The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[Albion]

because as it stands, homosexuals are not allowed to get married in most places and must simply live together whereas heterosexuals may get married.

That wasn't the question. Why do advocates of homosexual clergy discriminate against heterosexual candidates who have no intendtion of getting married but have a partner and say it's fine with God. You know, all the arguments made by the homosexual candidates that justifies their position.

The argument about not allowed in most places is nonsense, of course, because it's nothing to take a plane ride to Boston or some other such city. Heterosexuals fly to Las Vegas all the time.

 

[TheCunctator]

I don't understand where the debate is here.
I am against it. Scripture is rather clear on homosexuality, and it condemns it. I don't see what way people can circumvent what the Bible says.

Given that, no there should be no priest/pastors that are practicing homosexuals.

Concerning the celibate, however, is a different issue.

 

[PaladinValer]

Given that, no there should be no priest/pastors that are practicing homosexuals.

The problem with this, however, is that it opens the door to Donatism wide open.

Clergy are human, not deities. They will sin just as much, even not worse and more at times, as the laity. Does that disqualify them suddenly as clergy?

I'm not suggesting that what is currently being practiced by the Anglican Communion be abolished. I am suggesting however that a different argument be used that doesn't lead down the road into Donatism.

 

[AngCath]

That wasn't the question. Why do advocates of homosexual clergy discriminate against heterosexual candidates who have no intendtion of getting married but have a partner and say it's fine with God. You know, all the arguments made by the homosexual candidates that justifies their position.

The argument about not allowed in most places is nonsense, of course, because it's nothing to take a plane ride to Boston or some other such city. Heterosexuals fly to Las Vegas all the time.

Because advocates of homosexual candidates and homosexual marriage are seeking to uphold marriage. These same advocates "discriminate" against straight people who refuse marriage because promiscuity is the real sin at play.

 

[Yab Yum]

A question for all liberal non-vegetarians present: how about the ordination of practicing beastialists?

I am not being vulgar or frivolous (please read the play, it is excellent, or better yet, see it).

The real question is about the relationship of God's law to societal morality.

Societal morality changes. It is a moving target. We no longer have any hesitation about saying that someone who consumes lobster, or wears nylon with cotton, can nevertheless be a good, kind, loving person.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

A question for all liberal non-vegetarians present: how about the ordination of practicing beastialists?

This seems to be a "red herring", at least by my undertanding of the term. These two issues have nothing to do with one another. Beastiality and homosexuality are completely different, this comment does not deserve a dignified response.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Why do advocates of homosexual clergy discriminate against heterosexual candidates who have no intendtion of getting married but have a partner and say it's fine with God.

I would be fine with an unmarried, sexually active heterosexual candidate. Their sex life is really no business of mine, and they are more qualified than I am to determine their vocation.

 

[chrisnu]

But this raises another question. Why do advocates of ordaining open, practicing homosexuals discriminate against heterosexuals who may be living with a partner, not married, and professing that it is right with God to do so?

Bingo. Either both sexually active gay or lesbian people and unmarried, sexually active straight people should be allowed to be ordained to the priesthood and the episcopate, or neither.

 

[kiwimac]

I agree with the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

 

[Yab Yum]

This seems to be a "red herring", at least by my undertanding of the term. These two issues have nothing to do with one another. Beastiality and homosexuality are completely different, this comment does not deserve a dignified response.

i) The horror you instantly experienced is the same feeling that many other people feel when they consider homosexuality. A more progressive, tolerant society is fine - apart from when we come to matters regarding which some people wish to conserve traditional structures? And which traditional structures do you want to conserve? Those e.g. regarding consensual sex with siblings? Does it make you a bigot to react with horror at the mere suggestion that those structures may be temporal and/or contextual?

ii) Since my point was apparently not conveyed well, I will try this again. Our emotional reactions indicate that eating lobster, wearing nylon with cotton, etc is OK. They also indicate that having sex with an animal, having sex with a consenting sibling, etc, is not OK. Homosexual activity appears in the grey zone between these two extremes - for some people it's perfectly OK, for some people it's really not OK.

Where do these reactions come from? I propose they come from our families, communities, countries, civilizations i.e. our society. Your society has put its values, roles and desires inside of you.

Are these moralities constant? Obviously not, they change all the time. So the question is not a narrow one. If we don't figure out how societal morality relates to God's law first, we'll never figure out the arguments which are consequent to that threshold question.

