The vocal champion of the variously gendered, Bishop "Vicky" Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, has been at it again. According to him, St. Paul's admonitions against homosexuality were really written against heterosexuals having homosexual sex, not against real homosexuals having homosexual sex. Gene thinks the latter is great but doesn't like the former, which he reckons is pretty perverted. Speaking to CNSNews.com, the pelosian pontiff stated:
“We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old... That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts... It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex... So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.”
Here's what St. Paul says, Romans 1:26-27:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Presumably the Archdruid of Canterbury is busy apologizing for the Apostle at the fudge factory that is the General Synod; see the excellent All Seeing Eye for commentary. Myself? I find Gene's gay logic remarkable, and If you want a discussion of the arguments from a trad perspective, check out Robert Gagnon's site.
I tell you, it's enough to make me reach for m'gun(s) - but more of that anon.
Shoot straight,
LSP
4 comments:
For your amusement and delectation...go here.....
http://grumpyoldtwat.blogspot.com/2010/02/gobby-gayers.html
Sorry but it's too early in the morning for my aging brain to recall how to put it as a link.
Thanks Cato - multiple stars awarded to GOT's campaign!
Romans 1:26-27:
Coincidentally I read this piece last week and thought it VERY anti gay.
Just my opinion of course.
I think I'd have to agree with you JPT - it takes a fair bit of sophistry to construe Rom. 1:26-27 as being somehow pro, or indifferent to gayness. Agree with it or not - there it is.
And another thing - how can Gene say that the Classical world had no conception of thoroughgoing same sex attraction? Either he's being disingenuous to the point of lying, or incredibly ignorant.
cheers.
Post a Comment