not welcome the ordination of women.
The story also ignores the fact that in most American parishes, this is all a media frenzy that has nothing to do with the routine attendance, acts of charity, and normal living.

Richard, thanks for a bit of a reality check. And Nightlad, I want your hereafter. I just don’t happen to believe in it.

Thank you, nnmns, that is kind.
I just would like, please, to emphasize: the House of Bishops did not convene to discuss homosexuality. They meet regularly. This is their next regularly scheduled meeting. And it happens to be in New Orleans, which with the current weather forecast may require a speedy decampment.
The various Provinces of the Anglican Communion, while descended from the Church of England, formed independently. Indeed, the American branch, formed after the Revolution and had to go to the Anglican Church in Scotland to get Bishops, since canon law of the Church of England at the time required an Oath of Obedience to the British Monarch as part of the episcopal consecration rite. Needless to say, Americans after 1776 had a problem with that requirement. The other Provinces have similar histories.
No such thing as an Anglican Communion existed from the days of Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer until the reign of Queen Victoria; even then, the first couple Lambeth Conferences had a limited invitation and attendance list.
The Anglican Communion is not a hierarchical church like the Roman Catholic church nor even the Eastern Orthodox. We all accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as our liturgical & honorary President, but each province has it’s own polity, organization, and authority. Which contributes to the messiness of the current situation.

I think they will seperate. People who are Christian and otherwise are aware that love and respect for our friends and loved ones must be stood up for and it is right to see that they receive the same respect, and love that we heterosexuals have had for eons. Tonight I watched the Mayor of San Diego break-up in tears on news, as he announced he is backing SS marriage before the Supreme Court of CA. He decided to “lead with his heart”, and revealed his daughters orientation. He formerly indicated he would use his veto power to block SS marriage, but decided that to do so would make his beloved daughter’s rights less than he and his wife enjoy. He couldn’t do it. God bless him, and I know He will. So what has this to do with the Episcopal Church? Everything!! This is the time to be counted in what is right, what is love, not how much money is involved in staying together and being a Church that is choking on old doctrine that is hurting their friends, and family and other loved ones. Do what is right and see how God will bless you and everyone else.

The other piece of info missing from the article is that the Global South (basically the Anglican Churches in Africa) has already said that it will not participate in the upcoming Lambeth Conference. So, it appears that these bishops that have raised such a fuss have already walked away from the Anglican Communion. A very large part of their given reason is that we in the USA have a female presiding bishop and they do not recognize females as being worthy of ordination.
To add to/clarify what Richard has already said, the three dioceses – San Joaquin, based in Fresno, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Quincy, Illinois, said they were leaving the TEC when our presiding bishop, a female, was elected.
Peace!

Henrietta, a powerful statement. Bravo.

There is no difference in the law and the spirit of the law, smoke and mirror to support a lifestyle contrary to biblical teachings. These people from this church who believe accepting Jesus is not the only way to salvation are simply not Christians. They go against Jesus’ very words. The Bible warns of just such teachings, and it certainly warns against homosexuality. The major of San Diego only proves he can do the right thing until his family starts doing the wrong thing. I can’t see why they want to claim to be Christians if the don’t believe in Christ, because if they believe they would believe “no man comes to the Father but through Me.” They only believe in themselves and that they have the power to change God’s word.

cknuck:
They said the exact same thing about interracial marriage 60 years ago. I know you are already grinding your teeth, but read on just one more moment: back then it was about skin color, today it’s about what a person has between their legs, and neither of those limited views addressed the only valid point; it is about the love two people share in their hearts.
The mayor of San Diego would have only been doing the ‘wrong thing’ if he were to start influencing Civil, Secular Law based on his, or your, religious beliefs. Strip away the dogma, and what is your basis for calling homosexuality “wrong”? It makes about as much sense as saying somebody who is left-handed is “wrong.” (And people did just that for hundreds of years!) Because my orientation is not in the majority, it does not make me any less natural or deserving of respect.
I’m not coming to your Church demanding they marry me. Why must you come to mine and demand they don’t?
(I’m not Episcopalian, but its a valid anology.)
nnmns
You can also consider my words as an analogy for a more scientific standpoint; energy cannot be created or destroyed. What is that binding force that keeps our bodies full and functioning while we draw breath, but when we cease, our bodies return to their base elements within a matter of days? There are numerous working theories, but nobody can really say for ‘sure.’ Whatever animating essence is at work within our cells it must not simply ‘vanish’ into the ether when we die; it must dissipate, like an electrical charge. To where? Outward. From where? Within. After considering this view, the rest of what comes ‘next’ is up to you and your guess would (in all honesty) be just as valid as any other. Mine included.

NightLad,
You being left handed doesn’t in any way affect the sanctity of a holy institution (marriage). Unlike gay-marriage, being left handed doesn’t have greater social ramifications.
Also, they HAVE been coming to various churches demanding the right to be married, and the Episcopal church is one that said, “Fine, we’ll do it.”
Now, if the Episcopal church wants to do that, it has every right to do so, but it’s costing them members left and right. I attended an Episcopalian church myself until one day I realized I just couldn’t take such liberal interpretations anymore. One day I turned on C-Span and saw a debate on abortion, and I was shocked to see that the person defending it was an Episcopal priest. A gay, female priest, advocating abortion. At that point it became clear that they’ve lost their handle on things, and so I found my way to the Roman Catholic Church.

