[Bendedknees]

Am I hearing right, has a homosexual priest been ordained as a bishop in the USofA. Please tell me that I am dreaming someone.

[DeTruth]

BK, it was not a dream or nightmare.  He is a priest at a Episcopal church.  It is my understanding that he is seeking to be a Bishop but has not yet been ordained to that level.  I just found the excerpt below......
 
N.H. Episcopalians Elect Gay Bishop

In a national first, New Hampshire Episcopalians on Saturday elected an openly gay man as their next bishop.

The selection of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, 56, who was chosen over three other candidates in voting by New Hampshire clergy and lay Episcopalians, is still subject to confirmation next month by the church's national General Convention.

Bishops in the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church in the United States, approved a resolution in 1998 calling gay sex "incompatible with Scripture."According to the Episcopal News Service, the only other bishop to publicly state that he is actively gay is Otis Charles, former bishop of Utah, who made the announcement in 1993 after retiring.

Robinson, who was married and has two grown children, now lives with his partner, Mark Andrew, in Weare and is an assistant to retiring Bishop Douglas Theuner. Friends say he remains on good terms with his ex-wife and two daughters, both of whom were at Saturday's election. On the final ballot, Robinson received 58 of 77 ballots cast by clergy and 96 of 165 lay votes.

On the Net:New Hampshire Episcopal Church: http://www.nhepiscopal.org/

[Bendedknees]

Don King always say "only in America." I predict that this has the potential to split the anglican church. I cannot see Barbados voting for homos.

[Ricardo]

I was wondering when this was going to come up. I could not believe it either! Especially what has gone on in the last year or 2 with the males saying that they were molested by priest when they were boys.

It's hard to figure out what the thinking is. It's absolutely amazing.

By the way only in Barbados can you find a church having a fair and setting up a tent with ESAF and Heineken logos on them.

[Bendedknees]

Well I think the shit is about to hit the fan. This is real Sodom and Gomorrah stuff. This must surely be the last days. Geeze, my head is spinning with this liberal and crappy world that we are living in.

[Bendedknees]

Did anyone read Bishop Brome, former bishop of Barbados and his position on the butty issue in the church? I have never heard such an irrational argument and coming from him, geeze! His position is that the Homosexual bishop should have been screened by the church long before he reached this point in his career, on that basis he should be allowed to continue his assension in the church.

???

[Confucius]

BK, is it a "butty", "batty" or "botty" issue?  : ;D Butty is the word that Cokneys use to refer to a sandwitch.  OK, we won't go there!

I had a casual look at the former Rufus Barbados' article, and got the feeling that some theologians still live in the age of sophistry.  We must remember that our former bishop now lives in the USA where the charge that one is homophobic can be particularly damaging.  However, I have no stomach for the acid test that he proposed for determining whether a homosexual prelate should rise further in the church.  To his question: Is he having sex?, my answer is that I just don't want to know!

[Bendedknees]

These must be the last days I do declare. Is there and merit in the argument that some homosexuals have harmonal imbalances which creates this unwanted, abnormal and unnatural behaviour?

[Bendedknees]

Well, well, well, have you heard? Don King made the phrase, "only in America" famous. I heard on the radio this morning that there will be a new TV program coming. This program is a dating show which features boys dating boys, geeze.

[DeTruth]

I would like someone to tell me why people are quick to bash the men in this category more so than the women in this category?  Why is there so much focus on homosexuals than on the bisexuals? Should they all not be treated with equal respect?  

It is my belief that there's a possibility that not all people who fall into these categories are from a genetic imbalance.  In some cases, there are factors/experiences within people's life that cause them to change because of an experience, such as child molestation and other harmful factors.  

I don’t think that most of these people choose deliberately such lifestyles.  None-the-less, because they live a different lifestyle than that of the norm/majority, it doesn’t mean that they should be ridiculed because they are in the minority.  [Some people try to fit into the norm of society, but for some reason they were not “programmed” that way.]

When it comes to choice, no one chooses to born black, white or mixed, to be near-sighted, far-sighted or to have perfect vision.  Man's inventiveness has given us the technology to use colored contact lenses to alter eye color, and laser surgery to correct vision.  But it will only be man's capacity for tolerance and compassion that will permit those that are born with different gender makeup to live as comfortably in society with their fellow human beings, as those born with traits that are considered "the norm."  

Hopefully, in the future, man's technology in the bio-medical field may give us the opportunity for more "genetic engineering."  But is this what we really want? – a society without artists or composers, etc.?  [If we go back in the early ages of history, there are all levels in every walk of life [artists, composers, etc.] that faced these challenges.]    

With that said, people should learn to accept others for who they are and avoid being judgmental.  I don’t believe any country would be in existence if everyone and everything were the same.  The world is made up of positive and negative; we can’t have 100% of either. I believe that people should be themselves and do what they feel like doing if they are not hurting others.  If and when the time comes that people feel that there is something that they could do about their lifestyle and want to do it, [whatever it maybe] so be it.  

All of us have been in control of our own actions and have at one time done something negative, whether considered big or small that is not pleasing in the sight of God or man.  In the bishop’s case, he probably felt that open confession is better than secret guilt.  He answers to God not to man.  

