Speechless.

Lord have mercy!

Gosh. This is such a difficult question. How many gays have been killed or beaten up by homophobes? And how many Africans have been murdered by gays for criticising Western gay lifestyles?

Orombi should put up or shut up, as we say in the States. Produce evidence of these threats against his life by gays...e-mails, letters, recordings of phone calls.

Or stop slandering an entire group of people.

So sad to see a fine mind overcome by paranoid delusions.

So Henry Orombi does not accept money that "has strings attached"? Sad that this undignified, Drama Queen attention-grabbing is coming from a fellow-countryman of Archbishop Sentamu.

I think Orombi has officially relinquished any claim not to be homophobic, literally. I'm also astonished at the concept of being taken advantage of by being given donations. I must try that in my next stewardship campaign. "Take advantage of you church -- increase your pledge!"

How sad really. One is tempted to just dismiss him as a bit of a nutter; but i really have the sense that i'm hearing my greatgrandfather talk from his prospective in the 1920s. Where will we get our children? Good grief. Look around dear Bishop at the starving masses of orphans. And one cannot help but fear for the gay and lesbian men and women in Africa who are dealing with this mindset. They dont' exist unless they are dragged into the 'lifesyle" by Westerners.

What a homophobic ignoramus.

This man is pure evil, incarnate; either that, or he must be the most delusional person on the face of the earth.

What chutzpah!

What lunacy!

The anti-Christ is surely making a large footprint through Orombi,who obviously does not understand what Christ taught us.

May Archbishop Orombi find peace of mind. He is in my prayers.

"With joy I enter into the activities of the day; without regret I remember the events of yesterday; and with confidence I look forward to tomorrow, for today my heart is without FEAR."

Which countries of the world do NOT have "supporters of homosexuals?" Uganda sure does.

Orombi's ridiculous claims that "supporters of homosexuals" "force him to dress like a civilian because these people are dangerous" is just another flaccid attempt to promote the dueling, contradictory stereotypes that Gay men are both flaming sissies (less than men) and rampaging rapists (supermen). Huh?

Meanwhile it's the Lesbians who get beaten and raped. Lord, have mercy.

I am reminded of a saying by Mr de Rochefaucalt:

Everybody complains of his health, no one of his judgement,

or summat ; = )

Projection is so utterly universal. "I hate you - therefore I wish to destroy you - therefore you hate me and wish to destroy me. So *you* are dangerous."

God help us!

Uriel

Well Bishop Orombi and Dr. Lugemwa are both fine examples of standard, culturally embedded 1920's state of the art understandings on this hot button topic of queer folks, society, and nature with a capital first letter.

The subsequent question, then, is: Where have these two bright fellows been, really-actually, as well as intellectually and citizenship-wise?

A lot, a huge lot - of seriously important changes have happened since 1920. For one thing, Orombi and Lugemwa could get clued in to the updated factual biological thinking on animal analogues of human same sex exuberance and pair-bonding - rampant in the animal world among so many species that we simply could not list them all in a short blog post.

If Oromobi and/or Lugemwa want to catch up some, they could hardly do better in a single scholarly resource than to read Joan Roughgardens book, published by University of California press, and titled, Evolution's Rainbow:Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. Professor Roughgarden teaches biology at Stanford U., and is a respected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Highly recommended reading. Or, shall we just permanently dumb down the scientific and scholarly essentials of being Anglican - not least by studiously avoiding doing our hypothesis tested citizenship homework, again and again and again and again and again?

Buy a bishop a book, say, Roughgarden?

Fear not so much the poisoner, as the mighty media machine that delivers the poison with every due regard for its impact!

I'm sorry, but this is simply blatant, unacceptable homophobia. I rather approve of the statements being made in this way as it displays the true feelings and opinions of conservatives.

These views are simply not compatible with contemporary Britain, and the idea that a church which follows this sort of line will be anything more than a fringe relic and somewhere for the disaffected is a joke.