Bob-
It is great that you found a home in the Roman Catholic church, if the Episcopal church was not the right place for you. However, as a lifelong Episcopalian, it is my home….and, I completely support the efforts of our leadership to include all God’s children in our church.
Most Episcopal churches do not bless same-gender marriages. Though that will probably change. However, this whole issue is not really about same-gender marriage…..nor, is it about gay clergy. It is about who has authority over us and the authority to define us. As I have already pointed out, the three dioceses that want to leave are leaving more because we have a female presiding bishop.
I assume the “they” you are referrencing in: “Also, they HAVE been coming to various churches demanding the right to be married, ….” are gays. I have not seen or heard anything about this….care to provide a source?
Yes, ~55 churhes of the ~7,000 in the USA have left. Not really a significant number. Do not worry, The Episcopal Church is vibrant, active, and moving forward. If some people believe that another church is a better fit for them individually…so be it. And, God Bless them.
Peace!

Bob, I expect the “gay, female priest” was advocating the right to abortion; I don’t know of anyone who advocates abortion in general. And of course individual cases rarely end up on C-Span. And it’s good religious people and others do advocate the right to abortion; rights are important things – lots of people have died for our rights. And of course you have the right to not have an abortion, as does your wife. But if she or your daughter got raped, for instance, they might be glad they also have the right to get one.
As for your becoming an RC, that’s great too. We, happily, have the right to try different religions till we find one we like, and there are soo many to try. And of course we also have the happy choice to reject them all. It’s great to be an American.

Bob
Your religion is entitled to interpret the term ‘marriage’ in accordance with your religious tenants, dogma, and beliefs. You are free to put into practice that working definition in whatever context you feel directed to by your God, and the regulations of your specific denomination. That is your right, under Freedom of Religion, and I support it.
Your faith does not have a copyright on the word Marriage. No society, culture or religion on Earth owns “marriage.” The concept of Marriage predates Christianity, and it has been interpreted very widely across the world, even unto this day.
Even within our own Western bubble, marriage has undergone radical changes in the past century. At one point, women were legally not considered “people” and their inclusion in Marriage was on par with property; at one point, marriage was held exclusively between people of the same race, while intermarriage was illegal; at one point, divorce from marriage was illegal and all but unheard of. These are but a few examples.
These changes have come to Marriage in the past century and they have radically changed its definition to what we have now, both in the Secular, Civil arena, as well as throughout various faith groups. However, I would suggest that instead of ‘changing’ marriage as an institution, they merely expanded its ever-growing definition.
In a Civil, Secular sense, no feasibly justifiable reason can be suggested for limiting two law abiding, legally consenting adults from being wed on no other basis than what they have between their legs. A Canadian Prime Minister once said, “The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” and I could not agree more.
It is difficult for me to imagine how people can advocate exclusively limiting Civil, Secular Marriage to opposite sex couples. This is to suggest that a same-sex couple who’ve been in a loving, committed relationship for 40+ years is entitled to less respect than 2 drunken strangers who get married at a Vegas drive-through ‘just for kicks.’ This is to suggest that such a couple is entitled to less rights than a Death-Row Inmate who met some woman through pen-pal correspondence, and is allowed to marry her via phone, as they will never physically be allowed to touch.
Same-gender couples pay all the taxes you do, obey all the same laws you do, send their children to the same school as yours, (I’m gay, not sterile) work in the same community you do, and pay into the same social-insurance and pension fund you do – but if one spouse dies, the other is left with nothing, and may even live in fear of their children being taken away.
For no other reason than because their genitals match.
There is also the valuable point of religions that do accept and celebrate same-sex marriage. By legally limiting marriage to an opposite-gender couple, what about the Religious Rights of faiths that disagree?
I am quite sure that if any Civil, Secular Law was lobbied to trampled your ability to freely practice your religion, you’d be screaming “Separation of Church and State” at the top of your lungs! Well, humor aside, this is exactly what many religions that welcome same-sex couples are facing.
The social ramifications you alluded to, which I can only assume are negative, have not come to pass in any of the nations that have expanded the Civil definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Even in Canada, whose society mirrors America’s closer than any other nation on Earth, the ‘devastating social changes’ that were predicted by ardently opposed parties have been dispelled in the years since same-sex inclusion.
Two of my neighbours are married lesbians (one of them raised Roman Catholic), with 2 children, and I sleep quite soundly.
As for the GLBT people who’ve asked for inclusion within religious denominations; it is my understanding that these individuals were already members of those religious communities, most of them born and raised. The requests are coming from within those religions, not from without. If change is to happen to the way a religion regards same-sex marriage, it is my belief that the change must (and can only) come from within.
Be blessed.

I think they will not split institutionally, but there will be a profound emotional/spiritual split. The institutional split will not happen because they will be so focused on being nice, considerate and polite with each other.
Is it not symbolic / ironic / telling that a storm is swirling toward them, threatenening to shorten the gathering? If this were a movie it would be lambasted as a cheesy metaphor. Sometimes reality is far more fun than fiction.
Cheers to His Honor from San Diego! I applaud his realization that his daughter’s relationship with him, with her partner, and with a wide and strong community is more significant than an abstract and invalid dictum from long dead politicians.

jestrfyl-
“The institutional split will not happen because they will be so focused on being nice, considerate and polite with each other.”
I hope you are correct about each side being nice, considereate and polite with each other. Unfortunately this will require a change from what has been occuring over the last four plus years. It is unfortunate when religious leaders seem to believe that a difference in idiology permits one to disrepect another.
Peace!

Bob,
“You being left handed doesn’t in any way affect the sanctity of a holy institution (marriage).”
Firstly, CIVIL marriage is not a “holy institution”. Regardless, it seems you believe gay people ‘de-sanctify’ the institution. I would like to know how it is we do that? I married within my Churc. My pastor was my best man. His boss (the equivalent of a Cardinal or Arcbishop) married us.
“Unlike gay-marriage, being left handed doesn’t have greater social ramifications.”
What social ramifications ARE ther in treating ALL citizens equally under the law? Isn’t that what the Constitution ‘guarantees?

