homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots?
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Stay, and do good. Jesus didn't turn his back and walk away from the oppressed and those whom others despised, and neither should you. Change for future generations is only effected by those who work for it now.

And Adeodatus and I have done our bit (Jesus, after all, wasn't in ministry for as long as either of us, and his end point was being killed by those who opposed him - I don't have the same confidence I'd be raised from the dead after 3 days). My wonderful mother said, at the height of my trials, "If nothing else, you're forcing the church to do some growing up."

12 years down the track, I very rarely enter a church building. I still call myself a Christian, because I am much more able to be a Christian now that I don't have to spend so much of my time proving I'm a human being. Since I left I have never lost the sense of lightness of being I had that first day. I thought I'd be devastated, instead, it feels like a gift. My partner had more difficulty, but she too has found ways to exercise ministry without the weight of church.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Saying that you should stay is quite cruel, I don't mean consciously, but the net effect. It reminds me of relationships, where people are advised to stay, and work through the problems. That's OK, if both parties are up for it, but if only one is, in the end, they can get destroyed by it.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm reading this with intense sadness. When I left, it was over the women priests issue, and specifically the way that people were able to spout poison, even enact poison (There was a story of an ordinand who went up to the rail where a woman was administering the chalice, and drew blood by digging his fingernails in to her hand*) and no-one stood up and said that the discussion simply should not be conducted with irrational and visceral hate, but must be dealt with as a theological issue, with the head.

To read these stories is to see that in the case of LGBT people there is not simply silence about the poison, but collusion with it. It is vile.

*That story suggested to me that he had prepared for it. My fingernails would not draw blood unless sharpened first. I wonder where he is now.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

What, pray tell, is the moderate position in the C of E on LGBT clergy?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

What, pray tell, is the moderate position in the C of E on LGBT clergy?
I suppose I'm classing as "moderate" all positions that accept that it's OK to have LGBT clergy: from full affirmation of gay sexuality as God-given to "I don't care and don't want to think about it". I'm not suggesting that all those positions would be viewed as moderate throughout the CofE. They wouldn't.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that's the point. There is no moderate. We are either fallen-away, luke-warm heretical diluters of the gospel and complicit with sinners or upholders of the gospel according to St Bastard. The middle is squeezed into oblivion.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Stay, and do good. Jesus didn't turn his back and walk away from the oppressed and those whom others despised, and neither should you. Change for future generations is only effected by those who work for it now.

And Adeodatus and I have done our bit...
Jesus also seemed to know that taking time out was necessary, and also that sometimes you just have to walk away and give the thing space.

I remember reading here of ArabellaPW's efforts be treated like a human and to be allowed to express her faith through ministry and thinking that her resilience was truly epic and wondering how long she and her partner could manage to carry on for. Who knows how many people were affected by her perseverance and faithfulness? Lots, I imagine, but she and her partner have also got to take time to look after themselves. If you keep on giving without replenishing for too long you end up like a squished and empty toothpaste tube. It sounds like Adeodatus is finding the same thing.
I guess everyone has different volumes of squishing that can be done before they end up like that, and it doesn't surprise me that a lot of LGBT+ clergy are finding they've reached that point, or found they'd reached it long ago.

Change does seem to be happening, but it's slow, and that must be crushing, it's probably not a good or helpful idea to suggest they need to stay being crushed. Let others and allies and an eventual critical mass in the congregations carry on. They made a bloody good effort.

--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)

Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427

 - Posted      Profile for Nenya     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree, luvvanddaisies, and have been reading this thread with sorrow and a sense of being deeply humbled.

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that's the point. There is no moderate. We are either fallen-away, luke-warm heretical diluters of the gospel and complicit with sinners or upholders of the gospel according to St Bastard. The middle is squeezed into oblivion.