The more these ignorant people say, the more they condemn themselves and their religionism

Archbishop Orombi, I am telling you this is a total attempt at black mail. You are and your colleagues in Nigeria and other Provinces in Africa have been supporting the jailing and maltreatments of LGBT people for years. If it is not so speak out against it.
You and Archbishop Akinola denied knowing the situation of LGBT people in your provinces when you were questioned in the GAFCON meeting and yet you are strongly opposing and campaigning against LGBT People.

I am now seeking asylum and safety all because of those who thinking they will make heaven by murdering me and yet no Nigeria or African Bishops have condemned my attackers instead I am called a liar thereby making my situation worse.

Archbishop Orombi we LGBT people are not what you are claming us to be. The reverse is the case. Stop playing the victim while exposing us to danger and violence. The Anglican Communion does not belong to you and your Western supporters.

I will not quit my beloved Anglican Church for Archbishop Akinola or any African Bishop. It will take time but someday Africa will see the birth of a reformed liberal Anglican Church where everyone is welcomed at the Table.

"I rather approve of the statements being made in this way as it displays the true feelings and opinions of conservatives"

I've got to hold with you on this one, mike. I'm waiting for the conservative Evangelical response to this, both here and in the real world. I expect vigorous defence of his right to speak this way along with pity for the way the poor faithful Godly leader is being persecuted by the Godless heathen. Has he, I wonder, had to wear a bullet proof vest at any time since he was elected (?appointed?) bishop?

Both Archbishop Henry Orombi and the doctor need to read The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality edited by Phil Groves as the official contribution to the listening process.

It would disabuse the doctor of his ignorance about homosexuality and educate Archbishop Orombi.

For Changing Attitude, the Archbishop's views confirm the worst impression of the prejudiced and abusive attitude held by some Primates and bishops. He is not representative of all in Gafcon or Foca.

His remarks are a timely reminder to +Rowan and the bishops and archbishops gathering at Lambeth next week that those who will not be there (because all Americans bar 3 or 4 have been invited) hold prejudiced views about LGBT people that are totally unChristian.

If Orombi believes what he is saying (or the delusion is real for him) then I pity him for living in such a world where fear governs life. But, if he doesn't believe what he is saying, but it saying it to incite anger and bolster resistance in his part of Africa, then we are seeing the most dangerous of conservative tactics - victory at all costs and the greatest cost is the truth.

I don't think this is just homophobia. The good Archbishop appears to be delusional.

It's true. This is a misplaced, misanthropic and ultimately mistaken diatribe, spoken for the ears of his own faithful, and exposed by modern media to the eyes of those it wasn't spoken at - such as Thinking Anglicans...

..some of whom fall right into the same trap. And I wonder if any posters on this thread will speak out against, for example, calling Archbishop Henry Orombi "pure evil, incarnate". Or do you all think his undoubted homophobia (which is indeed what his stated words imply) means that he deserves all the opprobrium you can heap upon him? Sound familiar?

I prefer to think he's delusional - the alternative is too horrible to imagine.

+Orombi says: “I am forced to dress like a civilian because those people are dangerous. They can harm anybody who is against them. Some of them are killers. They want to close the mouth of anybody who is against them.”

There is also a saying: With Enemies like these, who needs Friends?

(especially referring to the performance of Primates Orombi and Akinola at their Gaffe-con press conference in Jerusalem)

I particularly enjoyed the gay dating ad to the immediate right of both articles. Has someone done a spot of jiggery pokery I wonder?

Pete
"And I wonder if any posters on this thread will speak out against, for example, calling Archbishop Henry Orombi "pure evil, incarnate"."

Yes, I will.
Those are incredibly strong words that should have no place in a civilsed discourse or in the description of anyone who isn't at least a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler or Mugabe.

But....as long as people like Davis Mac-Iyalla have to fear for their lives in their home countries because their church pursues them with all its might for being gay, I will reserve the right to call +Orombi morally repugnant, ill educated and an actual danger to many supposedly in his pastoral care.