Richard,
“The House of Bishops meets regularly. They did not convene to discuss homosexuality.”
They DIDN’T???
This from the earlier article on B’net…
“The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who heads the Church of England and serves as spiritual leader to the world’s nearly 77 million Anglicans, will travel to New Orleans for two days of closed-door meetings with the bishops.
Williams is charged with unifying the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion, a task that has grown more difficult as clashes continue over the 2003 election of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man in New Hampshire.
Among the issues Williams and the U.S. bishops will hash out in New Orleans are:
– Has the Episcopal Church promised that it will not elect any more gay bishops?
– Will Episcopalians pledge not to authorize any rites for blessing same-gender couples?
– Will the Episcopal Church create a separate leadership structure for dissident conservatives?”
Sure SEEMS like they met to discuss homosexuality.

My mother and her family were Episcopalian. We joined the Episcopalian Church in ’89. We loved it and fit like a glove, the Bishop over the area in Los Angeles came to Central Coast and blessed us into the family with others. He cared about and talked for the Gay people. The Priest of our Church did not. In essence our Church was split, but not vocally. In time we moved to the mid-west, and tried two Episcopalian Churches here, they were vocal and unloving. If the E. Church would ever change to a congregation that is found in Robinson’s Church, one that is showing the love of God, I might be able to get my husband to return to it.

I have been and Episcolapian all my life, served on vestries and taught confirmation classes, but my family and I were recieved into the Catholic Church in 2004. The figure of only 55 parishes listed above is indeed not reflective of the impact this has had on the churches. My old church, Holy Trinity in Churchville, Maryland is still “in” the diocese, but 10 families and most of the major donors in a small church have left and the chruch is in serious financial trouble. I think the American bishops will try to issue some classically vague statement and hope the Archbishop buy’s it and invites the ECUSA to the Lambeth conference, then if the global south refused to come, the American bishops can say “see we are not breaking up the communion, they are.” The whole thing comes down to will the Archbishop accepts whatever the Americans come up with or not. Everything is riding on who he invites or doesn’t invite to Lambeth – either way I see a split is coming.

Henrietta22-
My sister married a very nice Jewish man who was not particularly religious. She was looking for a religious organization for them to join that would provide good value structure for their kids.
She attended an Episcopal church close to their home and was taken back at their lack of compassion. She commented that they were preaching against people rather then teaching good family values and worshiping God.
She ended up converting to Judaism and they joined a nice synagogue that she says more closely follows the teachings of Christ than the “Christian” Episcopal church in their neighborhood.
I have been fortunate, the Episcopal churches that I have attended through out the country have always been welcoming to all.
Peace!

The Episcopal Church (ECUSA)passed a resolution in 1979 that stated: “There should be no barrier to the ordination of qaulified persons of either heterosexual or homosexual orientation whose behavior the Church considers wholesome.” It went on to say: “We believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.”
The 1979 resolution is fairly plain and straight forward. The ambiguity remains, though, because each diocese is free to abide by or ignore the resolution.
Countering the American trends, the worldwide Anglican Communion (Lambeth Conference) endorsed a resolution in 1998, upholding “faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union.” The resolution rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture. It went on to say that it could not “advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unnion, nor the ordination of thse involved in same-gender unions.”
The Anglican Primates in 2004 called for the ECUSA to revoke their decision to consecrate a homosexual bishop and issued a statement affirming the biblical teaching regarding homosexuality.
The ECUSA is wrong in its actions. The Primates conclude by saying: “Their deliberate disobedience of the revealed Word of God in the Holy Sciptures is a flagrant departure from the consensual and clearly communicated mind and will of the Anglican Communion. The ECUSA has willfully torn ‘the fabric of the communion at its deepest level,’ and as a consequence openly cut themselves adrift and broken the sacramental fellowship of the Communion.”
It’s obvious that the revisionist, homosexual elements of the ECUSA have separated themselves from the mainstream Christian faith. The truth of Romans 1:24-25 remains clear for all who have “ears to hear and eyes to see” it.

nnmns, you know me all to well, true I always grit my teeth when people try to compare race with homosexuality, there is no comparison. I couldn’t follow your energy analogy but I’m sure it was well thought out you are a thoughtful person. But the whole inter-racial and racial issues have nothing to do with homosexuality, one has to do with sex (it’s in the name) and the other with race, period. There’s a whole lot of things you can do with sex you cannot with race.
In my religion (which is important to me) God created sex but not homosexuality. Also in my religion homosexuality was a product of sin, church is about religion so I can talk about it. Gotta go duty calls but I’ll be back to further explain my position and why inter-racial marriage is different from SS.

I quit attending the episcopalian church before this became an issue. I attended the down town church which was large because I loved the church itself. I finally though got fed with the dean shaking my hand while looking over my head at the more “popular” people. I had returned to this church from the baptist one I attended with my husband. When he stopped attending I took the kids back to my church. I pushed them through all the hoopla they were supposed to do, but never really felt a part of the whole picture. I didn’t tithe what I was supposed to you see, that was the deciding factor, never mind that by now I was a single very low income parent.
I have seen the hypocrisy of the church long before that too. My sister went to get married at the same church I did and the Dean argued why should he marry her when I didn’t attend his church… never mind that I was still going to a church.
Cknuck, going against race or sex were part of the church history. People were forbidden to marry and it was put about that blacks were beneath and unclean compared to the white people and the bible was used to verify it.
So how is it different?? I will take a loving gay couple married any day over someone who marries and splits in the same year. it is about commitment not sex. How dare your religion tell hundreds of people that they can’t have what you have. It is bigoted, repulsive, discriminatory among many other things.