Thing is, I'm not really interested in the "moderate" view. The CofE's "moderate" is actually very conservative when you look at it from outside. I think we have to recognise, too, the politics of the CofE's position. The built-in conservatism isn't just about theology, it's about reliance on conservatives' money. A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

I really think I should have gone into a business where I could have kept a cleaner conscience, like running a meth lab maybe.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528

 - Posted      Profile for Bibaculus   Email Bibaculus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTEThing is, I'm not really interested in the "moderate" view. The CofE's "moderate" is actually very conservative when you look at it from outside. I think we have to recognise, too, the politics of the CofE's position. The built-in conservatism isn't just about theology, it's about reliance on conservatives' money. A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

I really think I should have gone into a business where I could have kept a cleaner conscience, like running a meth lab maybe.

I'm thinking of taking up gun running. Or maybe dealing crack to schoolkids.

Looked at from the perspective of 25 years in the RC Church, I can tell you that the CofE looks wildly inclusive. The difficulty, of course, is when one gets caught up in the structures. Like any institution, what counts is the ability to keep your head down and play the game. But playing by someone else's rules is very tiring.

So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place

Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

"I'm on your side really, it's the other guys I'm lying to".

This is orthogonal to the conservative/liberal continuum. I think this is somewhere on the honest/lying-through-teeth continuum and slightly more towards the dentition metaphor.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

What, pray tell, is the moderate position in the C of E on LGBT clergy?
Kill 'em before you burn 'em?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

Part of the problem is that such Bishops are now possibly declining in number. I can think of a number of Bishops who would have taken that approach (whether you think it is a good one or not is another matter!). But they are mostly retired now.

It seems to me that the current crop of Bishops are less likely to be like this. The system is now stacked against liberal-ish Bishops, as a result of the way that the rules were to changed to make sure that Jeffrey John could never become a Bishop. If you've ever made any statement of support for LGBT Christians, then that's a serious black mark against you. Bishops now have to be seen to be willing to sign up to Lambeth 1.10.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

The Episcopal church welcomes you. One of my parish church's previous rectors was an RC priest before he became an Episcopalian. Guess you'd have to emigrate, though.

About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Ruth;
quote:
About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

I also don't see a middle here. Either acts of gay sex are right and proper in God's sight, or they are wrong and improper. If the latter, then neither the Anglicans nor any other church can approve of those acts or of those who choose to do them. Such people can only be 'fully included' if they have a change of heart and repent of those acts.

of course the CofE has a self-inflicted problem here in its claim to be, well, 'the Church of England'. And the simple sad fact that in exercising that claim in the past it has legally enforced Christian morality on England and so ended up essentially persecuting, with the power of the state, those who do gay sex. The biggest step the CofE could take to resolve this would be to give up its position as an established church and thinking it has a right to interfere in national morality. (And there are of course many other reasons it should give up that position, starting with obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ....)

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

One becomes homeless.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Steve Langton.

Or we could acknowledge that the Scriptural witness is absent as far as consensual lifelong and faithful same-sex relationships are concerned (excepting that they should conform to the same standards of morality as apply to heterosexual relationships), and have the humility to say "we don't know, but if we follow the law of love, we are unlikely to go too far wrong". We might further acknowledge that each of us have our own sins for which we are accountable to God, not excluding judgementalism and prejudice, and we would be better and more holy people if we were to meditate on these rather than the sins, imagined or real, of others.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470

 - Posted      Profile for Doone   Email Doone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Angel]
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oscar, I think the situation, as you describe it, May well pertain at the moment, but the situation at grass roots level even in big evangelical parishes is changing, and (given the usual caveats about the plural of anecdote not being data) amongst broad church Anglicans (ie my Deanery Synod colleagues) support for SSM is overwhelming, and gay clergy raise no particular eyebrows. In these circumstances, the insistence on Lambeth begins to sound an awful lot like the voice of Cnut on Bosham sands. No doubt change will be glacial, but it will come, and it will be led by the laity, not the Bishops.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One becomes homeless.

Sorry.