 

[Yardstick]

i) The horror you instantly experienced is the same feeling that many other people feel when they consider homosexuality. A more progressive, tolerant society is fine - apart from when we come to matters regarding which some people wish to conserve traditional structures? And which traditional structures do you want to conserve? Those e.g. regarding consensual sex with siblings? Does it make you a bigot to react with horror at the mere suggestion that those structures may be temporal and/or contextual?

ii) Since my point was apparently not conveyed well, I will try this again. Our emotional reactions indicate that eating lobster, wearing nylon with cotton, etc is OK. They also indicate that having sex with an animal, having sex with a consenting sibling, etc, is not OK. Homosexual activity appears in the grey zone between these two extremes - for some people it's perfectly OK, for some people it's really not OK.

Where do these reactions come from? I propose they come from our families, communities, countries, civilizations i.e. our society. Your society has put its values, roles and desires inside of you.

Are these moralities constant? Obviously not, they change all the time. So the question is not a narrow one. If we don't figure out how societal morality relates to God's law first, we'll never figure out the arguments which are consequent to that threshold question.

Homosexuality is not in anyway comparable to bestiality or incest. Whether people think them gross or not is irrelevant. The issue is about morality. Homosexuals can clearly participate in morally sound relationships. This same criteria is not met in regards to relationships with animals or siblings.

That wasn't the question. Why do advocates of homosexual clergy discriminate against heterosexual candidates who have no intendtion of getting married but have a partner and say it's fine with God. You know, all the arguments made by the homosexual candidates that justifies their position.

The argument about not allowed in most places is nonsense, of course, because it's nothing to take a plane ride to Boston or some other such city. Heterosexuals fly to Las Vegas all the time.

Barring homosexuals from marriage and than using that as criteria to bar them from ordination is ridiculous. I am positive that as soon as homosexual marriage is made available and valid, the criteria for homosexual clergy will be to enter matrimony.

Comparing a heterosexual marriage in Las Vegas to a homosexual marriage in Boston is incomplete. While the homosexual marriage may be recognized by the State of Massachusetts, it will not be recognized as soon as they return home. And it will not be recognized by the Church either.

 

[Yab Yum]

Homosexuality is not in anyway comparable to bestiality or incest. Whether people think them gross or not is irrelevant. The issue is about morality. Homosexuals can clearly participate in morally sound relationships. This same criteria is not met in regards to relationships with animals or siblings.

2,000 years ago a Jew would have recoiled in horror at someone eating a lobster. Are you really prepared to say that that issue is not "about morality" and is just about someone who "thinks something is gross"? Again, social morality changes. You have simply begged the question by saying that "homosexuals can clearly participate in morally sound relationships" but someone who, say, is engaged in a consensual adult incestuous relationship cannot. What is the basis for your making this statement?

 

[Albion]

Barring homosexuals from marriage and than using that as criteria to bar them from ordination is ridiculous.

Fortunately, that isn't the case. The barring is the state's doing, while the ordaining is the church's business. Did you have a valid point to make?

I am positive that as soon as homosexual marriage is made available and valid, the criteria for homosexual clergy will be to enter matrimony.

You may think that, but those in the know don't.

Comparing a heterosexual marriage in Las Vegas to a homosexual marriage in Boston is incomplete. While the homosexual marriage may be recognized by the State of Massachusetts, it will not be recognized as soon as they return home. And it will not be recognized by the Church either.

So, it won't be recognized by the church, but for the same two people to merely live together, have sex, and do nothing that is available along the marriage lines is fine and dandy with the church? Yes, you are right that that kind of hypocrisy is indeed the way of some churches.

 

[Albion]

I would be fine with an unmarried, sexually active heterosexual candidate. Their sex life is really no business of mine, and they are more qualified than I am to determine their vocation.

If you ever start your own religion, feel free to make it into whatever you want.

 

[RadixLecti]

Would those who support ordination of sexually active homosexuals also support the ordination of those in polyamorous or polygamous relationships, assuming those partners to the relationship were all consenting adults?

 

[New_Found_Faith]

If you ever start your own religion, feel free to make it into whatever you want.

I would say the same to you. Jesus never said anything about sinners having the obligation to bar other sinners from ministry.

 

[Albion]

A question for all liberal non-vegetarians present: how about the ordination of practicing beastialists?

Interesting question. Since I was just now reading New_Found_Faith's checklist for ordaining people, let's see how this idea checks out.

1. Is it my business. No, was the answer there.
2. Does the beastialist himself consider it wrong? No, he doesn't. So, it's OK.