I am convinced that the church can and should bless same-sex partnerships. And I think Bishop Orombi's comments would be laughable if they weren't so tragic.

But I am also sick of this conversation, and the narrowness of its terms of reference, and I think there is fault to be found on both sides. By focusing on one sexual orientation and its physical expressions, we are letting ourselves off the hook from looking at broader questions of sexuality and sexual expression.

To the 'conservatives': if all homosexual sexual expression is wrong, are all heterosexual sexual expressions within marriage permissable? What is your position on anal intercourse, oral intercourse, BDSM, and rape within marriage? Is you sexual ethic based on ANYTHING other than the sense of personal revulsion expressed in Orombi's comments?

To the 'liberals': If the defense of homosexual sexual expression within a committed relationship is based only on our understanding of the nature of the created order--that the natural orientation of a certain percentage of people is towards people of the same gender--where do we intend to stand on the next issue coming down the pike, and the one after that (and come down it will)? Once it has been shown that bisexuality is normal among a certain percentage of people, will we expand the number of people from two to three who can be in a covenanted relationship? Should there be any limits on sexual expression, or is the natural occurrence of a sexual impulse all that is needed to legitimate it?

Sexuality is a powerful force, which can be both creative and destructive. What is the larger theological context for considering ALL questions of sexuality and sexual behaviour? Are we all willing to have our sexual behaviour scrutinized, or is it just too convenient to scapegoat or champion one group so we don't have to look at ourselves?

So it's OK then if it is for your own audience, and that he doesn't really believe it. I think he needs more opprobrium piled on him. There comes a point where words on here are disallowed, that are entirely appropriate.

There is no excuse for this, none at all. If he thinks he has some sort of position in world Anglicanism then he should shove some pairs of socks in it.

At least he tells those who would ally with him what deeply unpleasant people these are that they would associate with. It won't be cost free.

"And I wonder if any posters on this thread will speak out against, for example, calling Archbishop Henry Orombi "pure evil, incarnate"."

I will join Erika in this, though I recognize the hurt and fear that this is coming from. Consider it: were I to go to Uganda and make it known I am gay, many would believe in all honesty thanks to this, that I am seeking to kill their Primate. They might well kill me as a result. Such rhetoric as this has already led some of them to believe that if they kill a gay person, they commit no sin. They have evidence that others in their country get away with it, and not even the Church sees a need to oppose it. What would you call this kind of hate filled diatribe that puts people's lives at risk, stirs up unnecessary fear and hatred, drives a further wedge between us all, and is manifestly untrue? There is clear evidence that there are among his supporters on both sides of the Atlantic people who would be only to glad to see people like me dead. I am justified then, in my fear. Where is his evidence? How many liberals in the Church have declared him insane, or inhuman, or less than an animal? How many times have senior Church officials in the West stated that he would stand by while Orombi was unjustly arrested? So, he may not personally be evil incarnate, but his words are surely not those of a Christian bishop, or a Christian layman for that matter. I am trying to find a way to hate the sin and love the sinner in this, but it is very difficult. I see now why he wouldn't condemn the repeated rape and beating of a lesbian. Homosexuality is a communion splitting issue, but a bishop lying to stir up fear and hatred in his flock is OK?

KRhull
“Once it has been shown that bisexuality is normal among a certain percentage of people, will we expand the number of people from two to three who can be in a covenanted relationship?”

I applaud much of what you say but this is based on a misunderstanding.
Bisexuality does not mean wanting 2 partners at the same time. It means being emotionally and physically capable of loving people from both sexes. Bisexual people’s partners potentially come from a larger selection of the population, but like heterosexuals and homosexuals, they still only chose one partner!

If someone tells me they've seen something commonplace (ie, a blue Volkswagen Beetle - Punch Buggy!), I tend to believe them without any proof.

When someone tells me they've seen something quite out of the ordinary (ie, a blue unicorn with polkadot stripes reading a copy of the Church Times), I tend to apply a different standard.