I know there are some LGBT-friendly CoE churches. Some are very inclusive. Is the point that the vicars in those parishes take lots of flack to make them that way - so that the CoE has some LGBT-friendly homes for parishioners but not for clergy?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ruth;
quote:
About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

I also don't see a middle here. Either acts of gay sex are right and proper in God's sight, or they are wrong and improper.
I actually began typing my post about "liberals" but switched to "moderates" because I thought the word carried less extraneous baggage. Guess I was wrong.

But having described my view as "moderate" I'm prepared to defend it as such. It is moderate to think that gay people should be treated the same as everyone else. It's not a dogmatic view, or an extremist one. It fully accords with the way the CofE deals with most of the other issues on which Christians disagree - including some (such as the nature of the eucharist) rather more fundamental to the life of the church. It's also consistent with a personal ethical view that (if one understands the Bible as so requiring) one ought to avoid gay relationships oneself. Again, we have no problem being moderate, in this sense, about pre-marital sex, contraception, masturbation, and a host of other consensual sexual practices. I don't have to positively endorse any of that to be moderate about it. I don't want to exclude people with more conservative sexual ethics than mine, or with more liberal ethics.

I don't think the inclusive view ceases to be "moderate" because the extreme view one way has many adherents, and the equal and opposite view the other way is pretty much an empty set. In practice, no one thinks that all clergy should be gay, though we might just about bring ourselves to tolerate a straight one if he kept quiet about it and lived in strict celibacy. Many people believe the opposite position. The middle view that we should treat straight and gay people equally is no less moderate for that.

And, Steve Langton - I think we're talking about gay people here, not gay sex. Unless I'm either much less attentive, or considerably more pure-minded, than I thought I was, Adeodatus hasn't specified any details of his sex life whatsoever as affecting his position in the church - this seems to me to be about how we've treated him as a gay man, not whether we approve of his personal relationship decisions. I've no idea what those are, and they seem to me to be completely irrelevant to the question he's asking.

Straight people in most CofE churches (usually) have the option of keeping their private lives private. The only other person in my church who knows when I last had sex is Mrs Eliab - it would be bad manners for anyone else even to ask. I might have sinned sexually - however you want to define sexual sin - but I've never been asked to publicly justify my sexual behaviour, much less demonstrate some sort of public repentance as a condition of being included in church life.

I don't know if my vicar is, or has ever been, a sexual sinner. I don't know if Adeodatus is, or has been, either. The fact that Adeodatus is gay, and my vicar is straight doesn't seem to me to make the question any more my business in the one case than the other. I think it's my Christian duty to assume that both of them are living in good faith according to their consciences, and that any mistakes are between them and God. Unless and until I go to either of them for confession, I hope that they assume the same of me.

It may be that you think the church ought to be rather more intrusive into people's private lives than the CofE in practice usually is. Fair enough - that is a tenable view. But given that we do in fact generally see it as a courtesy not to be intrusive, shouldn't that apply equally whether they are straight or gay?

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528

 - Posted      Profile for Bibaculus   Email Bibaculus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eliab - I think I agree with everything you say there. Sarah Coakley has pointed out that it is wrong to talk about homosexuality as though it were the church's only problem in this area, when divorce and infidelity among heterosexuals is so common. It does seem odd that the desire of some gay people to live in committed relationships is generating so much heat when heterosexual marriage is in crisis, and that involves far far more people. Or maybe it is to deflect attention from the crisis in heterosexual marriage?

Adeodatus - You are right. Unless one is interested in joining some bizarre episcopi vagante set up, and I am not, Rome or Canterbury are one's only options. (Orthodoxy makes Rome look like the Metropolitan Community Church on this issue).

--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place

Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]
I know there are some LGBT-friendly CoE churches. Some are very inclusive. Is the point that the vicars in those parishes take lots of flack to make them that way - so that the CoE has some LGBT-friendly homes for parishioners but not for clergy?

