Stern stuff in the Sunday Times yesterday:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1434463.ece

I'm sure this has been said before, but it all boils down to numbers. If the recognition of the goodness of gay partnerships were to result in millions of new members for the Anglican Church over the next years there would be a different result to the present debate. There are certainly millions of gay people who may very well take another look at the C of E (and Christ) if this were to be the case, but who has the courage to risk - or trust.

The Lambeth Conference encyclical of 1878 on "Union Among the Churches of the Anglican Communion" sets forth principles which presume the kind of common trust and understanding which is currently lacking in the Anglican Communion. This does not mean that the principles have now been set aside and ignored - the Dar es Salaam communique aims to get us back on track in this respect and it thus reaffirms the principles.

In fact, is not the vision behind the Lambeth Conference encyclical of 1878 precisely the reason why the election of a bishop cannot be an entirely local affair? Just wondering.

NB
'First, that the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.'

Lambeth Encyclical

This shows just how far 'the primates' are going in violation of the spirit and letter of historic anglicanism.

What would Williams like to do with those already ordained throughout the ministry and episcopate worldwide? Especially those ordained and consecrated by himself, Carey; 'the grey archbishop of York', Runcie and so on.....

Why is there so much dishonesty
and hypocrisy in all this ?

I’m praying that the House of Bishops of TEC, at its March meeting, will come off the ropes fighting and seriously challenge the roles and the authority of both the so-called “Primates’ Meeting” and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The HofB might consider issuing a demand that the “Primates’ Meeting” explain where its own authority lies and by what right it is seeking to interfere in the affairs of independent churches of the Communion. Setting a tight deadline for the Primates’ response might be useful so as to allow the HofB further time to consider its position before the end of September.

The AofC has started referring to “the Anglican Church” and Venables in his interview on the BBC asked “Are we a church or are we just people who call ourselves Anglicans but do not believe the same things?”

Hopefully, the American bishops will make it quite clear that there is no such thing as “The Anglican Church”; there is a Communion of independent churches that share historical links with the Churches of England and Scotland and that look to the same historical formularies for guidance. The answer to Venables should be unequivocal: “Yes, we are just people who call ourselves Anglican but do not believe the same things – in some areas of our Christian life together.”

Just a couple of clarifications.

The Dar communique is clearly about ordination to the episcopate, and is silent on other orders. This recognises the universal dimension to the office of bishop which is not present ( or at least not to the same degree) for deacons and priests. I expect that is what Rowan meant, though if the report is accurate he did not make that clarification explicit.

The C of E position (since the early 90's) has been that being in an active sexual relationship (including a committed same sex relationship) outside of marriage is a bar to a candidate being recommended for Holy Orders and to being ordained. There are a number of similar blocking issues that are not sexual - debt certainly used to be one - that apply at the point of ordination. There is, though, a world of difference between not making someone a deacon or priest in particular circumstances and actively removing them from ministry when such circumstances occur later on, as is recognised widely in employment legislation (for example).

Finally, I see no contradiction between Dar and the rights of national churches. It would be absurd to suggest that once one has acquired the Anglican "franchise" a church is free to vary the content of its faith and practice without limit. Within dioceses there are systems to prevent parishes doing that (though individuals can leave and set up there own institutions) and within provinces systems to constrain dioceses. At international level we need something loose but bounded that protects the "brand" in the same way. Nothing in the Dar proposals goes beyond that.

Archbishop Williams' words are crystal clear:

"The stance of the Anglican Communion is clear: It has never said anything other than that. The ordination of active homosexuals is not acceptable.

It has never said anything other than that the marriage of same sex-couples is not to be admitted.

That`s what the Lambeth Conference said in 1998, and every meeting has said so since then."

Those who can't accept this in good conscience need to move on, and stop wasting time, energy and money (theirs and others). Step out in faith. Start up churches in school halls and homes, bless civil partnerships, proclaim your inclusive message, start youth work, get a keyboard. If people want what you offer, they will come. You have lots of experienced clergy who can provide leadership. Follow conscience and step out in faith.

I would caution against reading too much into the precise wording of the interview. There seems to have been a certain amount of translation between African English and British English going on, never mind any subsequent editing.

"...step out in faith."

Steve Watson

Nah, why don't we just step outside, because we ain't going nowhere/nohow partner.