cknuck, thanks for the kind words! But the post to which I think you refer was by NightLad, certainly a thoughtful person.

thanks nmns you’re right and he is thoughtful.
Ruairi, regardless to what whites thought African Americans had their own churches (not a bad idea huh?) Homosexuals don’t have what heterosexual couples have simply because they are of the same sex. They cannot do what heterosexual couples do naturally and just aren’t the same. Inter-racial couples that are heterosexual are totally different then homosexual couples. If homosexuality was normal then there would be the possibility of the same population as heterosexuals, and they would be able to reproduce. This reproduction by homosexuals is not in God’s plan, but of course as usual man will defy God and try to make it so. You cannot have a monogamist homosexual relationship and produce a child; that was not an accident but a purposeful design by God. So marriage in it’s truest sense cannot be obtained by homosexuals. And while one might argue many heterosexual don’t have this true form of matrimony and be right, that still does not change the Godly design, it just accents that it is hard to obtain this precious jewel, true marriage. I can see why homosexuals would want it but nevertheless they just don’t fit the design.

So if a heterosexual couple are unable to have a child they shouldn’t be considered married because they are not following the “Godly design”?
Of course, that would never happen because having kids isn’t what most people see as the most important part of marriage. It is the committment of love between two people. It is shear ignorance to deny a couple the daily rights married couples have because they are the same sex. Children can be achieved using artifical methods or adoption by any couple unable to have them naturally.
The main point of all of this though is the fact many of us could care less what your God demands. The Christian religion is shoving their ideas of right and wrong down the throats of those who don’t believe in it.
Marriage should be civil primarily and then if you wish to be married by a priest have at it.
And no I am not gay, I am married for the second time. The first husband was a cheat and abusive, but hey he was a man so that marriage was sacred! Bull&*(&

No it is not a requirement for marriage to have children, it’s a product of the design of marriage. This is an old tricky comeback that is just not well thought out. Thank God that more married people have children then not but it’s not (thank God again) all married couples that reproduce, nevertheless they are still in God’s design if they are one man one woman.
Shear ignorance is harsh I hardly think it is a description that fit me, nor most who have given thought to this subject from either side of it.
I have never shoved anything down anyone’s throat, (not even the veggies my kid left on his plate, although I gave it some thought, I resisted.) I have the right to express my faith on a belief driven media, that’s why I come here. Also where ever I go I do, if given the opening, express my faith. Now by opening I mean if someone else is expressing a point that I may or may not agree with. then I too express myself, (I believe I’m legally covered on that one.)

“Inter-racial couples that are heterosexual are totally diferent than homosexual couples.”
Unless, of course, that the inter-racial couple is a homosexual couple.
“So marriage in its truest sense cannot be obtained by homosexuals”.
Heterosexual couples who can’t conceive or plan not to, are than not married in the ‘truest sense’?
Your interpretation of Godly design may not be what you think at all. Ruairi compares how the bible held to the black race as below the white and they weren’t allowed to marry, etc. She likens this in the bible to the turned around words about gay people. Intelligent comparison that most people recognize, except the ones who chose not to.
The ‘precious jewel of marriage’, isn’t precious because of the mechanics of sex. It’s precious when ,and only when, love exists, and the loyalty to each other is met. Example: I watched a young woman on the cancer wing where our daughter was at various months during her 2 and half yrs. of struggle with Leukemia. The young woman came and had such hopes for her survival, until her young husband picked up a new bed partner and dropped her like a rock! Her condition fell immediately and she died. Now, since I’ve spent so much of my life in hospitals I witnessed another couple when our son was fighting for his life, these two gentleman were gay partners for thrity-seven yrs. He was a blessing to hear and taught me a lot. So please cknuck don’t think you have the answer to everything, life can teach you so much, and what you learn comes from God’s world, not entirely from words on a page from 2000 yrs. ago.

No tricky comeback, if is a fact that marriage is about many factors.
Love, trust, commitment, and if it happens, babies which don’t have to come from either or both of the parents to make the process successful. Besides in case you hadn’t noticed children are not a process of marriage but of sexual activity. Marriage gives a couple rights to each others goods, insurance, impute on important issues. Lack of insurance is a popular reason to marry someone you care about, especially if there are health issues. I know that is how the date for my second wedding was set, I was sick and we moved the wedding from May to December so I could get on his insurance.
Henrietta has it right, the loving and caring is what is important. To many
Every time you vote, encourage your representing you in congress to vote Christian values you are forcing it down our throats. That is what happens to what ever group is the minority. Rather like having to say under god in the pledge, a paranoid Christian pushed his agenda through by scare tactics and threats and we have to live with it.
Again, no one is asking your priests/reverends to marry gays. That is what a civil ceremony is all about. Take up your issues with your god and leave the rest of us to deal with our own.

The Episcopalian Church is going down the toilet! The GAYS have killed the Church! Homosexuality is NOT supported by the Bible or GOD why is this soooo difficult to understand? Becasue you want God to be who YOU want HIM to be instead of seeking out who God really is, take a look at the cross, the sufferings of Jesus the God. Sin is deadly serious it has eternal consequences we are here for such a short period of time, we will be judged if we are obeying the words of Christ. Don’t buy the lie. How we could even tolerate such behavior is mind boggling to me.

George, I’ve said repeatedly religion is dangerous and you illustrate it so well. Because you believe parts of a book written thousands of years ago for various reasons and with the contents and editing likewise done for various reasons, you are willing to condemn our fellow citizens to, at best, a loss of rights that the rest of us have. And “How we could even tolerate such behavior is mind boggling to me.” suggests you would support far, far worse things. Things that would undercut the foundations of the USA or, in fact, any civilized nation.
George, think about it: there is no independent verification for any of the miracles mentioned in the Bible. You probably only believe in it because you were raised to; someone caught you at a vulnerable age or maybe a vulnerable state and filled your head with cruel superstitions. Shake it off, George! You can be more.