Thus, when Gene Robinson says he's had his life threatened, I don't look for much proof. Nonetheless, he has disclosed some of the purely evil correspondence he's received.

But when Henry Orombi claims to have had his life threatened by gay activists - and offers no proof at all - am am more inclined to conclude that he is either delusional or dishonest, and possibly both.

Further to Orombi's dishonesty, Mark Harris over at Praeludium puts the lie to Henry's claim that he doesn't wear clericals in "in countries which have supporters of homosexuals."

Sad but true, some souls would even go so far as to wear a bullet proof vest, just so they can claim their side also lives in fear of their lives. Some would even stoop so low as to harm some of their own to prove that there is a danger of aggression (self-mutilation at a group level).

The fear might feel very real, and in some countries extreme violence and aggression is seen as inevitable, tolerated, condoned or even lauded. For example there are some leaders who have been praised for calling GLBTs beasts (forgetting that in the bible the Sabbath also covers beasts, slaves and women).

The real issus is whether a society has a rule of law, where citizens can move freely and in safety. If one group is disbarred from relative safety, then tyranny, conflict and violence are unsurprising manifestations. The more extreme the disenfranchisement and suffering, the more extreme the self-defense mechanisms.

If leaders do not want to live in fear of their lives, then nurture societies that enable all within to live in safety, including those one dislikes.

Krhull: fair questions. As for bisexuality, I have no problem with that; poly-partnership is a different issue. I have always thought that bisexuals just have a larger pool from which to choose a single life partner.

Uriel

Krhull asks some very good questions; and although I disagree with the opening wish I'd like to offer my responses.

And first of all, you're quite right to be disappointed at the narrowness of the 'debate' of the last five years. I feel that this is something which the secular media has manoeuvred us all into, whether liberals or conservatives, for its own sensationalizing purposes.

As a 'conservative' in the matter of the presenting issue, re. marital sex I'd reply that its basic purpose in the created order is reproduction, so attempts at contraception (whether 'successful' or not) transgress the Creator's intent in it. I'm slightly surprised you didn't mention this factor in your list of possible deviancies. But if this argument is sound, it's no wonder that the Anglican churches have been in principle susceptible since 1930 to the pro-homosexual tendencies and more besides. I submit that rejecting this position seriously weakens (but doesn't necessarily destroy) the overall conservative theological case against allowing homosexual practices.

As for 'rape in marriage', are we all agreed on a precise definition - e.g. does it include initial consent by the woman followed by some pain during intercourse?

Meanwhile the group of questions you put to liberals is one I too would really like to hear from them about. You mention bisexuality; we could easily bring in polyamory (-gyny/-andry), 'consensual' paedophilia or at least hebophilia, many forms of incest, and in extremis, even perhaps some kind of bestiality, just to cater for those individuals who cherish their relationship with their pets more than that with any living human.

The concept that the naturalness of a sexual impulse is ipso facto justification for its indulgence, smacks of the deistic morality of Alexander Pope - "Whatever is, is right" - and effectively denies the Christian doctrine of the Fall. Not everything that occurs naturally today is to be approved.

In fact we don't even have to confine the principle to matters of sex. What about e.g. kleptomania - what if studies show it's 'natural' to some people, at least partly 'genetic', that it would be 'psychologically harmful' to attempt to 'cure' it, that it is already found in the animal kingdom i.e. in magpies, etc. (all sounds familiar)?

K R Hull wrote: ”Once it has been shown that bisexuality is normal among a certain percentage of people, will we expand the number of people from two to three who can be in a covenanted relationship?”

Bisexuality is the ability to fall in love with either gender (one at a time, I am told ;=)

BTW, Do you often misunderstand things like this?

It is a terrible thing to live in fear. Perhaps Gene Robinson could loan him the bullet proof vest he had to wear at his consecration. Or better yet, Orombi could join Robinson at the table where perfect love casts out fear.

These uneducated and inarticulate comments by Orombi and Myers Lugemwa lend credence to the theory that some Africans are ignorant to the point where they can be manipulated by conservative Americans and others from the west. Sad day for all Anglicans.

