Episcopal bishop ponders whether to s...

Episcopal bishop ponders whether to sanction same-sex blessings

There are 12 comments on the St. Petersburg Times story from Jun 29, 2014, titled Episcopal bishop ponders whether to sanction same-sex blessings. In it, St. Petersburg Times reports that:

Early this year, Episcopal Bishop Dabney Smith stood before a crowd of about 175 people who wanted him to authorize same-sex union blessings.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at St. Petersburg Times.

Listen to the Word

Bullhead City, AZ

#1 Jun 30, 2014
Possibly if he opened his Bible and read the sections which address marriage he would no longer be befuddled.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#2 Jul 3, 2014
Listen to the Word wrote:
Possibly if he opened his Bible and read the sections which address marriage he would no longer be befuddled.
Really!?

And just which sections address same-sex marriage?
George

Jacksonville, FL

#3 Jul 3, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!?
And just which sections address same-sex marriage?
Did you not read his comment? He suggested that the good bishop read the biblical passages that speak to marriage. Same-sex "marriage" is not mentioned because it did not exist and because the very concept is an abomination. Courts and/or legislatures can legally require that dogs be called elephants or that electricty be henceforth known as rape. That is what they have been doing - pasting a label that has no relationship to what the world understands by the term marriage on something entirely different..

We both know the bishop is not "pondering" anything. Like the great majority of the "leadership" in TEO, he is PANDERING to gay and lesbian activists and will authorize/sanction priests in his Diocese to be witnesses to and particpants in this mockery. The law may require me to give legal recognition to persons united by law in a relationship the state chooses to cals "marriage" but they are no more married than a dog is an elephant even if some judge says it is so.
noshellswill

Jacksonville, FL

#4 Jul 3, 2014
Try Corinthians-1

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ...."

Straight married sex or nothing. Clear enough fagboi, or do you need St. Paul to send you a feckin-A postcard ?
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!?
And just which sections address same-sex marriage?
Shirvel s Shrivel

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Jul 3, 2014
Listen to the Word wrote:
Possibly if he opened his Bible and read the sections which address marriage he would no longer be befuddled.
Hey Listen Selectively to the Word:

Are you saying he should open his buybull and read the sections pertaining to slavery and polygamy, which are commonplace in scripture, even endorsed, if not commanded?

You disgusting christianist rubes are the definition of anti rational. Read and follow your own swill. Go similarly take equal civil rights away from those who covet - a Commandment - for example. Deranged bigot. You merely have a serious sex problem, not any scriptural concerns.
Shirvel s Shrivel

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Jul 3, 2014
noshellswill wrote:
Try Corinthians-1
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ...."
<quoted text>
Why aren't you jaysus mullahs trying to bar those who unrepentantly engaged in adultery (or divorce or masturbation) from marrying, adopting, serving openly.

Because you're massive, bigoted, hypocritical homophobes, that's why. It has nothing to do with Corinthians. That's merely your crutch to hate lgbt people.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#7 Jul 3, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not read his comment? He suggested that the good bishop read the biblical passages that speak to marriage. Same-sex "marriage" is not mentioned because it did not exist and because the very concept is an abomination. Courts and/or legislatures can legally require that dogs be called elephants or that electricty be henceforth known as rape. That is what they have been doing - pasting a label that has no relationship to what the world understands by the term marriage on something entirely different..
We both know the bishop is not "pondering" anything. Like the great majority of the "leadership" in TEO, he is PANDERING to gay and lesbian activists and will authorize/sanction priests in his Diocese to be witnesses to and particpants in this mockery. The law may require me to give legal recognition to persons united by law in a relationship the state chooses to cals "marriage" but they are no more married than a dog is an elephant even if some judge says it is so.
No. Let's see the biblical references that define same-sex marriage. Let them be stated and leave none of them out. Begin with Genesis.

You wrote:

'Same-sex "marriage" is not mentioned because it did not exist and because the very concept is an abomination.'

Of course same-sex marriage exists and has existed. It is now and has always been a common-law relationship, even if such relationships were morally and culturally denied. The choice to engage in such a relationship belongs to the participants only. Today, the Courts are recognizing the long history and reality of these relationships. References to them can be found throughout recorded history. The result is that the law is being amended to permit civil unions, marriages by law, recognizing the right of the individual to marry the person chosen to be his or her mate.

Furthermore, in consideration to and recognition of such relationships, the burgeoning body of knowledge arising out of modern investigative research in science and medicine has confirmed the basis for such relationships.