H22, It can’t be because you didn’t read my post that you make the repeated argument about heterosexual couples who can’t have children, I commented on that in the very beginning of the post .
H22, what you look for the most you will see the most; sure you saw the man drop his wife, that’s what you look for. I on the other hand have seen some heart wrenching uplifting true life events of faithfulness in marriage (the only marriage in my view one man one woman apparently Jesus’ also,) loyalty beyond the grave. You see that’s what I look for, so I see it more than you. You look for homosexual love stories so you see them the most. I never said I know all of the answers, but yes I do use the really old text of the Bible to govern my life and values, and it hasn’t failed me yet, also it’s my privilege to do so.
There are many heterosexuals who have loved even people of the same sex beyond the grave and have sat loyally at bedside until the end, not peculiar to homosexuals only, its not a homosexual quality as you would paint the picture. That’s the kind of deceptive comparisons that show the manipulative agenda based rhetoric practiced to promote
homosexuality into something its not and can never be.
Ruiai, you confuse my thrush, I’m not concerned about civil affairs (although I would vote against homosexuals participating in marriage,)I am not concern with if the government marry homosexuals as I am with my right to voice my opinion. As for the voting process, I’m sure you would change it to fit your agendas but fortunately safeguards have been place to prevent that from happening.

Cknuck, you say I’m not looking for loyalty and the things you look for in my heterosexual relatives, friends, etc., marriages? That would be funny if you weren’t so serious. I tell you about a comparison between a heterosexual marriage and a partnership for life of two Gay men, one dying from cancer, and you can only see me trying to tell you, and everyone who reads this, that that’s all I see. Be annoyed if you have to be because I’m proving a point, but don’t insult my intelligence, or yours either. My family has had one divorce in 75 yrs., my husbands family, one divorce in 75 years. We have been married for 54 years. Most of my close friends that I went to school with have also been married as long as we have been. You can believe anyway you want, and you do, but some of us hope we can influence your fundamentalist ideas with our comments. You are not the only one reading our comments, people who never post here read them, and we hope we’ll help them.

“I’m not concerned about civil affairs (although I would vote against homosexuals participating in marriage,)I am not concern with if the government marry homosexuals as I am with my right to voice my opinion.”
But by voting against homosexual marriage and by supporting candidates for that reason you are trying to impose your particular version of morality on the homosexuals, while by wanting to be able to marry they are not imposing anything on you.
“As for the voting process, I’m sure you would change it to fit your agendas but fortunately safeguards have been place to prevent that from happening.”
That was uncalled for. If anything it’s Republicans who have restricted voting. What justification at all can you give for accusing us of impairing the voting process?

nnmns any group that loses a vote can be considered a minority and that is my point the voting process will go on even if someone cries over the results. Yes it is called for you vote you win, you vote you lose.
H22, this is the first time I’ve ever witness you lift up a heterosexual marriage you always promote homosexual affairs with statements like the comparison you made about the man leaving his wife and the faithful bedside sit of the homosexual, that’s selective and purposeful.

voting is still legal by the way

Cknuck,
We aren’t talking about an election loss, but about group of people who have no chance of succeeding because religious issues of a larger group have a strangle hold on the government. There are no safe gaurds against someone doing what they wish in elections.Bush has proved this many times over in his treatment of pagans. Those of us who think for ourselves are a minority which you find easy to ignore. The blacks felt this way for many years.
So if Henrietta uses a hetro example as well that makes her devious??
Will you get real, there is as many happy couples in homosexual partnerships as there are in heterosexuals. They also suffer break ups as well, many due to the restrictions place on them by the communities. They can raise happy, intelligent straight children, because the kids don’t spend time in their bedroom anymore than children of hetro couples. The sex life of a parent shouldn’t be the business of the child or the community. You would resent having someone’s nose stuck in your door I imagine. So do they.
My lovely former inlaws who are extremely religious baptists, managed raise 3/4 sons who cheated on their wives. So much for bible learning.
I rest secure in knowing that when this life is over, I get another one to live and learn in. Just as I have done in the past again and again.
Your own church once taught reincarnation, but stopped it when they couldn’t control the peasants anymore. Many changes have occured since the time it is believed that jesus lived, many more are coming.
Blessed be

Cknuck, yes, selective and purposeful I am. Thank you for acknowledging that. As far as not ‘holding up’ heterosexual marriages, I’ve mentioned our 54 yrs. of marriage and friends marriages so many times that I think the whole world is getting tired of hearing about it. Maybe you were not available to read everything I posted. Peace, Cknuck.

Ruairi, I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. First there are many successful homosexuals wealthy and enjoying the good life as it is their right; successful at recreating marriage is another thing but they are doing fine just as anyone else their sex is (male or female unless they qualify as another sex altogether.) People like me resist the change of marriage because we look at it as a holy thing between a man and a woman.
The second point is that I was just observing that up until now H22 has verbally beat down heterosexuals and uplifted homosexuals, its a tactic pure and simple, and I observed to be true even in the example in question.
Third point that I must refute is that there are not just as many homosexual couples as there are heterosexual couples, homosexuality is a rare occurrence in ratio to heterosexuality, If it were not then I would be more willing to accept it as natural, but its not, its unusual. The whole 3/4 sons thing I’m not so sure about.
My church has never taught reincarnation in its existence so I won’t touch that one either, although you are right in the growth of my church there has been some changes, not many but some important changes indeed.