Steve - If the ABC finds the teaching of the C of E crystal clear why are there at least 50 openly gay priests who have entered into civil unions in England in the church. How many more are in relationships but not in civil unions, yet. What will be the response of the church in the coming years when thousands if church going people enter into the civil unions but find themselves in a church that does not recognize their relationships. What will the church say to the tens of thousands of children who are raised by loving committed LGBT parents in the coming generation. "God does not recognize your parents?" Keep on with the drumbeat of the "stance is clear." It just puts you in a more and more untenable hypocritical light. Let the purge begin! and don't stop with the priests but include the bishops who allow them to operate as well - if the stance is SO clear that is. Isn't that what Akinola wants? A purge! If TEC is kicked out for being honest, the least the C of E can do is have a decent purge. What a fine spectacle that would be. But then again the "stance is clear" after all.

C.B.

I would clarify Naughton's article that ABC's move is more than bedding down with one particular camp within the Anglican Communion. It is looking to copy the worst of Rome.

Here is an article from a Catholic woman priest in the US http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/rose-marie-berger-catholic-womenpriests.html It talks of the censorship within that church, and reminds me of the attempts to deny there were gays in Nigeria.

The other concern about the ban on ordination of gays, full stop is that both the Anglican and Catholic communions have been ordaining gays for centuries (and just not talking about/admitting to their sexuality).

The other concern is that links into the theological underpinnings that triggered the Peace in Our Time paper http://www.wombatwonderings.org/files/peace_in_our_time_sanitised.pdf

This paper was triggered by a bishop who was ordaining a local minister. Some of the gems from that sermon included that God no longer bequeaths the gift of prophecy. That anyone who thinks that God is talking to them is deluded. He also said that while people might be able to show signs and miracles, these are all coincidences and could not possibly be from God. This bishop referred to his authority as a church member, and made reference that he had already removed one priest from a parish and would do it again if necessary. (A real threat from this parish's history).

So what is happening now on a global scale I have already seen played out first hand at a local level. Therefore these political manouverings are not a surprise. They are merely an escalating fractal pattern.

The issue is to do with whether this kind of theology is acceptable or not. Where does this theology risk taking us? Do we want to go there? How do we put in place checks to avoid such quandries?

People are either people or they are not. If they are people then they have the rights and responsibilites of citizenship. Citizenship infers providing for future generations, because if there are no future generations there is no civilisation. Therefore we look for genuine justice and want to reward the most stable forms of relationships for both existing and future generations. Life long monogamous relationships have been proven to provide the safest environment to practise sex, and provide a stable platform with the strength to support extra dependents e.g. children, the disabled or the elderly.

Illegalising stable forms of relationships because some people want to interfere with what others do in the privacy of their own bedroom is morally inconsistent. It is also hypocritical when one reads the bible and sees the God who calls for justice and compassion for all, including the eunuchs and other outcastes.

I recall recently reading elsewhere in Thinking Anglicans that Williams, as archbishop of Wales, declined to sign the 1998 Lambeth resolution. Can anyone shed light on this? If true, it could have inplications for the arcbishop's state of mind, or for his integrity.

Moi? a hypocrite? Guilty. But don't shoot me for quoting the ABC.
- The 50 priests in civil unions in England - well, I recall reading on the 'net a lot of people said it wasn't a good idea at the time. I see that the General Synod in England will be debating this again. Ambiguity is not a Christian virtue (remember all that 'let your yes by yes' stuff). Should have just said no - like the Anglican Church in New Zealand, where civil unions (including male-female ones) exist.
- "What will the church say to the tens of thousands of children who are raised by loving committed LGBT parents in the coming generation?"
Well, I don't know of any kids raised by actively Bisexual parents (do you?) - and I don't know what a 'faithful committed' relationship for a Bisexual is: a menage a trois, I suppose? Can anyone please tell me? Others have raised this question here but nobody offers an answer. And I don't know of any kids being raised by Transgendered parents, but I suppose there must be some out there. AFAIK, homosexual men do very little parenting; as everywhere in life, nurturing is overwhelmingly a female task. Are children brought up by lesbian couples troubled by this; or impaired in developing a relationship with the opposite sex? There is some evidence of this; however, that's not my main concern here. Every church I've ever been part of has always welcomed children of any background into its Sunday school or youth work.
I used to know a woman with teenage children, whose husband was a vicar who left her for a man. She would often tell me of her children's anger and trouble at school.

