A "gay" Episcopal priest's view of marriage

[LittleNipper]

The Episcopal Church's first openly gay male priest went on to question the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he termed "sex-positive" theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

"My position on sexual exclucsivity ... is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a validChristia marriage." So stated Father Robert Williams, whose contovercial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He went on to die of AIDS complications in 1992.
A strict form of monogamous sexual fedelity, he noted, is "anoption some couples CHOOSE. Others do not, and yet have life-long, grace-filled, covenant relationships." Regardless of how shortened they may become ---- it would seem.

 

[Engyo]

Hi, LN -

So, anything you don't like, or choose, is automatically wrong or evil? Do I get to hand down the same sorts of judgements? What if we disagree?

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't think this man's views on marriage was motivated particularly by homosexuality, so I'm unclear why that is central to this issue. It seems rather that he was simply unable to form lasting romantic commitments, a fault to be seen in a large segment of the population. What's ridiculous is his attempt to make such a failing consistent with Christian faith. I suppose it's also okay to commit to one religion faithfully, then another, then another, then another. This may be a lot of things, but it's not Christian. It also emasculates the idea of fidelity. Serial monogomy can't be turned into faithfulness.

 

[Dunemeister]

Hi, LN -

So, anything you don't like, or choose, is automatically wrong or evil? Do I get to hand down the same sorts of judgements? What if we disagree?

Yawn.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Episcopal Church's first openly gay male priest went on to question the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he termed "sex-positive" theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

"My position on sexual exclucsivity ... is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a validChristia marriage." So stated Father Robert Williams, whose contovercial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He went on to die of AIDS complications in 1992.
A strict form of monogamous sexual fedelity, he noted, is "anoption some couples CHOOSE. Others do not, and yet have life-long, grace-filled, covenant relationships." Regardless of how shortened they may become ---- it would seem.

First off, when cutting and pasting (or typing a copy yourself) an article, forum rules require you to site your source.

Source for mentioned article.

Second, your attempts at flame-baiting in the Debate section of the forum should at least include a question or statement presenting your stance on the supposed issue.

And lastly, presenting the views of one controversial former gay minister is fine, as long as you understand one person does not represent the rest. Just as you do not represent all of Christianity.

 

[Zorro1227]

The Episcopal Church's first openly gay male priest went on to question the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he termed "sex-positive" theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

"My position on sexual exclucsivity ... is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a validChristia marriage." So stated Father Robert Williams, whose contovercial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He went on to die of AIDS complications in 1992.
A strict form of monogamous sexual fedelity, he noted, is "anoption some couples CHOOSE. Others do not, and yet have life-long, grace-filled, covenant relationships." Regardless of how shortened they may become ---- it would seem.

First of all you need to learn how to cite things. I completely agree with his statement (that is if this is a true statement). Of course I have no idea why you are still pushing this homosexual issue. Guess what LN? I love women and I am completely attracted to them and men. Do you really think these posts are going to change my mind? Or anyone's for that matter?

 

[Autodidact]

LN: What are you so obsessed with gay people?

 

[Storm]

LN: What are you so obsessed with gay people?

 

[LittleNipper]

Hi, LN -

So, anything you don't like, or choose, is automatically wrong or evil? Do I get to hand down the same sorts of judgements? What if we disagree?

By their fruits ye shall know them. In this case , I'd have to say that contracting AIDS was the DIRECT result of this priest's selected lifestyle. If one lives by the sword, one will likely die by the sword. Such logic is irrefutable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

LN: What are you so obsessed with gay people?

Guilty feelings associated with latent or suppressed homosexuality can cause extreme homophobia.

 

[Autodidact]

By their fruits ye shall know them. In this case , I'd have to say that contracting AIDS was the DIRECT result of this priest's selected lifestyle. If one lives by the sword, one will likely die by the sword. Such logic is irrefutable.