The religious implications are a different thing, subjective as they are, and as such are not dictated by law to be made available or to be performed by a representative minister or priest of ANY religious persuasion or system of beliefs. That is the nature of civil liberty and the recognition of the profound right of expression given to the ultimate minority - the individual citizen.

The fact that the bishop of an Episcopal Church Diocese is now considering or permitting such marriages to be rightfully conducted in accordance with civil law is a proper adaptation to the law in our Constitutional Republic. Such permission is a matter of spiritual discretion.

You may not agree with the practice on religious grounds. But, that disagreement is your own subjective assessment.

We do not live in a theocracy.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#8 Jul 3, 2014
noshellswill wrote:
Try Corinthians-1
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ...."
Straight married sex or nothing. Clear enough fagboi, or do you need St. Paul to send you a feckin-A postcard ?
<quoted text>
No. This biblical quote does not address same-sex marriage.

It addresses sex outside of marriage.

It addresses adultery. It addresses idolatry. It addresses self-abuse.

It addresses drunkards and robbers and prostitutes.

It addresses "sodomites" which are those who have sex with animals.

It may address those who engage in all kinds of promiscuous sex, hetero- and homo-.

As for "effeminate," the original texts do not provide a definition of this implied subjective assessment.

However, there is no reference to same-sex marriage. Even so, we now know that such exclusive relationships, born out of love and existing with spiritual integrity and mutual care and trust, have always occurred, throughout the history of mankind.

As such, these pair-bondings are normal, naturally coupling relationships, preferred by a minor set of individuals who are not heterosexually oriented, persistently occurring as a part of the entire spectrum of human sexual behavior.

That is why both legal and spiritual recognition of these relationships has become a reality.

Try some other biblical references about same-sex marriages. The one you have provided, a general reference to 1st Corinthians, does not apply.

Rev. Ken
An ordained priest and disciple of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and a citizen of the U.S. of A.
noshellswill

Jacksonville, FL

#9 Jul 3, 2014
What a fyucked bytch you are.

1 + 1 = 2 gives me plenty of reason to be 'massively bigoted' against 2 + 1 = 4.

Comprende? St. Pauls missive is no "crutch" ... just encouragement for moral consistency and intolerance for fagboi emotocentric drivil.
Shirvel s Shrivel wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you jaysus mullahs trying to bar those who unrepentantly engaged in adultery (or divorce or masturbation) from marrying, adopting, serving openly.
Because you're massive, bigoted, hypocritical homophobes, that's why. It has nothing to do with Corinthians. That's merely your crutch to hate lgbt people.
Shirvel s Shrivel

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Jul 3, 2014
noshellswill wrote:
What a fyucked bytch you are.
1 + 1 = 2 gives me plenty of reason to be 'massively bigoted' against 2 + 1 = 4.
Comprende? St. Pauls missive is no "crutch" ... just encouragement for moral consistency and intolerance for fagboi emotocentric drivil.
<quoted text>
You failed to answer the question. You claim that Corinthians is some sort of basis for your anti lgbt bias, yet you don't bray similarly about all those that Corinthians supposedly condemns, such as adulterers or those who masturbate, or whatever...it's so unreliably translated and interpreted.

So it's not about Corinthians. You may stop pretending your sexually conflicted hatred is connected in any way to scripture. It's merely psychosexual on your part.
Joe

Tampa, FL

#11 Jul 4, 2014
Look at the structure of the church and you will have your answer.
Fundie Fatwass Aroma

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jul 5, 2014
noshellswill wrote:
1 + 1 = 2....St. Pauls missive is no "crutch"
<quoted text>
You have a mind full of hate for such a "Christian," you christianist, pos bigot.

As I've demonstrated by your exclusive focus on men having sex with men rather than ever mentioning coveters or adulterers or those who masturbate it's not about scripture and never was. It's only about your psychosexual illness of homophobia which you don't wish to foreground. So you make up excuses by picking and choosing.

Hypocritical trash.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Macclenny Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man Caught Having Sex with a Picnic Table (Mar '08) 12 hr Ricky F 958
News U.S. and World News - Child Falls From Ferris W... (Aug '07) 14 hr Michelle 12
trump maybe russia Tue Racist Pig Boy 4
to go or not to go by darkvader (Feb '08) Tue brandy trujillo 23
News Top Stories - FBI Raids Outlaws Motorcycle Club... (Aug '07) Aug 22 RFFR 221
News Sisters of Cherish Perrywinkle removed from mother (Jul '13) Aug 22 Jen 15
News Strange & Unusual - 61-Year-Old Man Abandoned B... (Mar '07) Aug 21 Big Smally Biggs 18

Macclenny Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Macclenny Mortgages