Nobody is suggesting that a church in the Anglican Communion should be free to "vary the content of its faith and practice without limit" (David Walker). The main point at issue is whether sexual orientation and its expression should be THE defining criteria of orthodoxy. There is not a Christian 'Doctrine of Heterosexuality', after all. The Councils of the Church never promulgated one; the Creeds don't include it as an article of Faith; and the issue is not addressed in the historical formularies. Even Rowan Williams sees the whole issue as a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. Which leads to the second point at issue: What is the authority of the Lambeth Conference and the so-called "Primates' Meeting" to determine the Teachings of the Church and are such teachings immutable, anyway? After all, Anglican churches and the Roman Catholic Church have changed their teaching on heterosexual marriage in a number of ways over the past 50 years.

Oh My!

The Anglican "franchise" sounds like a hamburger stand. Does it come with fries?

Steve Watson wrote: "Well, I don't know of any kids raised by actively Bisexual parents (do you?) - and I don't know what a 'faithful committed' relationship for a Bisexual is: a menage a trois, I suppose? Can anyone please tell me? Others have raised this question here but nobody offers an answer."

Do try to be serious. Bisexuality is not Bigamy.

(not that it would matter much after Lambeth 1988 acknowledging Polygamy as a Christian way of life ;=)

You may note Bill Franklin's article in the Tablet (posted earlier on this site) which notes the impact of the RC-AC ecumenical dialouges over the past decades and the adoption of the notion of "koinoia" for the Anglican Communion. This is in part where the new "need" for definition and enforcement as part of the structure of the polity comes into play. But this is a perfect storm of culture, theological conflict, political power and the new globalism. All threads have to be acknowledged, not just "scripture".

Well, this is off topic, but I post it to demonstrate that there is SOME good news out of Dar Es Salaam. I am a lawyer and I work often with hydrogeologists as expert witnesses. One such individual is currently in Dar Es Salaam. He writes: "We're staying in a little cottage on the grounds of a medical clinic set up to serve one of the poorest areas of Dar Es Salaam. It is mid-summer (south of the equator) and very hot and humid. Our cottage has running water about 10 percent of the time (unpredictable) and electricity most of the time (also unpredictable). We have no TV, no radio, no stereo, no telephone (other than our cell phones which are 5$ per minute), no oven, no microwave, no air conditioning, no car, no Starbucks (not even a coffee maker), yet we have every thing we need. The people here are great. We'll be trying to develop programs and plans whereby the poor villagers can implement self-improvements in their community health, water supplies, sewerage, drainage, and latrine issues. Hopefully, we can do some good." I have no idea whether this individual is a man of faith. I do know he, at least, is doing God's work in Dar Es Salaam. And with no view of the beach.

Surely Rowan Williams' style has been doctored in that interview?

I think he deserves kudos for keeping the Communion together and getting the Primates to discuss the gay issues at such length.

But I also think that Jefferts Schori stole the show. Was she the only woman there? She uses a woman's weapons, those of the heart.

Now we can only hope that with her inspiration the US Bishops and faithful will make a clear prophetic statement -- in the key of dialogue to be sure -- and do something to lift the leaden atmosphere.

The "teaching" of the Anglican Communion? What is that, exactly?

We have no central authority.
Lambeth is advisory, at best.
The Primates have no authority over other Provinces.
Refer to Lambeth 1.10 all you want. It isn't binding. There's no mechanism to make it binding.
We can ask all manner of things from one another, but none of us has right to demand anything.

If we desire to change this manner of life together, then ask each Province to give assent to a different way. Until that happens, we need to be clear that the authority of our bishops and archbishops and presiding bishops have limits.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Oh my, when Rowan Williams talks like this I begin to be sure he means it, every bit as much as the realignment folks who also say similar things. If so, we are not going to have a listening process supported by any season of fasting; but a gay bashing free for all, at least inside the churches. Until they feel strong enough once again to bash outside, in wider society?

Naughton's alarm about the implicit agreement with making Lambeth meetings and the like internationally authoritative should also be heard. This is all consistent with what the USA rightwing funders of realignment wish, since what they seek is institutional leverage and power that can be further developed towards conforming society, not just internal church life.