So we are forced to conclude that heterosexuals are more sinful than lesbians, since they contract AIDS (and all other STDs) at a much higher rate?

 

[Autodidact]

LN: Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

 

[Zorro1227]

By their fruits ye shall know them. In this case , I'd have to say that contracting AIDS was the DIRECT result of this priest's selected lifestyle. If one lives by the sword, one will likely die by the sword. Such logic is irrefutable.

Well if you live by the sword of being judgmental are you going to die by that sword?

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't think this man's views on marriage was motivated particularly by homosexuality, so I'm unclear why that is central to this issue. It seems rather that he was simply unable to form lasting romantic commitments, a fault to be seen in a large segment of the population. What's ridiculous is his attempt to make such a failing consistent with Christian faith. I suppose it's also okay to commit to one religion faithfully, then another, then another, then another. This may be a lot of things, but it's not Christian. It also emasculates the idea of fidelity. Serial monogomy can't be turned into faithfulness.

Actually, I feel strongly that it was motivated by his need to exonerate his lifestyle in the face of his own choice of career. I'd really have to believe that GOD had very little with bringing such a person into the ministry. He was likely an opportunist just as Judas was.
He was trying the best he knew how to rationalize his choices. If the Bible says fornication is wrong and adultary is wrong and homosexuality is wrong; then the individual either must accept that, ignore it, or try to warp that truth into something acceptable to that individual's motives.

 

[LittleNipper]

So we are forced to conclude that heterosexuals are more sinful than lesbians, since they contract AIDS (and all other STDs) at a much higher rate?

People are not more or less sinful. They are either sinful and repent, sinful and do nothing, or sinful and try to rationalize their position. I believe that lesbians in some cases are the victim of sexual abuse on the part of men.

Their own fault in some cases, maybe that they choose to have an affair prior to marriage to a godly man. To dabble in sex is a very bad choice.

 

[Zorro1227]

Actually, I feel strongly that it was motivated by his need to exonerate his lifestyle in the face of his own choice of career. I'd really have to believe that GOD had very little with bringing such a person into the ministry. He was likely an opportunist just as Judas was.
He was trying the best he knew how to rationalize his choices. If the Bible says fornication is wrong and adultary is wrong and homosexuality is wrong; then the individual either must accept that, ignore it, or try to warp that truth into something acceptable to that individual's motives.

I find this comment hilarious seeing that you have twisted and warped the the "truth" as well. :clap

 

[Autodidact]

People are not more or less sinful. They are either sinful and repent, sinful and do nothing, or sinful and try to rationalize their position.

But you would agree that heterosexuals die by the sword as recompense for their heterosexuality, while lesbians are spared?

I believe that lesbians in some cases are the victim of sexual abuse on the part of men.

Of course. All women in some cases are the victim of sexual abuse on the part of men; men do that a lot.

My point is that by your logic, lesbians have been spared by God, thereby demostrating that God favors lesbianism, don't you agree?

Their own fault in some cases, maybe that they choose to have an affair prior to marriage to a godly man. To dabble in sex is a very bad choice.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you here. What are you trying to say?

 

[Autodidact]

Ln: Why are you so obsessed with gay people?

 

[LittleNipper]

First off, when cutting and pasting (or typing a copy yourself) an article, forum rules require you to site your source.

Source for mentioned article.

Second, your attempts at flame-baiting in the Debate section of the forum should at least include a question or statement presenting your stance on the supposed issue.

And lastly, presenting the views of one controversial former gay minister is fine, as long as you understand one person does not represent the rest. Just as you do not represent all of Christianity.

Let me say one thing and one thing only to the likes of you: It is never noble to threaten individuals solely because they've painted you into a corner. It is far more honorable to say, "I disagree," and simply let it go at that...

I read a article in the Burlington County Time, again today, and found this priest's comments to be misguided. The question seem to be coming fast enough on their own...

 

[Autodidact]

ln: Why are you so interested in gay people's personal lives?