Orombi will do any pitiful thing for attention...that is, when either boasting about "chasing" skirts as a youngman didn't work or destroying the Integrity Community Center in Uganda as a old mean bigot...persecutiving LGBT Christian/others wherever he finds a cluster of hate/fear-mongers to cry the blues with is what his mission is about! Gives egodriven silliness all new meaning.

"Meanwhile the group of questions you put to liberals is one I too would really like to hear from them about. You mention bisexuality; we could easily bring in polyamory (-gyny/-andry), 'consensual' paedophilia or at least hebophilia, many forms of incest, and in extremis, even perhaps some kind of bestiality, just to cater for those individuals who cherish their relationship with their pets more than that with any living human."

Oh, for heaven's sake! The point in sacred relationships is that they are between two consenting adults - equals. Any relationship premised on such a power imbalance as between an adult and a child or adolescent, for God's sake, hardly qualifies. Are you serious? It seems silly to have to state this, as it has been stated many times.

Dan Baynes
It's a real problem, isn't it.
I live with another woman, so of course my children are in danger of being abused by me. You just can't trust me to have any moral compass at all!
The dogs go into hiding when they see me, I don't blame them. At least the guinea pigs are safe, I haven't worked out what I might do with them yet, but it can only be a matter of time.
I'll think about that once I'm bored of necrophilia.

Dear dear, what did you do during the listening process?

Give me a break - lets not introduce the red-herring of conceptual paedophilia.

Paedophilia is abuse, pure and simple as it is exploitation of a position of power - the child does not have the intelectual ability to "consent".

Is this episcophobia?

Pete, I agree; "pure evil incarnate" is much too strong. I prefer not to call any person "evil" -- that's not for me to decide. (I also dislike "unchristian" since plenty of Christians do terrible things.)

As to nature: that's really not what it is about. Showing that same-sexuality happens naturally doesn't make it good -- but it does disprove it to be "unnatural." This is not a positive proof, but removal of a negative argument from the table. That old argument still appears, however, in language about the "order of creation" showing us that procreation is good, and anything else is bad.

As to Lugwema -- I'm appalled that someone who claims to be a doctor can think that amoeba reproduce sexually.

And please spare us the slippery slope. Those who support life long monogamous same-sex relationships do so on the same basis as marriage: adult consent, no consanguinity, no plural spouses, no animals except as pets.

It seems to me that the readiness to jump on Dan Baynes just shows that there really IS an underlying issue of concern. As Dan noted, sexuality is only the topic of current discussion - one could equally argue about the biological tendency (if any) toward theft. The real issue is the fact that if a certain argument is advanced for the acceptance of certain behavior, then it becomes necessary to look very hard at the logical extension of that argument and be prepared to explain why the extension to other situations is or is not valid.
This is as risky as it is necessary, since there is always a possibility that the argument originally advanced will turn out to be untenable overall. That doesn't necessarily mean that the position is unjustifiable, but it may mean starting all over again to build up an argument. Most people I know won't do that (including me, sometimes) so the temptation is to hold to a good line and just try to brush away the other stuff as being irrelevant. Ultimately, though, many of us need to be able to reconcile our compassion, our common sense (including some logic), and our theology (including the derivation of same from scripture).
Erika and others, wanting to be able to argue from strength is not a dismissal of the needs and affections of our GLBT sisters and brothers. I've heard complaints about conservatives 'checking their brains at the door' in favor of holding to an ideology, and frankly, it's just as bad if progressives do the same thing. I think that KR Hull is simply raising issues, in a friendly forum, that will surely be thrown at us in less friendly circles.

Interesting to see such a glowing account of

The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality edited by Phil Groves

from Colin Coward - I have yet to read the compilation - and now look forward to doing so even more knowing it has his endorsement!

It was Andrew Carey, I believe, who once noted that Orombi and his ilk are our greatest asset – how true, how wise!