Under these pressures and shifting trends, then, it becomes even more important for progressive believers of all colors and journeys in all world religions to establish and renew closer ties, offering whatever church and para-church recognition they can still manage to one another.

Is Rowan Williams daft? Does he wish to be Primer inter Pares in nothing but a FiF, Reform, Anglican Mainstream sort of communion which identifies policing as one of its major worldwide ministries?

I think the interviewer was expecting signs and wonders, and got few. He was full of assumptions, and they were not matched. Notice that Archbihsop Williams stonewalled the personal position question, regarding homosexuality and same sex marriages.

A:I have said what the position of the church is and that`s the position I teach. ...the resolution of the Lambeth conference in 1998. That is the position that I teach.... As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.

So he has disappeared as an individual. There is something wrong here.

This is not a reflection on him, but is it possible to have an Artificial Intelligence bishop-robot, pre-programmed with the historical formularies and lastest resolutions on any issue? Then we just need to tap in the question and get the answer.

Or look it up for ourselves perhaps.

'I recall recently reading elsewhere in Thinking Anglicans that Williams, as archbishop of Wales, declined to sign the 1998 Lambeth resolution. Can anyone shed light on this? If true, it could have inplications for the arcbishop's state of mind, or for his integrity.'

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 26 Feb. 2007

Yes, and in fact he was one of the 146 signatories of a letter apologizing to lesbian and gay people; and pldeging support to us.
He was bp of Monmouth at the time (if memory serves me roight).

What do the other 145 intend to do now, to fulfill their pledge to us ?

Simon might kindly add that letter somewhree on site as a background document --given its imporatnace.

Stepford Primates! Lovely idea, Pluralist.

Concerning my earlier inquiry about Rowan Williams and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he was - as bishop of Monmouth, not as archbishop of Wales - one of 146 bishops (eight of them primates) to sign the "Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans":

http://www.mindspring.com/~bcglm1/lesgay-anglicans.html

More on this and on other aspects of Williams' "endorsement of gay agenda" may be found on VirtueOnline, at the following URL.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5546

It is possible that some assertions made in this piece could usefully be the subject of supplementary fact-checking, but if substantially true, as I suspect that it may well be, it is a most interesting document.

'One such individual is currently in Dar Es Salaam. He writes: "We're staying in a little cottage on the grounds of a medical clinic set up to serve one of the poorest areas of Dar Es Salaam. It is mid-summer (south of the equator) and very hot and humid. Our cottage has running water about 10 percent of the time (unpredictable) and electricity most of the time (also unpredictable). We have no TV, no radio, no stereo, no telephone (other than our cell phones which are 5$ per minute), no oven, no microwave, no air conditioning, no car, no Starbucks (not even a coffee maker), yet we have every thing we need. The people here are great. We'll be trying to develop programs and plans whereby the poor villagers can implement self-improvements in their community health, water supplies, sewerage, drainage, and latrine issues. Hopefully, we can do some good." I have no idea whether this individual is a man of faith. I do know he, at least, is doing God's work in Dar Es Salaam. And with no view of the beach.'

Posted by: Ruth on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 3:47pm GMT
This very encouraging and moving. Thank you.
How I wish I had something to offer, so that I could go to that viallage to help. But more, to be honest, for my sake than theirs. I think they have something we in the rich west have long since lost........

Here is an article from a Roman Catholic woman priest in the US http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/rose-marie-berger-catholic-womenpriests.html It talks of the censorship within that church, and reminds me of the attempts to deny there were gays in Nigeria.

Very encouraging Cheryl.

This movement of spirit. I believe there is at least one woman RC priest in Yorkshire, UK.

Also, a very interesting website and eamil sign up facility.
Has anyone here had the experience of the ministry of RC women priests, I wonder ?

I remember the joy when women were ordained in the UK anglican churches ; and the joy when a friend of mine completed her training for the Rabbinate.
I was also interested to see that Morocco has authorised women immams for the first time in the Muslim world. I read a joyous interview of one of the first to assume her position.

There is much that is creative in human life, and this gives rise to a spirit of joy --if we in the literal & metaphorical anglo-saxon worlds can only relax our sphincters a bit !

drdanfee said: "Does he wish to be Primer inter Pares in nothing but a FiF, Reform, Anglican Mainstream sort of communion which identifies policing as one of its major worldwide ministries?"

