Gay Bishop

[mad1]

fox

Should a this be allowed,
1. Yes
2. No

[muno]

Where's option 'I don't care'.

I think it's up to them to decide who's fit to be a bishop and who's not.

So the answer is, 'yes, they should've if they saw it fit'. Not, yes because I believe so.
-M

[M_Six]

Being an atheist, I couldn't care less what the church (ANY church) does. But for the sake of argument, I don't see how a church can allow a senior official, one who is supposed to lead by example, to be a consistent participant in what their own rule book (The Bible) says is sinful activity. Mind you, I have no issues with gays myself and have no problem with them enjoying the same rights as everyone else. But it seems severely hypocritical to say you believe in the word of God (again, The Bible) with a few "exceptions". You either believe everything it says in the Bible or you don't. If you believe The Bible truly is the word of God, then what right do you have to pick and choose what parts of The Bible to believe?

[Mickwish]

We just has a controversial vote in our national church congress here on allowing ordination of gay people. 86% of members oppose it, but it was still passed.

I don't think it is a bibically sound position. Homosexuality is not condoned in the bible, and as such, those practicing it should not be placed in positions of leadership within the church.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't still show compassion and love for people who practice homosexuality. It's in their actions we disapprove, not them personally.

Cheers
Mick

[tmx468]

As M_Six said, it seems a bit strange, but as there is no 'other' option, I'll plump for yes - thye have the right to vote in whoever they see fit.

[ben-the-slacker]

He's gay. Big deal. As long as he doesn't do anything like those catholic guys I don't really care.

[Epidemic]

I voted no for the same reasons as stated perfectly by M_Six.

Flip side is that they may practice their belief as they see fit. So in actuallity I actually believe yes them can do what the hell they want. So I actually vote yes for freedom of worship and no for the hypocracy. I just hold the hipocracy as a higher order problem.

[Theophylact]

Like M_Six, I'm an atheist, and have no vested interest in Anglican theology. In the unlikely event of an instantaneous conversion, I'd be for the elevation of Robinson (already a priest, mind you) to Bishop.

I believe in freedom of religion as well as the right not to be forced to practice one at all.

Orthodox Jews don't allow Bat Mitzvah; Roman Catholics don't allow women priests; Mormons (until 1978) barred blacks from the priesthood; and I really don't know what offensive discriminatory practices Muslims have, but I bet there are some. It's their problem. Schism is always an option.

That doesn't mean that I don't find these practices repugnant; just that it's none of my business.

[mad1]

I have trouble understanding how this church can appoint him to this position knowing that the bible is against this practice.
This person has been elevated to a position where many people( young children) will look up to him as a role model. We have all seen what harm this can do to the younger population, the Catholic Priests have shown this.
Personally I find this disgusting and immoral. But if they wish to do this in the privacy of their own home and not display acts of this nature in front of impressionable children then go for it. It is tough enough on the young population without this added to the mixture.
Will they let this person teach classes with children in the class? I would remove my children from the class and that church if this was to take place.

[mad1]

Foxnews has a video interview with him.