[Bendedknees]

DeTruth, you have got to be kidding me right?

Did you hear about Canon Jones in Redding, Uk in the news today, he has refused to give up his male lover. As a society should we look the other way. My position is that as a society we must accept a mainstream ethical perspective. In other words, it is possible that we can have a hard line on some issue because as a society we have as a majority establish a moral minimum.

[Confucius]

BK, I suppose that I may safely conclude that you will not be seen in Watkins Alley on June 27, nor will you accept sponsorship to walk from Independence Square to Miami Beach on June 29.

In that case I would say that you are certainly not voting with your feet  :;D!

[Bendedknees]

That would be a good conclusion! ;D

[DeTruth]

BK, I am serious as a heart attack on any and all comments that I make.  I believe that whatever a person does with his/her private life is entirely with that individual, regardless what rank or profession the individual holds. If more people accept others for who they are, don’t you think that there could be less “skeletons in closets”, and less of a need to push things under the rug?  

In this case, if the Bishop-to-be stands on the pulpit and preaches in favor of homosexuality, I would think that he should be disrobed.  In my opinion, he should keep his personal feelings to himself, and not try to influence his beliefs, which is against God’s word.  If he preaches against it, I would consider him a hypocrite [not being true to himself].  He should not be attempting to lead his flock astray.

[Ricardo]

Yes, it is true that God loves everyone, no exceptions but he does not condone everything that is done. Now we are all sinners, no denying that but the thing is we are given the freedom to repent. This "Bishop-to-be" has no intention of reprenting it seems as he does nto see what he does and is as sinful.

Do you really think that is the kind of person God wants to lead to his flock as he is? And he is a hypocrite.

[Bendedknees]

I respect your liberal views on the subject but I must respectfully disagree that what we do in private is our business. As a society we have been observing the moral decadence which is wrecking havoc on our societies. How would you accept a homosexual Pope as head of the catholic church, what message would you be sending to the impressionable minds in our society. I am not overly religious but I believe that homosexuality goes against all the theological teachings.

[DeTruth]

BK, there have always been issues where we agree to disagree, and this issue seems to be no exception. [Such dialogue could make for interesting discussions]  Do you believe that there could be other homosexuals in the pulpit who have kept their lifestyles private?   If so, why do you think that they have kept it private?  In my opinion, it be could that they know deep within, it’s not pleasing in the site of God; it could be that something took place in their young adult life that they are too embarrass to talk about. Have you heard of the youths that were molested at an early age by their priests?  I have seen both males and females talking openly; they said they have done everything/almost everything that would possibly deter them from taking that route , but for some reason, they eventually return to where they started.  I don’t think that you would be that hard nose if you heard directly from the lips of these people, not to have empathy.  I may not agree with certain rationales but I empathize, accept and respect whatever decision is made -- it has nothing to do with being a liberal.  [I am in no way implying that people should do likewise.]  

Don’t you think it is better for an individual to be upfront, in this case, with the parishioners, than for someone to blackmail that individual's secret lifestyle?   I believe if people knew the rationale behind some of the irrational behaviors/decisions, some who were adamantly against whatever, they would most likely get a better understanding, reevaluate the situation, and have a different outlook than initially.

[Bendedknees]

One should not mistake feeling empathy for people who are biologically deficient with people who have publicly declared their sexual biase and allowed to continue with their public roles. My position is that for every situation there will be a consequencial action. In other words you cannot expect to be  a homosexual and have an unfettered life just like one can not exercise or watch their diet and not suffer the consequences of being unhealthy.

One must always be prepared to pay the price!

[DeTruth]

BK, I guess I did not make myself clear.  I have seen both genders of ordained ministers, talking openly about their struggle to be heterosexual but was unsuccessful in their quest; they finally threw in the towel, and quit the pretense.  In my opinion, there was no indication in the discussions which appeared to be obvious, that their chosen lifestyle was anything other than from a genetic imbalance. [I may have been in a state of oblivion at the time.] Because someone publicly declares their sexual preference, we have no way of knowing if the individual fits the “biologically deficient” category; therefore, I think it is presumptuous to conclude it was made known out of disrespect.  None-the-less, I think that we are still a way off in learning the true reason for such “abnormal” behavior.  

Your conclusion appears to infer that anyone, and maybe especially those in public roles, who practice a homosexual lifestyle should be discreet about it.  Is that not deceit – would that not be just as bad as the fisherman having “bad” fish and failing to tell his patrons that his fish stinks? I personally feel that the “bishop-to-be” did the right thing by making his sexual preference known to his congregation, regardless of the circumstances in which he developed these feelings.  The same way that his preaching was accepted and enjoyed before confession, there is no reason why his preaching should be rejected or disliked after confession.  It seems to me that the majority of his parishioners are more interested in the message he brings to the pulpit than to worry about his sexual life.  It doesn’t mean that the majority is right; but there are times such as this, when the majority rules, right or wrong.  

How many of us care about the mail carrier? What we care about is the mail delivery. Regardless of our personal beliefs, we will not have any input into the final decision of his destiny.