hamlet, i'm not sure of the purpose of your last post. questioning the labels and the catgorization of sexual behaviour is fair enough, but how does that relate in any way to the purported sinfulness of certain sexual behaviour? you last post simply seems to presume that homosexual acts are sinful, the exact presumption others here are not willing to make.

unless and until you give some reason (other than appeal to authority) why a homosexual act is sinful, i don't see that you're getting us anywhere.

The trouble with the "sin" argument is what constitutes a sin is a matter of opinion. For centuries Jewish people suffered at the hands of Christians because their religion was regarded as sinful. Christians suffer at the hands of Islamic regimes for precisely the same reason.

Murder is prosecuted in Australia not because it constitutes a sin but because it is a threat to civil order. Notice the Australian Family Association, Catholic Church or Peter Jensen don't oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of sin (unless they are talking to their own members) but instead say it undermines family life as we know it (a threat to civil order, essentially). They know better than to use primarily religious arguments.

Quite frankly, I couldn't careless about the sexuality or sex or species of Anglican bishops. That's for the Anglican Church to work out. However, when they try to entrench the inequality of gay men and lesbians, that is the point where I oppose them.

bushbasher and DavidJS.

This topic is entirely about authority. Biblical Authority. That is how the topic started, that is the entire basis of the topic.

I don't have to prove to anyone that homosexual behaviour is sin. The topic start from that basis.

I quite frankly I don't give a damn about behaviour happens in people's bedrooms (or anywhere else in private), so long as that behaviour is not abusive, in contravention of informed consent or about power, so long as no-one makes homosexual behaviour compulsory.

What I do care about are people who, knowing full well the tradition and teaching of the Anglican, or any other church, intentionally go out to offend those who wish to stick with the tradition.
Or is it about the money and power, the stripping of assets, knowing that those who have worked for years to build their local churches will have those stripped away f they disagree with having an adulterous bishop?

Or is it the dressing up and theatricality?

Hell, there is news about a woman episcopalian priest in the good old USA who has converted to Islam, and still wants to be accepted as Christian priest!

Or is it more sinister, knowing the teachings and traditions of the church some people are intentionally seeking to destroy the church from within?

As for "However, when they try to entrench the inequality of gay men and lesbians, that is the point where I oppose them." those who prefer homosexual behaviour are trying to oppress those of the Church who do not want to accept a priests, bishops etc in authority who live in contravention of Christian beliefs.

hamlet, i'm not going to fight with you. even on your own terms, i don't understand the point of your previous post, but it doesn't matter. you want possession of the word "sin", and as far as i'm concerned you can have it. if you want possession of the word "morality", that's another issue ...

i got into this thread to ask why some christians are so hung up on homosexuality. i asked this particularly in the light of the fact that there is no record of jesus having said a word about homosexuality. i asked it because i could see nothing in what jesus did say that implied anything morally wrong about homosexuality. i wondered if there was anything deeper than "biblical authority", something for a non-believer like me to understand. apparently not.

hamlet, obviously there are many anglicans who do not regard the prominence or clarity of "biblical authority" as simply as you do. but it's for you guys to fight over: i never pretended otherwise.

"i got into this thread to ask why some christians are so hung up on homosexuality"

No, its not christians who are hung up on homosexuality, it is homosexuals who won't let go until we all grovel at their feet and say how wonderful their lifestyle is, and I for one won't be doing that any time soon.

As far as the Church is concerned we've got our marching orders, 2000 plus years ago, never rescinded and they don't include embracing the homosexual lifestyle - end of story.

Bruce, see what happens when you introduce a topic that impinges in any way on homosexuality....

Positively no more comments from me.

oh no, david, of course not. you're not hung up on homosexuality at all. what you've written here, it couldn't possibly give anyone that impression.

and it would be a shame if you left the thread. your display of reason and humility and grace is more compelling than anything i can possibly offer.