Thank you all for your responses, and especially you, Robin, for your first paragraph, which expresses better than I did what I am trying to get at. And incidentally, I am throwing these issues at myself as well. The argument from human biology *will* come to grief sooner or later. We must have a theology of sexuality, and it seems to me that any meaningful such theology will necessarily require constraints of some kind on sexual behaviour, and these constraints, whatever they might be, must be applicable in principle, even if different in their particulars, to all, not just to certain sexual orientations and not others, and to 'traditional' relationships as well as non-traditional ones.

For example: despite some of the comments I received, I realize that bisexuals simply have a larger choice of potential partners, and they do not require a partner of both sexes. However, it is not true that all bisexuals limit thmselves in this way. Some are in fact in two relationships at the same time. Some may choose to have a series of monogamous relationships, choosing a different sex for successive relationships. Such persons might point to heterosexual and homosexual partnerships and say something like, "these two groups are allowed to express the fulness of their sexual natures, so why shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to do so?" The same argument that supports adapting the traditional understanding of a covenanted partnership to apply to partners of the same sex could also be adapted to support, say, intended serial monogamy, or a life-long relationship with two partners instead of just one. I am not saying that either of these possibilities is good or bad, I'm just trying to point out that we need to have a theology of sexuality that offers a more fully developed sexual ethic, even for those who are married in the traditional sense, than I believe we have at present.

Another point at issue for me concerns power dynamics within relationships. While I certainly agree that genital sexual relationships must be restricted to adults, and that cerain types of relationships between adults, such as between a patient and a doctor, or a teacher and a student, must also be proscibed for reasons of power dynamics, it is just naive to suppose that just because two adults are involved, there are not potentially damaging or coercive power dynamics at work in a great many relationships. Differences of intelligence, earning power, attractivenmes, etc, etc, are virtually always present in relationships. In addition, the sense of power inequality is closely linked to sexual arousal for many--maybe most--people. What does our theology have to say about how such potentially damaging dynamics are to be understood and acted upon (or not) within a Christian marriage or other sexual partnership?

Let me restate that I support the blessing of same-sex partnerships. But I'm not happy with the depth of the arguments that I've heard so far.

"it becomes necessary to look very hard at the logical extension of that argument"

LOGICAL extension???

Maybe in BizarroWorld, Robin, every *conceivable* slippery-slope turns into a topic something worthy of discussion.

I would LIKE to believe, NOT on "Thinking Anglicans"!

*****

"As a 'conservative' in the matter of the presenting issue, re. marital sex I'd reply that its basic purpose in the created order is reproduction"

No, Dan, that's the basic purpose of *heterosexual* sex---you know, the kind you can see any two dogs, pigs, or dung beetles going at. It is, at base, a BEASTLY activity.

"Marital sex" (or, as I prefer to put it, "spousal physical intimacy"), on the other hand, is a Human ("little lower than the angels") invention. Regardless of the gender of the two partners, marital sex brings all the exquisite joys, and bottomless depths, that HUMAN, Imago-Dei LOVE can create (of which reproduction is but one possible example).

What a "mess of pottage" you would have us settle for---no thanks!

Robin
“It seems to me that the readiness to jump on Dan Baynes just shows that there really IS an underlying issue of concern.”

I agree. And the issue is how people like Dan can possibly still be asking those questions and what on earth we can possibly do to answer them.
I don’t know where Dan lives. Here in England same sex couples have been living together happily and openly for years. We parent, we are integrated in our societies and often in our churches. We can legally form binding partnerships that are very much like marriages.

On fora like TA we have been talking for years about ourselves, defended ourselves, explained ourselves, talked theology about ourselves. We have been met with continuous accusations that we are faithless, dangerous to society, morally no better than thieves, paedophiles, anything you can think of with the possible exception of mass murderers.

Where are these people like Dan who do not see us and hear us? What we are, our actual lives and our conversations, that they still believe that simply to jumble our sexuality with all kinds of criminal desires is a valid argument?