His Grace of Canterbury has long since ceded the leadership of the Communion to the Primate of Nigeria. ++Rowan is now merely secundus inter pares.

Steve Watson
just in case your question really was serious: When you're straight you love people from the other sex, but it does not mean that you have multiple partners, certainly not at the same time. When you're gay you love people of the same sex, but you're still able to stick to one at a time!
When you're bisexual you are physically and mentally capable of loving people of either sex. But you would still only choose one at a time!

As for kids being actively raised by bisexual parents - meet my girls!
They have absolutely no problem with me and my female partner. What they do struggle with is why the church insists that we're immoral, when they know us as just normal loving people.

Steve Watson wrote: "AFAIK, homosexual men do very little parenting; as everywhere in life, nurturing is overwhelmingly a female task."

As the heterosexual father of two daughters and one son, I can't claim any direct insight into the parenting capabilities of "homosexual men." Following the death of my first wife, I was the single parent of my then-seven year old daughter, and remained so for four years until I remarried.

I very much doubt that "homosexual men" are any less capable, than I was,of being a nurturing parent.

Perhaps Mr. Watson lacks parenting experience, and I can therefore understand his confusion, though not his condescending way of approaching the issue.

Aside from my personal experience, I do have a friend, and former colleague from the bank from which I retired, who -- together with his same-sex partner -- has adopted two girls from China, and both men have been loving and dutiful and nurturing parents.

Perhaps Mr. Watson would prefer that those two babies, now about 6 and 8 years of age, had been left in an orphanage in China, rather than adopted by an American man and his Englishman partner.

Perhaps some would like a Puritan "orthodoxy," rather than a demonstration of love that Jesus taught us in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

If that is what the Anglican Communion would become, if Akinola and his ilk were to prevail, then no caring or right-thinking Christian -- whether in the US or in the UK or in Ireland or in Canada or in Australia or in New Zealand or in most of Latin America or in some of Africa -- should want to be part of such a tragic farce.

As to Mr. Watson's final dismissive note regarding the reaction of children whose father had left their mother for another man, that reaction by the children would be as true if the father had left for another woman, or simply disappeared for reasons unknown. Again, Mr. Watson may not have enough life experience to know that, so his pejorative comment may have simply been unintentionally ignorant.

Oh please Mr Watson, visit COLAGE - children of lesbians and gays everywhere - and get a statistical clue.

See: http://www.colage.org

In particular see, the .../resources/summary.htm page.

More than ten million people in USA have one or more LGBT parents. You might think that that statistic alone would whet the appetites of churches to reach out to all these non-traditional parents/families/children. But do not hold your breath, unless you are good at turning blue from oxygen deprivation. We in the USA and maybe also in Canada and probably elsewhere, too, have had the gayby boom for years now. Childcare and parenting activities are now a regular part of most western countries' large gatherings of people who are not straight.

Ditto, for the gains that parents/families of gay offspring organizations have publicly made over the past two or three decades. You will find PFLAG, CFLAG, and the like blossoming. Wanna check on it, just search or Google.

GSA's - junior high and high school gay-straight alliances are growing too. Same thing, search the internet or Google.

College and university campuses have progressed, from having a gay blue jeans day, to having established gay student groups, to having gay? fine by me days.

We are here. We are queer.

Many people either do not give a damn, or actually like the special cultural and historical gifts we happen to bring to the world's tables at this point in the current century.

How all of this squares with the legacy antigay stuff simply does not exhaust, nor determine, the width and breadth of our intellectual or emotional or human potentials for thriving any more, thank you very much.

Just because some conservative believers have successfully hidden out in exclusively straight megachurches and highly conformed religious groups in order to avoid knowing that positive growth and change continues in the non-straight communities - is, in fact, neither here nor there.

I do not think Mr Watson's perjorative remarks are unintentionally anything, Jerry.

My two step kids are doing fine, thanks, with me and their mom, who is my partner.

I know many gay couples, M/M or F/F, raising happy, healthy kids. Studies show that kids raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted as kids raised by straight parents.

They apparently are more tolerant of others who are different, however.

Perhaps Mr Watson should focus on something he knows about, since his post shows he knows nothing about GLBT.

Joseph O'Leary wrote: “I think he deserves kudos for keeping the Communion together and getting the Primates to discuss the gay issues at such length.”

Discuss?? Have a look at Steve Watson’s 2.45 comment, and you’ll see the level this discussion moves on.