Hi, response to a couple people:
No, despite what you may read in the press and in other sources, the House of Bishops did NOT meet to discuss homosexuality. They meet regularly, a couple times a year, and this happens to be the next regularly scheduled meeting. Because of events in the worldwide Anglican communion, homsexuality is a prominent topic, but only one of the items on their agenda in the governance of the church. They also are dealing with other business. Believe it or not, homosexuality is not the only matter of business.
Here is a true story: I used to be a Bendectine monk in an Episcopalian Abbey. Every other year or so someone from a newspaper or magazine would come to the Abbey, stay a day or two, and write an article about Living In A Real Life Monastery. One article from a newspaper in Grand Rapids, Michigan, began (I still have the clipping):
“It is 4:30 a.m. The bells in the monastery chapel are ringing. The only other sound is that of sandalled feet on gravel paths as the brothers gather to pray Vespers.”
Every statement of fact in that paragraph is false. The bells never rang at 4:30 a.m. because the monks had been in the Abbey Church since 4:00 singing Matins (not Vespers, Vesperae means “evening shadows,” and the office of Vespers is sung at sunset, not in pre-dawn hours, they got that wrong, too). Benedictines, according to the Rule of our holy father Benedict, wear shoes, not sandals. The Abbey paths are paved with brick pavers, none of them are gravel. And, all the monks can enter the Church from the Dormitory through the interior cloister and corridors, none of them would be outside, especially in a Michigan winter. The remainder of the article continued the same level of inaccuracy. Do not trust the secular press to get religious reporting correct. Remember Pope Paul VI’s funeral, and Dan Rather announced that the service was coming to an end, when they had only reached the Offertorium (the preparation of the bread & wine for the Eucharist) and there was still another good hour of liturgy?
The real issue is of course not even homosexuality: Gene Robinson was elected in 2003, but it wasn’t until the American church had the audacity to elect a WOMAN as Presiding Bishop (like our Archbishop) that the foreign Primates began sending ICBM bishops and refusing to share Eucharist at Primate meetings. This is about power, who gets to define who is in, who is out. Many of the African & Southern Cone Churches have nothing vaguely resembling the voice, vote, and power of the laity, they tend to be more hierarchical, like Rome. And they’re using sexual orientation as an excuse to attempt to gain control over the American church.

As for +Rowan Cantuar attending, the American Bishops have been begging for a meeting with his grace for 2 years, and offered to send delegations to Canterbury and to the Canadian Synod (earlier this year, which he attended), and +Rowan remained perversely absent and unavailable. Even at the last General Convention (our national Synod, every 3 years), +Rowan sent a proxy. Many in the Communion, upon learning that he is finally talking to the American church, have given a response of, “it’s bloody well time, and probably too late.”

Cknuck, I gather you still are bound to critize my posts about Homosexuals, and Heterosexuals. I never beat down heterosexuals, that would be counter-productive, as we are heterosexual, also. I do hold glbt up because people who are extreme fundamentalists try so hard to make them “The Untouchables”. Heres how I understand the problem of your Christian beliefs and mine: Your type of Christianity is an embarrassment and has done more harm to other christians than anything an atheist could do or say. Nnmns and Heretic for Christ are right, fanatical Christianity should be watched very closely.
You accuse me of using tactics ‘pure and simple’ to beat down heteros, and uplift glbt. You can’t seem to understand what I say is not tactics, it is the truth as I have lived it and I bring out instances to demonstrate the truth.

cknuck,
You keep typing “in my Church …”. Well what about nMY Church. Why do your religious beliefs trump ours?
“Homosexuals don’t have what heterosexual couples have simply because they are of the same sex.”
What don’t we have? We have love, the ability to commit, and tonurture, and to love, honour and cherish, in sickness an din health, etc.
“They cannot do what heterosexual couples do naturally”
Gufaw. Unless you are talking about procreation, there is no basis of truth in your charge. And if you ARE talking of procreation, too bad, because it isn’t a requirement of marriage.
“Inter-racial couples that are heterosexual are totally different then homosexual couples.”
Oh? So you mean one of the inter-racial coupld CAN ‘change’? Sorry, you’ll need a better argument than that.
“If homosexuality was normal then there would be the possibility of the same population as heterosexuals, and they would be able to reproduce.”
What an insult to my very heterosexual but NON-procreative sister. Why are you “Christians” so mean to others who aren’t exactly like you?
“This reproduction by homosexuals is not in God’s plan”
And somehow this NON-procreaton by some heterosexuals IS in “God’s plan”? Come on, a better argument please.
“You cannot have a monogamist homosexual relationship and produce a child”
And you cannot ‘win’ the argument if procreation is the only point you can make. Unless and until is is a requirement for heterosexuals, you cannot make it one for non-heterosexuals. If this is all you’ve got, you have already lost.
“So marriage in it’s truest sense cannot be obtained by homosexuals.”
What awful things you say. ‘Producing a child’ does NOT define “true” marriage.
“And while one might argue many heterosexual don’t have this true form of matrimony and be right”
Seems you’re not content to merely insult and slander gay people; now you want to go after str8s with no kids. Sheesh!
“it is hard to obtain this precious jewel, true marriage.”
You conflate “this precious jewel” (parenthood, apparently) with marriage and attempt to label it “true”. Guffaw!
“I can see why homosexuals would want it”
I certainly wouldn’t want YOUR version of “marriage”.
“but nevertheless they just don’t fit the design.”
YOUR ‘design’. So not interested. I prefer a real marriage like mine – a God-sanctioned one.