And as other liberals have argued, what the Bible says about it can just be chalked up to it being outdated. We only care about the parts of the BIble that we like. THEN it's really authoritative! But on this, Naaaaaa.

Looks like there is no reason to stand in the path of the beastialist, at least not according to the reasoning of that segment of society. The beastialist is in love, you know. (But then again, this assumes a certain consistency on the part of the Far Left, which we've already recognized is not to be had.)

Yes, it's at least a good question.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Interesting question. Since I was just now reading New_Found_Faith's checklist for ordaining people, let's see how this idea checks out.

1. Is it my business. No, was the answer there.
2. Does the beastialist himself consider it wrong? No, he doesn't. So, it's OK.

You're twisting my words, Albion. I don't appreciate that.

I answered a question about unmarried, monogamous heterosexual adults who each gave consent to be in the relationship. There are different circumstances to be considered in a matter such as beastiality, which is illegal and in which an animal can give no consent and therefore is considered cruelty/abuse.

Obviously I don't support the ordination of criminals or animal abusers. Anyone who partakes in beastiality is both. Homosexuals are neither. We are not comparing apples and apples.

In any case, the topics of unmarried heterosexuals and beastility are both "red herrings", as I understand the term. The topic at hand is homosexual ordination.

And as other liberals have argued, what the Bible says about it can just be chalked up to it being outdated. We only care about the parts of the BIble that we like. THEN it's really authoritative! But on this, Naaaaaa.

If you don't think that morality as dictated by OT law is outdated, then you must also insist that no priest eats shellfish or wears clothing made out of more than one kind of fabric.

You are the one who is "picking and choosing" from what parts of bronze age religious law to enforce on 21st century ministers.

 

[TheCunctator]

The problem with this, however, is that it opens the door to Donatism wide open.

Clergy are human, not deities. They will sin just as much, even not worse and more at times, as the laity. Does that disqualify them suddenly as clergy?

I'm not suggesting that what is currently being practiced by the Anglican Communion be abolished. I am suggesting however that a different argument be used that doesn't lead down the road into Donatism.

What kind of reasoning are you using? No one has suggested that clergymen need to be perfect to fulfill their roles, but to say something that "Oh, people sin anyway, why not let them be active in gay sex?"

That's not how it works. You shouldn't be okay with your sin just because you're a sinner. Paul made that clear in Romans. If they sin they should be forgiven, but it's a rather large scandal to be caught have sexual relations with another person, particularly a priest. When that pastor Ted Haggart was being suspected (correctly) of engaging in homosexual relations, he immediately resigned because it was incompatible with his role.

It is incompatible with the role of a priest to be engaged in any form of sexual activity. Why should this be any different? And how can you excuse it?

If that individual prefers to have a homosexual partner, he is certainly free because the United States and Britain are both free nations, however, if you want to be a member of a certain church denomination, let alone part of the clergy, you need to respect A) their mandates, and B) scripture.

Scripture is very clear on homosexuality. There's no way to go around it.

 

[Albion]

You're twisting my words, Albion. I don't appreciate that.

I'm sorry you feel that way, if you do.

I answered a question about unmarried, monogamous heterosexual adults who each gave consent to be in the relationship. There are different circumstances to be considered in a matter such as beastiality, which is illegal and in which an animal can give no consent and therefore is considered cruelty/abuse.

I'm sure we can all find some aspects of the situation that are not identical to the other one, and the more the better if the intention is to throw up as much of a smokescreen as possible.

Obviously I don't support the ordination of criminals or animal abusers.

You really do have high standards!

The topic at hand is homosexual ordination.

It's completely relevant to consider the logic or illogic in the arguments offered by the proponents of this change in church policy.

If you don't think that morality as dictated by OT law is outdated, then you must also insist that no priest eats shellfish or wears clothing made out of more than one kind of fabric.

Heard that one before. It's kind of a favorite of the advocates of changing anything and everything in the church, wouldn't you agree? Of course, it's a ridiculous argument since you either have to contend that there should be absolutely no regulations or standards at all--which you have already said is incorrect for the reason that you do have standards such as the ones you explained above--or else you are operating under the mistaken assumption that this OT chapter is the whole of the Bible's teaching on morality and sexual behavior.

You are the one who is "picking and choosing" from what parts of bronze age religious law to enforce on 21st century ministers.

Yeh, I get the point. The Bible is just an artifact left over from the bronze age, like a knife or piece of pottery. That's a very creative and colorful way of describing your disdain. Congratulations.