Can there be anyone left in the Anglican Communion who has yet to hear the mantra “Permanent, stable and faithful”? And how can you possibly, possibly talk to these people and reach them?
What, tell me, is it we are not doing but that we can possibly do to make people see?

There may well be serious and genuine arguments for opposing homosexuality, but this is not one of them and only betrays an ignorance that is truly shocking after all this time and the plainly visible reality of our lives.

Krhull
“Such persons might point to heterosexual and homosexual partnerships and say something like, "these two groups are allowed to express the fulness of their sexual natures, so why shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to do so?"

No, you still haven’t understood about bisexuals.
Bisexuals are allowed to express the fullness of their sexual natures to the same extent that homosexuals and heterosexuals are: in one stable, faithful and lifelong relationship. Whether they chose a woman to live that relationship with or a man, the fact remains that they will limit themselves to one person, just as gays and straights should.

The fact that people often get it wrong and that people of all orientations sometimes have very confusing sex lives does not invalidate this Christian gold standard.
And the fact that some people get it wrong is not an argument for disallowing loving relationship for those who want to try to get it right.

Incidentally, all the theological questions you ask have been answered brilliantly by Tobias Haller in his “sex articles” on his blog http://jintoku.blogspot.com/

And I’d like to state again that all your questions have been answered constructively time and time again for many many years by many many theologically trained people.
I think the onus is now on you to acquaint yourself with the answers. If you still have questions afterwards, I will happily continue the conversation.

krkull wrote "Let me restate that I support the blessing of same-sex partnerships. But I'm not happy with the depth of the arguments that I've heard so far."

That is the difference between legalism and faith.

Legalism demands the "water-tight" argument that can stand up against all accussers.

Being a Christian involves living by faith and seeing beyond the letter of the law to the intent of the law and thus the heart of God.

Jesus did not attempt to live by the letter of the law, and both Jesus and John the Baptist were contemptuous of the legalistic Pharisess of their time (e.g. referring to "Brood of Vipers")

Similarly, we see in the rejection of legalism and elitism in the bible that is used to excuse nullifying, denying or oppressing other camps. Go read Zechariah 3 or Hebrews 11.

Romans 3:28-29 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too..."

Not only is God the God of Jews, God is the God of Gentiles, women, slaves, non-humans and all of Creation.

God exists outside of time and space because God created time and space, yet God is within time and space because everything is God, thus God's covenants of peace and sabbath apply to all humanity. Just as God's covenants apply to any sentient being on any planet in any space-time continuum.

"At least the guinea pigs are safe, I haven't worked out what I might do with them yet, but it can only be a matter of time."

Well, Erika, there is something of a modern urban legend that claims otherwise. Sorry, prurient, but it's a Friday.

"with the possible exception of mass murderers"

Again, we now have an episcopal statement that "some" of us are drug addicts and "they" kill people. Conservatives will of course piously aver that it is indeed true that some gay people are drug addicts and some of those addicts murder people, refusing to acknowledge their disingenuousness. But, there appears no evil nor perversion that those considered to be the most Godly of Christians will not accuse us of. The only bit of a laugh one can have about this is that conservatives will actually claim that this kind of behaviour is attracting people to Christianity and is in no way responsible for the emptying of churches in the West!

"However, it is not true that all bisexuals limit thmselves in this way. Some are in fact in two relationships at the same time. Some may choose to have a series of monogamous relationships . . ."

Just like some / many / most heterosexuals.

Your point?

So, ++Orombi disguises himself in countries where gays want to assassinate him by wearing civilian clothes rather than his collar. It is, of course, a well-known Scriptural Fact that fags can not recognize a priest without his collar. Since ++O still has his head, obviously it works! The depth and subtlety of his theology amazes me!

I wonder if the Secret Service could adapt this strategy to other situations . . . .

One would think that, if he does indeed fear for his life, it would make him more compassionate to the plight of those homosexuals whose lives he endangers by his intemperate, hate filled, and ignorant words.