“No it is not a requirement for marriage to have children, it’s a product of the design of marriage.”
Not for many of the heterosexual couples I know it sure isn’t.
“This is an old tricky comeback that is just not well thought out.”
Your ‘comeback’ certainly isn’t very well thought out, cknuck. It is your ONLY argument. And it does not hold under scrutiny.
“Shear ignorance is harsh”
Evidently.
“I hardly think it is a description that fit me”
Ah, but many of US do think it is a totally apt description of you.
“I have never shoved anything down anyone’s throat”
Only your faith’s tenets, and you even want others not of your faith to abide by them. Ain’t gonna happen.
“I have the right to express my faith on a belief driven media”
You have the right to believe what you want and thank heavens, so do we. Your faith’s tenets do not trump ours. So express away, friend.
“where ever I go I do, if given the opening, express my faith”
No, you don’t shove anything down anyone’s throats. You just “express your faith where ever you go”.

“I on the other hand have seen some heart wrenching uplifting true life events of faithfulness in marriage”
And WE have seen the exact same thing in many marriages too; they just happen to be same-sex marriages. Even to the point of “loyalty beyond the grave”. You see that’s what I look for, so I see it more than you. If only YOU would look and see.
“You look for homosexual love stories”
And YOU look for and only see heterosexual love stories. Why do your relationships trump ours?
“yes I do use the really old text of the Bible to govern my life and values”
Apparently only parts of it. Unless you deny communion to the disabled. Do you? (Hint: it’s in the really old parts of the bible, as is putting the victims of incest to death.) Sorry we kind of doubt taht you DO what you say you do.
Meanwhile, WE (some of us) use the message of the Bible to govern our lives and values, and it hasn’t failed US yet either, sp it is likewise OUR privilege to do so. (See, some of us can talk the God talk just like you can.)
“I’m not concerned about civil affairs (although I would vote against homosexuals participating in marriage)”
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways, so obviously you ARE concerned about civil affairs, specifically, the elimination o fcivil rights of gay Americans. When was YOUR marriage ever subjected to a popular vote??? Again, obviously you DO want to shove your version of morality down our throats.
“any group that loses a vote can be considered a minority” And the Constitution is in place to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority.

“People like me resist the change of marriage because we look at it as a holy thing between a man and a woman.”
You make it sound like we’re forcing YOU to have a same-sex marriage personally for your self. It just isn’t happening. You ignore that many of US also look at marriage as a holy thing, but not limited to opposite sex partners. You have you beleifs, we have ours. Our question is why your beliefs ought to trump ours under the law?
“The second point is that I was just observing that up until now H22 has verbally beat down heterosexuals and uplifted homosexuals”
That is plain, outright FALSE. It is the bearing of fals witness. She’s a heterosexual herself. She has not done what you say she has.
“and I observed to be true even in the example in question.”
Then you need better powers of observation. You missed her meaning completely.
”
Third point that I must refute is that there are not just as many homosexual couples as there are heterosexual couples”
That isn’t a “point” it is a fact. But OUR point is, SO WHAT? I mean, we really did know that there are fewer gays than str9s. Does that make you better?
“homosexuality is a rare occurrence in ratio to heterosexuality, If it were not then I would be more willing to accept it as natural”
How absurd. There are fewer left=handed people than right-handed. Are you saying that left-handed people are unnatural? (‘Cuz if you are, you really DO need better arguments. THIS sure isn’t one.
“but its not, its unusual.”
So unusual people are to be denided rights?

It is my belief that SS unions cannot be holy. I have no concern of being forced into such a union so my statements are not based on that but “what I believe.” Now for what I know and that is that H22 has posted dozens of stories where the heterosexual of the story is despicable and the homosexual of the story is so honorable (not that homosexuals can’t do honorable things) but I has personally read about a dozen such stories. And I find it hard to believe that one person can find that many instances where the heterosexual acts so badly and the homosexual acts so noble. Not that it cannot happen; but so often?
Now I find out that she is according to someone incapable of such a thing because of her sexual preference. So there is no such thing as people who hang out with and admire homosexual that are heterosexual especially women? Well is it right to rebuke me because I am referring to sexual preference and then hold a different standard in your judgment? I don’t know what a gay is but I know what homosexual means and my brother is left handed he’s unusual maybe it’s unnatural but does not act out of a different sexual nature because of his left-handedness, so I cannot equate the two as easily as some people can.

“It is my belief that SS unions cannot be holy.”
I don’t think anyone is asking that you consider them holy. It would be nice if you and lots of people kind of like you didn’t oppose them because many homosexuals need them.
“Now for what I know and that is that H22 has posted dozens of stories where the heterosexual of the story is despicable and the homosexual of the story is so honorable (not that homosexuals can’t do honorable things) but I has personally read about a dozen such stories.”
I don’t remember them but some may be as you describe. I remember Henrietta countering your often-repeated claims that homosexuals couldn’t have marriages like heteros by pointing out they can and do have relationships filled with love, which is the best any of us can do. I don’t know why you’d expect her to argue against her case by bringing up bad relationships among homosexuals or to bring up something irrelevant to her case like good relationships among heteros. We all know those things happen too.

I wouldn’t expect her to something irrelevant to her case but a little more reality would be nice, after all the picture is not as it is painted, on I might add, a consistent basis. The stories might seem a little more realistic if they were more real and less “never saw a bad homosexual, but always see bad heterosexual” Just read the story, its one of many, I’ve seen them.
The world isn’t one-sided, so opinions other than ours will surface, that shouldn’t be a object of fear, unless the other opinions have some truth.

The world isn’t one-sided, so opinions other than ours will surface, that shouldn’t be an object of fear, unless the other opinions have some truth.
Cknuck, it should be an object of fear to you and your like, because what I write is the truth. That is why you pick on what I say with such gusto. It’s easier to strike out at me because you don’t want to believe that what I say is so. Get ready, because as I see, and as I hear of successful relationships between glbt I’ll post them. I’ll look forward to being critiqued by you.

