Gay Bishop??

Gay Bishop-Elect Wins 1st of 2 Last Votes
Sun Aug 3, 7:07 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

MINNEAPOLIS - A New Hampshire clergyman moved a step closer Sunday to becoming the first openly gay elected bishop in the Episcopal Church, winning one of two final votes required to be confirmed.

The House of Deputies, a legislative body composed of clergy and lay people, voted to approve the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. He faces a final vote Monday in the House of Bishops.


The House of Deputies voted by delegation, with 128 delegations voting yes and 63 voting no. The votes of 25 delegations were not counted because their members were divided.


The American Anglican Council, which represents conservative bishops and parishes, said it was "deeply grieved" by the results.


"It is a tragic decision that leads the Episcopal Church to the brink of shattering the Anglican Communion," the council said in a statement. Episcopalians form the U.S. branch of the 77-million-member communion.


Robinson, a 56-year-old divorced father of two, has lived with his partner, Mark Andrew, for 13 years. If he is confirmed at this week's Episcopal General Convention, it will have an impact far beyond his diocese.


Bishops who believe gay sex is a sin contend that allowing him to serve is a tacit endorsement of ordaining homosexuals. These conservatives said it would force them to consider leaving the church, weakening the denomination and sparking a bitter fight over parish property and funds.


Like-minded bishops in the Anglican Communion have said they, too, would consider severing ties with the American church over Robinson.


But liberals said the threat has been exaggerated, and note that many conservatives had pledged to break ties before over issues such as ordaining women but did not follow through.


Robinson was elected by his diocese in June, but the church requires that a majority of convention delegates ratify his election. It is rare for the General Convention to reject a diocese's choice of bishop.


The vote by the House of Deputies, representing dioceses nationwide, came after about an hour of emotional but polite debate.


Bonnie Anderson, a parishioner from the Diocese of Michigan, said deputies should not be swayed by warnings about a potential split in the church.


"You may be afraid — afraid of schism and afraid it will hurt your church budget. Don't be afraid," she said. "The power behind you and within you is far greater than the resistance before you."


George Marshall, a parishioner from the Diocese of Albany, N.Y., said confirming Robinson would send a damaging message that Episcopalians are guided by shifting cultural attitudes, not by Scripture.


"It will prove once again that our church doesn't have the confidence to proclaim the Gospel," Marshall said. "Do not do this thing."


A chaplain led the deputies in prayer before their vote. The president of the legislative body had asked them to remain quiet when the results were announced and they complied.


Robinson has served as assistant to the retiring New Hampshire bishop. He has repeatedly rejected calls from opponents to withdraw his candidacy to prevent a breakup of the church, as a gay clergyman in England did recently.


A final vote in favor of Robinson could build momentum for approving blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples, Episcopalians on both sides of the issue say. A decision on the proposed ceremony is expected later in the meeting, which runs through Friday.

____
I cant believe this. I mean I have no right to judge for I have my own sins -plenty of them- I dont judge gays or bis. I have many gay and bi friends although I dont believe there is any reason to bring this issue into Gods house. This is crazy in my OPINION!!!

II'm glad that he was finally confirmed. The timing of those accusations was very suspect. It was just some retard with an agenda.

" I have many gay and bi friends although I dont believe there is any reason to bring this issue into Gods house."
I suspect a new form of gay church will split off from the current one.
So I wouldn't be surprised if priests start preaching within *their* houses of God.

What's this world coming too?

I have no prejudice againsts homosexuals. I completely support gays' equality and feel that it is inevitable.

People who hate gays and are against equality are wasting their time and just hurting people. If you don't believe homosexuality is right at least show some freaking understanding.

Besides it's his own private lifestyle and it never should have become an important issue.

Hey...at least this one is admitting he likes other boys.
For the sake of argument lets take the bible as fact. If you follow the letter of the bible, then you are not living up to the standards by letting a Gay man become a priest. If you believe that not everything is literal in the bible, then what next? Do you allow working girls ( prostitutes) to become accepted in the church? What other types of people do you allow to be included, that are excluded in the bible?

