If they want to be a holy church then they cannot condone homosexuality or preach it as holy from the pulpit, homosexuality is not righteous and it is unholy so far from God’s design it can never be productive.

It seems that the Anglicans do have some sense after all. Glad they postponed their actions.

You have to wonder how much heresy they will put up with from The Episcopal Church before they would act to remove the US church.
What are they waiting for…child sacrifices?…sex with animals?

Maybe the Episcopalians should take the first step in separating from the Anglicans. I mean, is turning a blind eye to bishops advocating murder in Africa not bad enough?

Isn’t the goal of all the world’s religions to move us away from worldly appetites and toward sacrificial love and service to humankind? The reason the faith communities throughout the ages have condemned homosexuality is that, unlike heterosexual unions that have at least the avowed objective of producing our succeeding generations, homosexual unions produce only physical satisfaction– which the Buddhists tell us will ultimately tie us to the wheel of rebirth on earth.
This is not to say that people in homosexual relationships cannot love one another as much as those in heterosexual liasons. If, however, the unconditional nature of that love is tainted by sexual appetites(in either group), then its naturally liberating qualities will be compromised.
To state that “I am a homosexual” or even “I am an ardent heterosexual” shows one to be self-identified with those sexual preferences that bind humankind to our earthly passions–while our spiritual traditions seek to free us from such bondage. So given this, how can an Episcopal bishop who says to the world “I identify myself as a homosexual”, lead his diocese toward liberation from the worldly desires that tie us to the earth?

Wow, JG, you want marriages to not be “tainted by sexual appetites”. I hope you are in a nunnery. One of the straight nunneries. Oh, wait, by your requirements since being married to “God” doesn’t produce children it doesn’t qualify as a marriage and since that’s what being a nun is about (my understanding as a non-RC) being a nun isn’t legitimate.
Not many marriages will pass your test JG. Happily.

And cknuck shouldn’t your god help us out by, maybe, putting a halo in the air above the “holy” churches so we don’t get led astray, especially anyone unlucky enough not to get your judgments as to holiness?

NNMNS-
My statement about marriage was that according to the world’s religions, “if the unconditional nature of love is tainted by sexual appetites then its naturally liberating qualities will be compromised.” I was not actually speaking about how I would like marriages to be.
A good discussion of this subject was presented in the Fall-Winter 1999 issue of What Is Enlightenment magazine. There WIE interviewed gay Buddhist UCSB professor Jose Cabezon. As a Santa Barbara resident myself, I have heard professor Cabezon speak often, and have always found him to be a voice of reason on the subject of Buddhism and the gay lifestyle.
Below is an excerpt:
“WIE: As you said, traditional Buddhist teachings of liberation emphasize coming to the end of desire and craving. Given the Buddha’s teachings on the difficulties of navigating the strong force of sexual desire, do you think it is possible that the celebration of an identity based on one’s sexuality could lead to increased confusion rather than to freedom from the chains of desire and attachment? How do gay Buddhists reconcile the contradiction between what is sometimes called “liberated self-expression” and the Buddha’s injunction to quench the flames of sexual desire?
JC:[There is]no question that in Buddhism, desire is one of the major problems that human beings face. And sexuality is perhaps the strongest form of desire. Therefore, in order to decrease desire, sexual activity must be diminished or curtailed. I see this as being one of the cornerstones of the Buddhist path and I see no way for Buddhists to interpret their way out of this. My personal belief is that there is a kind of responsible sexuality that Buddhism calls for that commits Buddhists to keeping their sexuality within bounds. And I don’t see that this in any way negatively impinges upon the struggles of gay people, gay men in particular.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/cabezon.asp?page=1

JG-
The article is about Anglicans/Episcopalians….not Buddhists.
The views you express are certainly interesting. And, if you aspire to follow them…great! However, they are certainly not to views of many of us. And, not necessarily the views of the Episcopal Church.