Useful idiots, providing a veneer of acceptance that makes the institution look good. Apologists who say, "Really, the Church isn't like that" - when really, it is. My original point was that it's precisely churches like this that are part of the problem.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm trying to unravel the Cnut metaphor, which I have been taught for longer than I can remember as the king demonstrating that he could not command the tides and the court was in error in attributing to him powers which were God's. I don't think Lambeth is trying to show that it cannot prevent the tide rising. Anything but.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Adeodatus - You are right. Unless one is interested in joining some bizarre episcopi vagante set up, and I am not, Rome or Canterbury are one's only options. (Orthodoxy makes Rome look like the Metropolitan Community Church on this issue).

I don't think this is correct: if there are a significant number of people prepared to do it, it ought to be possible to begin a new denomination without it being bizarre.

Similar things appear to be happening elsewhere - even the bastion of Evangelicalism which is the Oasis Trust appears to be leading the way towards inclusion and the (currently small) number of Oasis churches (effectively their own denomination, it seems) appear to be making a big point about this.

It, of course, isn't my place to tell people what to do or not do - but if you're not comfortable with the CofE on this issue, then it doesn't seem to be true to me that the only options involve remaining within the CofE/RCC/whoever or leaving the faith altogether.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Eliab;
quote:
And, Steve Langton - I think we're talking about gay people here, not gay sex.
I'll come back to this in more detail, I hope - but biblically we are talking about 'gay sex', sexual acts between people of the same sex. To judge by David's lament for Jonathan, same-sex love is not a problem; same-sex sexual acts are rather specifically stated to be a problem, biblically.

'Gay people' in the modern sense is NOT a biblical category, because essentially it's a worldly idea about how sex is supposed to be. The biblical view is somewhat different to the world's view.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Bibaculus;
quote:
Unless one is interested in joining some bizarre episcopi vagante set up, and I am not, Rome or Canterbury are one's only options
There is of course the option of taking a biblical view of the nature of episcopacy, and forming a church along biblical lines. Neither Rome nor Canterbury are biblical options, and 'episcopi vagante' are indeed a bizarre alternative.... Of course a biblical view might not give the view you want on gay issues either....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is of course the option of taking a biblical view of the nature of episcopacy, and forming a church along biblical lines. Neither Rome nor Canterbury are biblical options, and 'episcopi vagante' are indeed a bizarre alternative.... Of course a biblical view might not give the view you want on gay issues either....

There problem here appears to be that you are under the misapprehension that other people in the thread want to hear your views about what is (a) biblical with regard to gay sex and (b) what is biblical with regard to church politics.

In fact, if things were as obvious as you imply, there'd be no need for this thread or this board. As is fairly obvious, the OP believes that Christianity is not incompatible with being Anglican or Homosexual.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
but biblically we are talking about 'gay sex', sexual acts between people of the same sex.

No, we really aren't. There's nothing in the OP about sexual acts. That's just not the question being asked.

I have no idea - absolutely no fucking idea - whether Adeodatus is currently more chaste than the Ethiopian eunuch, or buggering more men than Bolloximian, King of Sodom. And it's none of my damned business either way.

What he's asked us about - and what I think as Christians we ought to care about - is whether as a gay man he has a place in the church he has served faithfully for many years. The answer ought to be "Yes, obviously he does. We should be thanking God for sending us a man of such integrity, wisdom, and compassion." It's an absolute scandal that no one can sensibly give that as an unqualified answer.

If he were straight, we could (I hope) try answer that question as it should be answered without enquiring into his sex life at all. We would make a simple assumption of good faith - that even if his personal sexual ethics do not agree precisely with everyone else's (as how could they, given the range of opinions in the CofE?), we trust that he'd be trying according to his best judgement to live a decent Christian life. Why should we treat him differently because he's gay?

One thing that I'm sure we both believe is that both gay and straight people can be guilty of sexual sin - but why put a burden on gay people to clear themselves of all possible charges that we don't also, and equally, impose on straights?