Does anyone else agree with me that denying Robinson's acceptance into the church because of his sexual preference is very very wrong?
I myself am not a religious person at all, so from my observing standpoint, I see a large religious assemblage that is not allowing a certain group of people based on their personal sexual preference because of what is written in a very very old book.
(I'll go ahead and take this time to apologize if I've offended anyone by that statement. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's religious beliefs, I'm just voicing my own.)
For (insert diety's name here)'s sake, Bishop Robinson is a human being. He obviously loves his religion, he obviously loves the same God everyone else does. So why must he be shunned by the very people who should be joining with him in praise of that God?
Was listening to NPR as they were discussing the topic. A caller stated that he absolutely disagreed with the acceptance of a gay bishop because he wouldn't want to bring his children to church to listen to a bishop that couldn't speak about wholesome family life involving a man and a woman. *Sigh*

Spikef

I could care less if someone was gay or not

Spikef - The bible says gays are evil. Why would a church who follows the bible allow gay priests?

It boggles my mind that anyone could see a homosexual person as evil. It boggles my mind that someone would choose to live by the words of the bible instead of making their own judgements of other human beings.
Again, merely my standpoint, but if the church lives by the words of the bible so strictly that it will not allow acceptance of all human beings, sinners or not, then the church is wrong. By my moral standards, I can wholeheartedly disagree with shunning another human being for his or her sexual preference.
If that makes me a sinner, then bring on the flames (pun intended).
I think people's difficulty with accepting homosexuals stems from their upbringing. Their environment, their parents, and church at an early age ingraining the thoughts of gay people as evil beings.
Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone by my comments. I certainly know a lot of good comes from the church. But the fact that this has become such an issue shows that we as a society have a long way to go in acceptance of "different" people.
I believe that continued literal translation of every word of the bible will mean very little movement toward a more accepting and understanding society.
Call me a radical. Call me an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. This is mine.
And sorry if I rambled. I do that sometimes.

Spikef

PS: I'm glad I found these boards. I love hearing what other people have to say about issues, and life in general, as much as expressing my own opinions and getting feedback.

I dont think this church is going to be taken very seriously. It will get alot of Hype. I dont think gay or bi's are evil at all. If he is following Christianity or the Bible, it does talk about gays being barbaric. Mainly Sadomy (SP??) Dont quote me because I do not have the total answer for that. He cant really preach the bible if he is talking to a bunch of gays. I think it will offend them or he would have to leave that part out which is not right. If you teach the bible, teach the whole thing!!

You would have to read that part of the bible to know how to take that. I will have to reread it when I get home. I think it mainly talks about sodumy. And animals. It confuses me a bit!!

"...unless you're just using it to get by in life and pick and choose waht you want to believe.

which is perfectly all right, but then you can't teach "the bible" to people. You can teach "your version" which would propagate another sect."

If the bible told us that, for instance, all people with blue eyes were evil beings, do you think those words would still be preached today? No, because people would realize that it is not reasonable to hate someone because of the color of their eyes (something they can not change). It may not be the best analogy, but hopefully you get the picture.
So how is it reasonable to preach that gay people are evil when that is something they cannot change?
Teaching the "the bible" to people implies that you will teach them that homosexuals are evil. In other words, you will be preaching an outright prejudice toward a certain group of people, and justifying it by saying it was written in the bible, and everyone should believe every single word the bible says. If leaving out the sections in the bible that teach outright prejudice toward homosexuals, especially to impressionable children, is wrong in the eyes of the people of the church, then hell, I don't want to be right.

Spikef - Its not reasonable, but its understandable. I think Decius is completely right about all prejudice becoming outdated. There are many parts of the bible that are simply ignored today by the vast majority of worshippers. Leviticus for example is never taken seriously.
Checkout www.biblebabble.com to find out why

Spike, I believe your analogy has some holes in it. Although it is YOUR opinnion. The more things you have to leave out of the bible to make it apply today, the less reliabile the bible becomes. Sooner or later there will be more exemptions than rules. The bible has to follow its word in order to become believed.
There's my two cents.