Interesting posts, Jennifer Garnet. First, I cannot comment on Buddhism, but the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all affirm the goodness of the physical creation. Pleasure is not a problem in and of itself, but only if it interferes with love of God and fellow man.
And it is patently untrue that all heterosexual unions have the avowed purpose of procreation, or that homosexual unions produce only pleasure. Any union presents the opportunity for “sacrificial love and service.” Heterosexual and homosexual unions alike have the potential for love and companionship and mutual support and self-sacrifice. Any relationship in which the pair is more than the sum of the individuals is productive.
And I agree that no one should tie their identity to their sexual orientation. But that doesn’t mean we can’t live in authentic and productive relationships.

It was an interesting post, Jennifer. Not being Buddhist I’m glad I don’t have to try to walk that line. Off hand I don’t see why this sort of thing would be a bigger problem for gays than straights.

I agree with you, NNMNS, that “navigating the strong force of sexual desire” is not a bigger problem for gays than straights. What WIE was asking specifically, however, is whether “the celebration of an identity based on one’s sexuality could lead to increased confusion rather than to freedom from the chains of desire and attachment”. This celebration of sexual identity is, I believe, more of an issue for gays simply because they are breaking with the social norms of a heterosexual society.
Buddhists would ask whether this break is due to an aspiration to manifest more of one’s “Buddha Nature” than the current social norms would allow (eg the Buddha welcoming the reviled lower castes into his inner circle of disciples) or whether it is due to uncontrolled appetites (eg a person allowing himself to become addicted to drugs or to think negative thoughts about his co-workers). Inherently, there is nothing wrong with taking the proverbial road less traveled by others in our social group. However, there are times when social norms support spiritual growth and therefore are useful for all of us.
The Buddha taught that the road leading to spiritual liberation is the one leading away from earthly cravings–which according to his second noble truth is the cause of all human suffering.
Although I am quoting the Buddha here, I would question the assertions of JohnQ and WannabeTheo that the Abrahamic faiths are not in alignment with these teachings about liberation from sexual desires. Isn’t it this very teaching that underlies the mandate that Catholic priests and nuns remain celibate for their lifetimes? And is it not also the teaching that underlies the Catholic position against birth control–since birth control implies that men and women are having sexual unions for purposes other than having children?
Since the Catholic church was the first Christian church, its views have permeated the Christian faith down to the present time. I do not see the Protestant churches (especially in the Evangelist camp)as having any less adherence to the notion that sexual appetites lead to negative consequences than its historical predecessor. And do you really believe, WannabeTheo, that Islam teaches that it’s acceptable to engage in sexual activity as long as it’s not interfering with one’s love for God or man?

I think the hypothesis about the RCC and birth control is doubtful. I always assumed it was really because they want more and more Catholics to contribute to the Church.
And I understand the priests and nuns prohibition is about them not having children to leave goods to so the Church would come out better. I’m sure that’s not what they say but I think it’s at least as likely to be true as what they say.

Jennifer,
I said *pleasure* is not in and of itself a problem, not sexual activity. Sexual activity has the potential to wreak havoc on lives if engaged in selfishly and recklessly.
Neither Christianity, Judaism nor Islam have a problem with enjoying physical pleasure whether it is sex, eating or taken a pleasant walk along the beach, as long as the pursuit of those pleasures doesn’t take priority and cause us to sin.

Personally,I’m happy to knw that the U.S. Episcopal Church as to which I’m a proud member of,has been allowed to remain in full communion within the Anglican Communion.Despite such differences as sexuality or sexual orientation.It does’nt matter on what side of the Gay and Lesbian issue one is on but it’s not our place to judge others based on their sexuality.God is love!

God is love but He is so much more than that, just because He is love does not mean He will not judge as we are to judge with holy judgment. Homosexuality is sin, born of sin and gives birth to sin.

cknuck: Homosexuality is sin, born of sin and gives birth to sin.” WOW! Did you make that up all by yourself?

Put it this way pagan it can give birth to no other than sin.

In your opinion, cknuck, in your opinion.