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ruth;
quote:
About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

I also don't see a middle here. Either acts of gay sex are right and proper in God's sight, or they are wrong and improper. If the latter, then neither the Anglicans nor any other church can approve of those acts or of those who choose to do them. Such people can only be 'fully included' if they have a change of heart and repent of those acts.

of course the CofE has a self-inflicted problem here in its claim to be, well, 'the Church of England'. And the simple sad fact that in exercising that claim in the past it has legally enforced Christian morality on England and so ended up essentially persecuting, with the power of the state, those who do gay sex. The biggest step the CofE could take to resolve this would be to give up its position as an established church and thinking it has a right to interfere in national morality. (And there are of course many other reasons it should give up that position, starting with obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ....)

LGBT people (the OP isn't just about gay people) does not equal LGBT sex - which is just sex.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]
I know there are some LGBT-friendly CoE churches. Some are very inclusive. Is the point that the vicars in those parishes take lots of flack to make them that way - so that the CoE has some LGBT-friendly homes for parishioners but not for clergy?

Useful idiots, providing a veneer of acceptance that makes the institution look good. Apologists who say, "Really, the Church isn't like that" - when really, it is. My original point was that it's precisely churches like this that are part of the problem.
Surely blaming things on people trying to make things better is unfair?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Steve Langton, perhaps I've missed something, but from what I can see the loudest voices against same-sex relationships across the Anglican Communion seem to come from those Anglican provinces in various parts of the world where the Anglicans aren't necessarily the 'State-Church' in the way the CofE is here.

The Establishment issue is pertinent in some ways, insofar as the CofE is connected with the House of Lords and the Parliamentary process ... but in other ways it's a complete red-herring.

Are Hutterite and Mennonite communities any more 'enlightened' or likely to take a more balanced view than Anglican parishes are on this issue?

I very much doubt it.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely blaming things on people trying to make things better is unfair?

This sounds right to me, although I can also see the point that those involved in an institution which is not prepared to change are tacitly supporting it.

I guess the difference is that some believe that the thing can be changed, and are still able to envision it changing, whilst others have hit the wall so often that they feel it cannot be changed.

It seems to me that both are valid ways to see the issue.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pomona, Adeodatus is not blaming those who are trying to change things, but wondering if they are actually succeeding.

Those of us who've been around for a while have seen several changes on views on homosexuality - CofE page here.

In the 1950s the CofE was part of the change that led to the Wolfenden Report and the legalisation of homosexual acts in 1967 - just about in my lifetime, so I grew up within a CofE that was not anti-gay.

Twenty years later, in 1987, there was a Synod motion agreeing that the Church should uphold traditional sexual values, the 1991 House of Bishops statement on Human Sexuality and the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1:10 on Human Sexuality (pdf). It no longer felt as if the church was so accepting.

This was around the same time as the then Conservative Government enacted Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) and the height of the AIDS epidemic. Sometime in the middle of that there was an Easter Message to all parishes from + George Carey (1991-2002) also upholding traditional values, that had me out of church for a few years.

In the nearly 20 years since Lambeth 1998, it has felt as it things have been more accepting, + Rowan Williams was anecdotally more supportive, although unable to promote Jeffrey John. Organisations such as Changing Attitude and Inclusive Church net were supported with Bishops as patrons (Bishop John Gladwin of Chelmsford and Bishop David Stancliffe of Salisbury were both patrons of Changing Attitude). Throughout this there have continued to be areas in the country where there is less acceptance and support. Bishop John Gladwin's chrism services were boycotted by the Continuing Anglicans in Chelmsford.

Now, we're back to the church opposing same sex marriage and the suspension of TEC from the Anglican Communion for three years for their election of a known gay bishop and their decision to perform same sex marriages.

It feels as if the church is getting less gay friendly, not more. And that those who have been serving the church throughout this time have been used as figureheads to make the church appear less gay unfriendly than it really is.