The world is filled with idiots and geniuses, scoundrels and heroes, and none of them subscribe to the same set of beliefs or behaviors. For every criminal of one persuasion or another, there is someone who rises above their situation and sets a high mark for awareness and behavior. Anyone who assumes that all the folks in any group are marvelous is simply a “mark”, waiting to be bilked, fleeced, and fooled.
You should never fear the truth, though I certainly hope it scares you from time to time. Boo!

ck,
“It is my belief that SS unions cannot be holy.”
You are entitled to your beliefs. Just don’t be shocked that OTHER people believe OTHERwise.
“H22 has posted dozens of stories where the heterosexual of the story is despicable”
No she has not. This is the continued, willfull bearing of false witness on your part.
“Now I find out that she is according to someone incapable of such a thing because of her sexual preference.”
First of all, H22 is HETEROSEXUAL. Secondly, sexual orientation is NOT a “preference”.
“So there is no such thing as people who hang out with and admire homosexual that are heterosexual especially women?”
Say WHAT??? H22 is both heterosexual AND a woman.
“Well is it right to rebuke me because I am referring to sexual preference”
Yes it IS right to rebuke you since we are not discussing anyone’s “preference”. My “preference” is for bigger, older, hairy bear-types. My orientation (kinda obvious, isn’t it?) is toward other men.
“I don’t know what a gay is”
Clearly!
“I know what homosexual means”
How can you “know” one and not the other since they are one and the same thing???
“and my brother is left handed he’s unusual maybe it’s unnatural”
Do you tell your brother he is “unnatural”? Do you tell him he is ‘unholy’? To you tell him he is sinful? Do you tell him he needs to change?
“but does not act out of a different sexual nature because of his left-handedness”
This is just absurd.

The author of this article reports one of the ministers saying the bible supports gay relationships.
The bible clearly states that “gays” are abominations. (check the book of leviticus)
I’ll take that bet Joey, as with so many other churches, they will split up over this issue and begin calling themselves something else. One church will accept them, the other, will not. Eventually, they’ll be dubbed “that gay church”
Personally, I don’t have a problem with christians, but I do have a problem with a “holy book” that says I should be killed for being gay.
Thet

Yes, that holy book and some others need real upgrading. Of course that won’t happen and as far into the future as we can foresee there will be Christians, Jews and Muslims and others that take seriously the ugliest parts of their holy books and cause the world problems. And as it gets easier and easier to make WMD’s some of those will cause very serious problems.

You know what I really LIKE about all this? That the Episcopal church is willing to wrestle with these issues. The Roman Catholic church won’t even discuss it. The RCC has an attitude of “No women, no married clergy, no gays, period. And don’t ask us about it anymore.”
If there is a break, I will actively look for a community that supports what the article said – “Going backward is not one of our options.” I would love to be in a community that embraces and honors, without fear, all that makes us human.

OK, enough of the theological posturing and posing like drag queens on a runway. What has happened? what did they decide? Are they sining the old Clash song, “Should I stay or should I go now/ If I stay there will be trouble/ If I go it will be double” Hey, that would be a good song for Iraq too. I guess good rock and roll is as timeless as good hymns, symphonies, or opera.

CJ-Quote: “You know what I really LIKE about all this? That the Episcopal Church is willing to wrestle with these issues. The Roman Catholic Church won’t even discuss it”.
Your comment brought to mind Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia U.. He still thinks more information should be researched before deciding the Holocaust really happened, even though it is the most documented event in history, and people stood outside Columbia with signs, saying I was there….The most enlightening thing to find out is that upon being asked about Homosexual people and how they are treated in Iran, he claimed we have no Homosexual people in my country!!! He claims to have the only country in the world with no glbt???? Amazing isn’t it how blind and stupid people will present themselves to the world? At least the R.C. will admit that glbt exist, even though they won’t discuss it.

Thet,
“The bible clearly states that “gays” are abominations. (check the book of leviticus)”
Actually, it isn’t “gays” that are called abomination, it is the act of “lieing with mankind as with a woman”. And THAT is what causes a great deal of consternation. If one reads that in context, one would have to ask one’s self what did it mean to “lie with a woman” 2,000 years ago. Primarily, women were chattel, objects that could be possessed, bought and sold at whim. A man could lie with pretty much any woman, even his daughters. And, to treat a man (who could be an actual CITIZEN) thusly truly was seen to be an abomination.
There’s lots more to the context, and there’s also lots more interpreting that emanates from the various translations of that particular text.
Besides, the Bible also calls eating lobster or shrimp “an abomination” so a selected verse from a 2,000 year old text that doesn’t seem to have a lot of relevancy to those living in 2007 doesn’t bear a lot of weight for a lot of people any more. And many faith denominations are likewise struggling to understand the message behind the text.

Simple response to anyone proposing a return to Levitical Justice.
When you are ready to return to animal sacrifice, then maybe you might begin to get there. But if you cannot stomach the idea of explaining to your children or grandchildren why the lamb, calf, or bird is having its throat slit and the blood poured on the congregation, don’t bother trying to invoke the ancient Law.
Times marches on – get in the rhythm or just lay out.

As a lesbian teen, I can tell you that even though the Episcopalian Church may lose some of their regular church goers, they will be replaced with many other Gay people. Most of the peolpe that I know that are gay or are open to gays are Christan and are looking for a denomination that will freely love and accept us. I am no longer accepted in my Roman Catholic Church, which I have been apart of for my entire life (18 yrs) including all the classes and all the ceremonies. It hurts so much to be told by people who have raised you to believe that you are accepted and truely loved by not only them but by God as well, and then to turn to them in my time of need, only to be turned away again, to be told I was an abomination…. that is pain that can never be described by any language. I hope that the Bishops and the other church officals inolved in this debate hold strong and keep allowing, accepting, and loving Gay people. Thank you.