"gay" Bishop Row in the UK

The row over the appointment of a gay man as Bishop of Reading shows no signs of abating. Canon Jeffrey John has been in a homosexual relationship for 27 years, but says it has been celibate for several years.

So says the headlines on Sky News. The excuse used was that "we should not discriminate over someone made in the image of god" - so this god is a homosexual too eh? Any form of perversion like this is a law against natural order and should not be encouraged.

This is only my personal opinion but I am against such perversions in our lives. People in such a position should be above reproach and whether I am a religious person or not, I do not like to see people like this in positions of decision making nor in the position of being a spiritual guide to ordinary folk.

He should be dismissed. We all know this sort of thing, and a lot worse, has been going on for centuries. It is only natural that sexes "bed" with opposites anything else is a perversion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Red Devil,

An appeal to nature is unfounded since homosexuality is commonplace in the animal kingdom, why should man be any different?

The presumption is that homosexual behavior is a perversion, and a uniquely human perversion, engaged in as the result of what is presumed to be a learned attraction to members of the same sex.

There's only one problem with that assumption: None of it is true.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Put simply your opinion labels you as a homophobe and intolerant of the lifestyles of other people. Now we could argue that homophobia and intolerance is natural since most people tend to group together due to common characteristics. To be tolerant and compassionate with others who are different to you often takes a positive mental effort.

But it is intolerance and bigotry that creates violence and war. Shouldn’t it be a sign of a civilized society that tolerance and acceptance of differences is encouraged and embraced? Wouldn’t that reflect the ideals of a loving community?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for your input Cris - but I stand by my opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Red Devil, what is your position on heterosexual acts of "sodomy" (oral and anal sex) ?

 

did you know that scientists have WATCHED male dolphins blow other male dolphins?

if someone knows the thread with the artical in it post it PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I, for one feel that it is a very progressive and positive move by the church. It's good to see that those in power, especialy in such an unlikely sector as that of religion, are abandoning views of homosexuality as some mystic and indefineably immoral thing. More power to him, I say.

 

Asguard,

Do you mean this article?

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/2001-spinner dolphins.html

 

thanks evil

 

The homosexual act is a sin. If he does not repent and say that it is a sin, he should not be teaching. Whether it's wrong or not should not matter. A person that highly esteemed in the Anglian Church should have God first before any marriage.

 

if you simplify humans to the most common denomination, then yes... gays shouldn't be discriminated against... what's the big deal if some guy i donno sticks it to another guy i donno? outta sight, outta mind. and it's none of my bizness anyways.

BUT

we have such thing as society, culture, norms, tradition, establishments, ancient religions, a certain structure of things.

gays have no bizness in religious institutions (such as being priests or to get married)
the 3 big religions have always been against gays saying it's a horrible sin. says so in the holy books.

if some dude decides all of a sudden it's ok for a gay dude to be a bishop, or for 2 gays to marry in a church, than that dude changes the ancient rules of the religion.. he contradicts its laws.

how can a man change the laws that God [supposedly] had given mankind?
==================
this wonderful country where i live, legalized gay marriages a few days ago. it makes me sick. why do they have to call it marriage and ruin the ancient establishment of marriage (which btw started as a religious thing)? they wanna have partner-benifits and inheritance rights, let them have it... but why call it a marriage?

the majority has to suffer because of political correctness? bullshit.

 

Should i give links justifying incest, bestiality, paedophiles, bondage&slavery and other crap..?

Bang the bishop. Never kneel to pray when he is around. When he becomes Pope praise his holy-dubious-arse.

If any christian remain in anglican church and has any self-esteem and fear of God they should feel ashamed.

PS : If that bishop was an ex-gay and repented his act nothing will stand against him to become the bishop except the ex-label.

 

how are YOU suffering you moron

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey Assguard,
i don't interfere in your free thought.. you don't interfere in religious affairs otherthan naturally criticize them. does this make me a non-moron..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you can find examples in nature of almost any act

incest for sure (just watch our chickens)

homosexuality, look at that link

besality, has no one ever watched a dog?

basically if 2 adults want to do something that effects no one but themselves GO FOR IT. Even know some girls who like to bleed when they are doing it, if thats the way you like it thats your choice

as for marrage there ARE religions where homsexual marriges are encoraged

so if jews, muslams, christans, wicams can all get married LEGALLY why cant "rainbow wedings" be legal?

you ARE a moron, if you think that homsexuality is the root of all evil

INTOLERANCE like yours is

 

Okinrus: I agree with your post, but for different reasons - it IS wrong. The other person who mentioned about this bishop becoming pope; he cannot - he's Anglican (Protestant).

Don't make comparisons please between the "animal" kingdom and the rest of us - just because an animal may do it does not make it right but rather places it in its proper context - bestiality, as someone else tried to put it.

Obviously an emotive subject, which I exactly why I posted it - to draw out reaction. Apparently successful in that, I still welcome comment but rteserve my right to think as I do, for my own reasons, nothing to do with religion as such, but drawing comparisons with the "righteous" approach of our clergy to what actually does happen in practise.

Behind closed doors was mentioned in another post - fine; BUT in these so called "liberated times" the blatant public portrayal of this heinous behaviour is insulting to me personally and to many others who have the "balls" to admit it.

To support this behaviour, to my mind, is supporting the whole of the left wing "pc" brigade, another subject I do not like.

 

Putting the idiocy of the bible laws into perspective.

Dr.Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call her radio show. Recently she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura

Dear DR. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people I can.

When someone tries to defend homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 states it to be an abomination. END OF DEBATE

I need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the alter as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord-Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know I'm allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness-Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offense.

4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though it's an abomination. Lev 11:10 it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the alter of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? Lev. 20:14.

I know you've studied these things extensively, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding me that God's word is eternal and never changing.

 

Cris: The bible is so full on contradiction its untrue. Well, my word is its all basicvally untrue anyway - a collection of stories wound together, cleverly, into something that people take as THE TRUTH. I digress, it brings to mind a popular saying "One's Mans Meat is Another Man's Poison".

Everyone knew this abomination took place, throughout history, but I think the biggest problem I have is the very blatant public portrayal of being a "shirtlifter" is repulsive.

 

Talk about contradictions. One moment you acknowledge that the bible is full of contradictions. Then you condemn homosexuality again!

On of the nice things about being an atheist is that there is no reason to think less of gays.

Of course Leviticus is where homosexuality is condemned. But Leviticus also says that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Why take one seriously, and not the other?

Why shouldn't we make comparisons with the animals? We are just another one ourselves.

 

Repo Man,

I don't think Red Devil is arguing from a religious perspective, if I read the opening post correctly.

Red Devil simply finds homosexuality personally offensive and doesn't want to see gays in positions of authority.

The issue seems to be more a matter of discrimination rather than of religion. I assume he would be equally offended by a gay politician.

But homophobes tend to adopt their bigotry based on religious grounds. Red Devil’s position is essentially one of heterosexual prejudice.

My question would be whether Red Devil’s position is any way justifiable. This is especially difficult to answer since there is no universally agreed standard on which direction human lifestyles should evolve. RD’s perspective suggests a divisive stance, and where I suspect most gays would look to a far more tolerant and enlightened approach. In this light gays clearly have the moral high ground.

 

Repo Man,

I don't think that is true. I suspect that there are many atheists who find homosexuality offensive.