[ 17. February 2016, 13:44: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the 1950s the CofE was part of the change that led to the Wolfenden Report and the legalisation of homosexual acts in 1967 - just about in my lifetime, so I grew up within a CofE that was not anti-gay.

I suspect the CofE authorities back then would have taken a different view on the idea of gay clergy and so on ... although blind-eyes were turned as they were elsewhere.

But yes, the CofE was part of that change in legilsation. Which goes against Steve Langton's contention that the wicked CofE manipulated the power of the state to persecute gay people ...

That said, I suspect whatever the CofE did or didn't do it wouldn't be good enough for Steve Langton because the CofE itself is not sufficiently 'biblical' in his view ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm trying to unravel the Cnut metaphor, which I have been taught for longer than I can remember as the king demonstrating that he could not command the tides and the court was in error in attributing to him powers which were God's. I don't think Lambeth is trying to show that it cannot prevent the tide rising. Anything but.

The point I was making was that those who cry out "Lambeth 1.10" have as much chance of succeeding in holding back the tide as did Cnut.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's what I thought - but it's not fair on Cnut, because he knew he had no chance. And that the tide was God's business, not his.

Presumably the Lambeth attitude is like the cry in Arnold's Dover Beach, as they hear the melancholy roar as the sea of faith withdraws, rather than the recognition that the tide coming in in its place has that of God in it.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Useful idiots, providing a veneer of acceptance that makes the institution look good. Apologists who say, "Really, the Church isn't like that" - when really, it is. My original point was that it's precisely churches like this that are part of the problem.

I don't follow the logic here. (I completely follow the pain I must admit, but not the logic).

If 10% of churches or whatever % are going to be accepting of LGBT people then that is 10% of the church. One couldn't say that church isn't like that because 10% of it would be.

I don't think that's being a useful idiot, that's being part of a change. It may not be as complete as one would want but it isn't nothing. A useful idiot would be a gay clergy who was part of a parish that discriminated against gay parishioners but was wheeled out to explain that really there wasn't a problem.

One might still be a useful idiot in the national context if the CofE takes the view that if a few gays have safe corners here and there in some big cities it helps them get on with business as normal and homophobic oppression elsewhere - but given that I think it is more than a few safe corners, and also the great value that parishioners in those churches get out of it I think the "useful idiot" phrase is much too harsh.

Priests who stand up for inclusivity within the CofE may be having some adverse unintended consequences in propping the institution up, but I think they are also doing a great deal of good. It might be they eventually do so at the expense of their mental health and need to leave, but I think they should do so with a clear conscience. A clear conscience and a reward in heaven.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't follow the logic here.

A few years ago I knew a man who was a member of the Catholic LGBT rights group Quest. His partner was a very on-board Anglican. He reckoned that his group were able to have more honest and productive dialogues with Catholic bishops because, as he put it, "nobody in those conversations is pretending Mother Church isn't a bitch".

I think a characteristic of discussions in the CofE is that no-one wants to call Mother Church a bitch. There are enough LGBT clergy "propping up the institution", as you aptly put it, to be able to pretend it's all tea and cake for the gays. Whereas really, at the core of the institution and right the way through it, there's a nasty vein of hatred and ignorance.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'I don't think that's being a useful idiot, that's being part of a change', aye but how long before you admit defeat. The church has been talking about this since I was a tiny child, and I'm not seeing much improvement, bar what is imposed on it by cultural unacceptability. I'm 47yo now. Fuck this.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Steve Langton, perhaps I've missed something, but from what I can see the loudest voices against same-sex relationships across the Anglican Communion seem to come from those Anglican provinces in various parts of the world where the Anglicans aren't necessarily the 'State-Church' in the way the CofE is here.

No, you're not missing something, I'd expect that at least some Anglican provinces that don't have to juggle the state/church relationship thing might feel freer to follow the Bible rather than 'the world'. Though it's also true that some non-established Anglican provinces nevertheless have a quite strong 'Christian Country' approach.

quote:

The Establishment issue is pertinent in some ways, insofar as the CofE is connected with the House of Lords and the Parliamentary process ... but in other ways it's a complete red-herring.