“Bisexuality is a Ménage à trios”, “impaired in developing a relationship with the opposite sex”, ” homosexual men do very little parenting …. nurturing is overwhelmingly a female task”, “troubled”…

And so on and so on.

To which the Primates gathered at The White Sands added:

“The “low point” of the Primates’ Meeting came, Jefferts Schori said, when one primate equated homosexuality with pedophilia and another said he couldn’t see why the Anglican Communion should study homosexuality if it doesn’t need to study murder.”

Surely, I don’t know where all of this comes from (if not from an evil heart), but as to the oft heard charge of “Bestiality” there is a Byzantine gloss in Lev 18:23 accusing women (and women o n l y) of Bestiality – which gives the game away, history of Ideas-wise: Indo European anti Cosmic (= anti Creation) Philosophic Misogyny coupled with Gnosticist ravings on Sperm from Hellenist Alexandria.

23 Kaì pròs pân tetrápoun ou dåseis tän Koítän sou eis Spermatismòn,
ekmianthänai pròs autó.
Kaì gynä ou stäsetai pròs pân tetrápoun bibasthänai; mikstaròn gàr esti.

which means:
23 And to no quadruped shall you give your Bed, to beget children.
You dishonour thereby.
And a wife shall not give herself to the strong quadruped, it is mixing.

and “translates” (KJV 1611/1762 a d d i n g “Neither”, “thyself”, ”neither”, “any” and “thereto”,
as well as c h a n g i n g “Bed” into “lie”, “to” into “with”, “quadruped” (= male sacral prostitute, spending his life on 4 legs ;=)” into “beast”, “dishonour” into “defile” and “mixing” into “confusion”,
at the same time as o m i t t i n g “and”, “give”, “yours” and “to beget children” ;=)

23  Neither shalt thou  lie  with any beast 
to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

DrDanFee says: “visit COLAGE – children of lesbians and gays everywhere - and get a statistical clue. See: http://www.colage.org In particular see, the .../resources/summary.htm page.“

But don’t you know, that only Cameron and Gagnon are acceptable “statistics” in the Anglican Communion? because only they are “obedient” to the only accepted “teaching” of (selected parts of) Lambeth 1998 1:10 ;=)

Oh, Erika. I was so glad to see your posting.

I wanted to write what you wrote, but that would have been a theoretical conjecture. You are a first hand soul describing the possiblities and the choices that you made.

Well done.

Well, that got a response! For the record:
1. My question about bisexuality was entirely genuine. I have never understood what it meant to be 'a Christian bisexual in a faithful committed relationship' - because surely that means being either heterosexual or homosexual but not both at the same time? So, is a bisexual someone who hasn't made up his/her mind about their sexual desires or someone planning to have a series of sexual relationships, if I understand Erika Baker's comment: "When you're bisexual you are physically and mentally capable of loving people of either sex. But you would still only choose one at a time!" (By that definition, I think everyone must be bisexual! There are no biological differences between 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals'.) But in that case, what has happened to the Christian ideal of lifelong fidelity?
And what do you make of the case of Anne Heche, who left Ellen de Generes to marry a man? How plastic and fixed are desires?
2. It is my conviction that most people who identity as 'homosexual' are in fact bisexual, i.e. they are capable of acting heterosexually, if not with much enthusiasm. The whole business of homosexual parents shows this is so. Very many gay activists have been married. The question is, what triggered marital breakdown? What could have affirmed a heterosexual identity and what contributed to a married man or woman's diversion into homosexual activity? In the case I mentioned above, the married priest had struggled with homosexual desires at earlier times in his marriage, and reverted to these in a time of stress when he met a man and decided to leave his wife, family and ministry.
3. Do readers really believe that two 'fathers' or two 'mothers' are just the same as a mother and father? If so, they understand very little about child psychology, especially the development of adolescent boys. Many marriages are far from perfect, but we should model heterosexual marriage to our children. Jerry Hannon wrote: "Perhaps Mr. Watson would prefer that those two babies, now about 6 and 8 years of age, had been left in an orphanage in China, rather than adopted by an American man and his Englishman partner." No, I would prefer they had been adopted by a mother and father.
I know a number of readers will react defensively to these observations, but consider why. Consider the Christian doctrine of creation. Children are created by mothers and fathers and should be brought up by mothers and fathers.

