The good thing about being in the UK is you get to hear radio programmes with intelligent content (and some TV is like that too – good old BBC!). There’s a furious row going on here about whether gays can be appointed as bishops (hot on the heels of a vote against appointing women bishops, which the majority of clergy and churchgoers apparently wanted but which the hardliners in the Synod opposed). We listened to a fascinating debate in the car headed back from a show the other night.
Dave and I (and our friends) don’t “do” church, although Chad’s gym enjoys a vague understanding with the local Baptist Church in Oak Ridge about tolerance of our gay behavior (this dates from a shared and emotional affair after 9/11 and also in the aftermath of us getting shot up in Edinburgh – this is all in the two books shown alongside here – click on a cover!). But the ‘in-fighting’ is quite interesting, since the so-called ‘House of Bishops’ in the Church of England has now unilaterally said that gay bishops are OK provided they are celibate. Which basically means they can’t have sex and must apologise for any homosexual activity in their past.
This will satisfy no-one. Relationships, gay or straight, are about love. And love includes intimate relations. Where do you draw the line, then, if you are a Bishop in a relationship with another man? Is kissing OK or not? Many commentators are suggesting that any Bishop in this invidious position should just lie if asked about sex. The problem seems to be what the Bible says about homosexual relationships. But it also advocates severe penalities for many things which are acceptable in 21st Century lifestyles anyway. But that includes being untruthful. But why should anyone in this enlightened age adhere to rules drawn up thousands of years ago? Discuss!!
The basic issue is that people like to impose their own “standards” on the rest of population, free country or not. Perhaps we need a plea, on behalf of gays everywhere (a God-given status we didn’t ‘choose’ for themselves, by the way), to just let us ‘get on with it’? I think that we can deal with being no less, and no more, discreet about our affairs that the straights. Two guys showing mutual respect and love surely cannot be all that bad?
Do I imagine it, or is the lower guy there looking guilty? Why should he?
If it’s OK for two guys to enjoy sharing their sport in the weights gym…
…should they not (IF they wish) be entitled to share other aspects of their lives without busybodies interfering? Does an arm around a mate’s bare shoulder constitute a indication of ‘gayness’ which is to be condemned…?
Heaven forbid (!) if you get any closer to enjoy some essential ‘maleness’…
Maybe they should just try to drown us all, like unwanted kittens (joke, Dave!), for showing affection:
Or just “hang us out to dry”:
Oh well, ’nuff said. No point in getting worked up about what the church thinks if we’re not involved. Gay clergy will just have to work things out for themselves, according to their consciences. Divine inspiration might strike and help them a bit…
…or, perhaps, better still…
Yep, we’ll definitely have one of those. Now, let us pray! Have a nice day!
Oh, and for a little side dish, here’s a
Bonus Boy
…also well grilled, but a nice reminder of summer yet to come.