It is both immediately pertinent in some ways, and also pertinent in historic terms. And also in some areas less relevant.

quote:

Are Hutterite and Mennonite communities any more 'enlightened' or likely to take a more balanced view than Anglican parishes are on this issue?

I very much doubt it.

Anabaptist views are quite mixed on this; I think that currently the majority view is still that gay sex is considered wrong for Christians, but that criminalising it is also very wrong. Of course considering gay sex to be OK for Christians could be regarded as 'endarkened' rather than enlightened....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the 1950s the CofE was part of the change that led to the Wolfenden Report and the legalisation of homosexual acts in 1967 - just about in my lifetime, so I grew up within a CofE that was not anti-gay.

I suspect the CofE authorities back then would have taken a different view on the idea of gay clergy and so on ... although blind-eyes were turned as they were elsewhere.

But yes, the CofE was part of that change in legilsation. Which goes against Steve Langton's contention that the wicked CofE manipulated the power of the state to persecute gay people ...

That said, I suspect whatever the CofE did or didn't do it wouldn't be good enough for Steve Langton because the CofE itself is not sufficiently 'biblical' in his view ...

Indeed the CofE played a role in the 1967 decriminalisation - but in a rather muddled way due to that continued insistence on remaining 'established'.

And no, I'm not suggesting simplistically that "the wicked CofE manipulated the power of the state to persecute gay people ..." - just stating the simple fact that in the past the CofE like other "Christian-country-minded" churches, not all of them established, did play a role in using state power to inappropriately enforce Christian morality including in relation to gay sex. Which on the one hand shouldn't have happened; and on t'other 'and, can only be adequately apologised for by a CofE that finally renounces the church/state link that enabled the said inappropriate enforcement.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think a characteristic of discussions in the CofE is that no-one wants to call Mother Church a bitch. There are enough LGBT clergy "propping up the institution", as you aptly put it, to be able to pretend it's all tea and cake for the gays. Whereas really, at the core of the institution and right the way through it, there's a nasty vein of hatred and ignorance.

I can see that, but I still don't think that's being a useful idiot. This seems a bit like arguing that providing emergency food aid to citizens of a failed state is being a useful idiot in propping up the government. Maybe to some extent you are, but that isn't a reasonable full characterization of emergency food and rather ignores the perspective of those receiving the food.

Now if you are only allowed to do that in one corner of the country with the world's media showing pictures of happy kids getting fed while the rest starve I can see that, but I think there are lots of CoE churches doing well in terms of inclusivity. And to be honest the media presentation that the CoE mother church adopts doesn't seem to be making a lot of them - rather it seems to be making more of its opposition to SSM than pretending to be inclusive.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can see that, but I still don't think that's being a useful idiot. This seems a bit like arguing that providing emergency food aid to citizens of a failed state is being a useful idiot in propping up the government. Maybe to some extent you are, but that isn't a reasonable full characterization of emergency food and rather ignores the perspective of those receiving the food.

That's quite an interesting analogue, because I think the widespread emergence of food banks really are acting as a useful idiot propping up failed government policies. If it is shown that the food has marginal impact on the recipients (which I believe is fairly easy to show) then it fails both ways around.

I'm not sure that the CofE has to actively be pushing their credentials as a "LBGT friendly" organisation for hard-working gay Anglican priests to feel that they're being useful idiots - when they create space on the ground which is undermined by statements from the leadership of the organisation.

quote:
Now if you are only allowed to do that in one corner of the country with the world's media showing pictures of happy kids getting fed while the rest starve I can see that, but I think there are lots of CoE churches doing well in terms of inclusivity. And to be honest the media presentation that the CoE mother church adopts doesn't seem to be making a lot of them - rather it seems to be making more of its opposition to SSM than pretending to be inclusive.
MMm. Not sure what to think about this.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's quite an interesting analogue, because I think the widespread emergence of food banks really are acting as a useful idiot propping up failed government policies.