Oh Steve!
It is generally accepted that human sexuality is a scale, with some being 100% homosexual, some being 100% heterosexual, and the rest of us somewherhe on the scale between those two extremes. Choice is irrelevant for most, because your sexuality is not only defined by your physical responses but by your capacity to feel emotionally close to your partner. So, yes, truly gay people are probably able to sustain some form of heterosexual relationship, but it will be emotionally crippling. They feel about it the same way you would feel if you were asked to form a partnership with a man.

Bisexual people are right in the middle of the spectrum and can have satisfying relationships with men as well as with women. That does not mean that they do have a succession of relationships, just as heterosexual people like you are in theory capable of loving every woman on the planet, but are still very able to form life long monogamous relationships.

Of course relationships should be life long and monogamous. But people die, people divorce. That applies to heterosexuals, gays and bisexuals equally. So, for some of us the next partner can be of a different sex than the first one. Simple as that. It's about love, not about sex. About deep commitment to an individual whatever their body bits!

And, yes, I do truly believe that same sex parents are as good for a child as mixed parents. My own children are perfectly happy and perfectly adjusted, believe me, it really is not an issue in our family. I grant you that it is important to ensure that there are strong male relationships in their lives. But I have said it before on this forum - that is a problem for all parents in a society that is increasingly dominated by female nursery staff and primary school teachers, and fathers who work all the hours God sends and barely see their children. With a bit of good will this need not be an insurmountable problem for female couples. Male couples are much better off in that respect.

Would the Chinese children have prefered to have had a mum and a dad? Maybe, maybe not. But that was never the alternative. The other option was an orphanage and no family life.

It's no good at looking at reality wishing it were different. Come and join the real world where real people live real lives, make real difficult choices and live real complex lives - just like you!

"Do readers really believe that two 'fathers' or two 'mothers' are just the same as a mother and father?"

Of course it is not "just the same". But not "just the same" doesn't mean inferior.

"If so, they understand very little about child psychology, especially the development of adolescent boys. Many marriages are far from perfect, but we should model heterosexual marriage to our children."

Why?

"Jerry Hannon wrote: "Perhaps Mr. Watson would prefer that those two babies, now about 6 and 8 years of age, had been left in an orphanage in China, rather than adopted by an American man and his Englishman partner." No, I would prefer they had been adopted by a mother and father."

Why? This child has already been abandoned by a mother and father. How can you assert with a straight face that an opposite-sex set of parents is automatically and always better than a same sex set? It is absurd.

I believe Rowan Williams abstained from the vote on Lambeth 1.10. Our present Primate voted against.

Steve Watson responded to one of the several points of my previous posting by stating:

"Jerry Hannon wrote: "Perhaps Mr. Watson would prefer that those two babies, now about 6 and 8 years of age, had been left in an orphanage in China, rather than adopted by an American man and his Englishman partner." No, I would prefer they had been adopted by a mother and father."

Mr. Watson is evading the question, since the alternative choice was not being adopted by a husband and wife, but (A) being adopted by a man and his life male partner, or (B) being left in the orphanage in China. He posited a theoretical "(C)" when it did not, in fact, even exist.

But, I am not surprised by his disingenuous reply, given the lack of Christian charity in much of what Mr. Watson has posted on this site.

Jerry, I'll leave it to the Lord to decide whether I possess Christian charity. I know of numerous couples who would like to adopt from abroad, but they don't have the money or knowhow to go about it. I know also of single people who have adopted. But as a general principle, adoption from abroad isn't a good idea, and can be tainted by fraud or mishandling of money - not always, but it happens. Relatives should take on this task if the birth parents can't or won't.

I noted the suggestion that disfranchised members should "go out and form their own congregations". Should the edifices and monies stay with the hardliners or be split with the new thinkers who also helped build the Church??

An Archbishop now in complaint with the sexual orientation issue holds hostage a parcel of property that hasn't been used or walked on for over one hundred years in a country deeply in need of missionary efforts instead of "socials and events to show costumes" Similar religions face this peril from ancient protocols of ther leadership. This from the lips of a Benedictine monk that left the priesthood after eight years to form his own heteroSEXUAL family unit.

His forecast, as a thinker, (he and his wife produced three daughters of genius) was to say religions would diminish in influence as intelligence increases throughout the world.