I wasn't talking about food banks actually, but I think for the useful idiot category to be applied you have to show that the food banks really are propping the government up. I think it's easier to argue the case that without emergency food aid to war-torn areas of the world the degree of civil unrest would increase. However the benefit to the participants is also very clear.

Perhaps with food banks the benefit may be less clear, but on the other hand I doubt the conservative government would come appreciably closer to folding without them.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't follow the logic here.

A few years ago I knew a man who was a member of the Catholic LGBT rights group Quest. His partner was a very on-board Anglican. He reckoned that his group were able to have more honest and productive dialogues with Catholic bishops because, as he put it, "nobody in those conversations is pretending Mother Church isn't a bitch".

I think a characteristic of discussions in the CofE is that no-one wants to call Mother Church a bitch. There are enough LGBT clergy "propping up the institution", as you aptly put it, to be able to pretend it's all tea and cake for the gays. Whereas really, at the core of the institution and right the way through it, there's a nasty vein of hatred and ignorance.

Changing Attitude are not exactly quiet on this. I see plenty of real anger and resistance amongst my LGBT clergy friends.

I think some people are called to witness to it by leaving, and others by staying. I feel called to stay and I don't think I'm a useful idiot. I don't think the CoE is actually trying to make out that they're not homophobic, it is pretty blatant by now.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wasn't talking about food banks actually, but I think for the useful idiot category to be applied you have to show that the food banks really are propping the government up.

I don't really agree. WP says "In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."

The measure is not whether or not the government would fold if the thing (in this example food banks) did not exist. That's hard to say - however clearly if there were people starving on the streets because there were no foodbanks, then there may be significant negative political impacts.

For me, the question is whether the government feels that it doesn't have to take significant steps on the issue of food poverty because they can point to the existence of foodbanks as evidence that the problem is being dealt with. When clearly it isn't.

In terms of homosexuality of clergy and the CofE, the question is whether the existence of gay clergy is a cynical propaganda tool from the hierarchy to assert that the organisation has something positive to say to LGBT people whilst at the same time holding a public theology that says this is entirely unacceptable. So the toleration is not, in fact, because there are significant numbers of people in the organisation who disagree with the current policy held by the leadership, but because the leaders need the gay priests to point to as an example of how the theology is workable and not intolerant of gay priests.

That seems to me to be the crux of this: does the CofE cynically and deliberately keep some "gay best friends" around to blunt the edges of their public theology on sexuality with no intention of ever changing to the position those people are looking for.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect this may look different from behind the scenes and in front of the scenes.

That is, my reaction to this, from in front of the scenes as it were, as a lay member who has contact with only the clergy where I worship and observes the media, is that the C of E leadership, far from using gay priests for PR, is hoping that they'll all just keep their heads down and pretend they're not there. The solution to this is to keep fighting until the pro-gay side wins out. Time and demographics are on our side, unless the C of E as a whole dies out first.

I can see, though, that behind the scenes bishops might be using the presence of gay people that they know about to convince themselves that they're not as anti-gay as the policies they're enforcing.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy;
quote:
That seems to me to be the crux of this: does the CofE cynically and deliberately keep some "gay best friends" around to blunt the edges of their public theology on sexuality with no intention of ever changing to the position those people are looking for.
I have serious doubts whether the CofE as a whole is coherent enough to do that kind of thing. There probably are some who think that kind of way, but those who really regard 'gay' as wrong would not want that kind of cynicism either - they'd want their public theology to have 'sharp edges', not blunt, clarity not compromise.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might not be done cynically. I mean, the C of E might be in a totally confused state, whereby contradictory messages and actions are being seen. On the one hand, gay clergy and others are tolerated; on the other hand, there is an official homophobic stance.

I don't know whether this invalidates the idea of useful idiots, which presumably, are tolerated in an atmosphere of veiled contempt.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools