Episcopalian Church votes overwhelmingly in favor of performing same-sex weddings

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop.

The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.

The Very Rev. Brian Baker of Sacramento said the church rule change was the result of a nearly four-decade long conversation that has been difficult and painful for many. Baker, chair of the committee that crafted the changes, said church members have not always been kind to one another but that the dynamic has changed in recent decades.

eddie wrote:Erm no, we don't teach children about blowjobs but they'll end up either giving or recieving them one day!


So really, you have no "dirty" little ideas in your head?

I'm not knocking you, please believe me, but is your idea of sexual intercourse missionary and perhaps doggy style too?

Because there's nothing wrong with treating sex like a glorious fairground ride!

sassy wrote:How long have you had the idea and have you done anything about it

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:How long have you had the idea and have you done anything about it

I've had the idea many years, it just sort of came naturally, and yes I've done loads about it...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



I've had the idea many years, it just sort of came naturally, and yes I've done loads about it...

lol it is the most natural thing you can ever do...

Tommy Monk wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

lol it is the most natural thing you can ever do...

It's almost as if it was normal, natural and right... sort of how nature intended by the design and mechanics of it all...

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:How long have you had the idea and have you done anything about it

I've had the idea many years, it just sort of came naturally, and yes I've done loads about it...

sassy wrote:How long have you had the idea and have you done anything about it

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

mentor wrote:

if I were you I'd look carefully in the mirror....

besides criticising someone for being a dick, even in the guise of a religious belief isnt covered.....

the pages of "gender hatred" you have posted would sink you......

which tells you something then , that you lez and the other numpties on here are equally guilty of breaking the law so why not stop your campaign of trying to make Christians feel guilty for voicing their opinion i think the hatred is sickening from you and KD and Ben and others , yet you have the cheek to tell me and my husband that we are homophobic which is a bloody laugh , I had never come across such bigotry and Christianphobic attitude until i started posting on skyforum and various other forums where you lot are . You are a just a few bigots though gathering together in a small group trying to force me and my husband to accept homosexuality and gay marriage, don't you understand the meaning of freedom of thought and speech , how would you like it if there was a law passed that said ' until you have attended a mosque a temple a church or synagogue for ten years and listened to all the different faiths you cannot choose to be atheist or druid ' why should you have freedom of thought and we can't , why should you be able to dictate to others that they must accept gays and gay marriage just because you do ????????

Tommy Monk wrote:Not trying to stop anyone doing whatever they want with another consenting adult behind closed doors... just don't try to tell me that something so different and unnatural and abnormal is the same and equal...



And yes Eddie... most amusing!

mentor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Not trying to stop anyone doing whatever they want with another consenting adult behind closed doors... just don't try to tell me that something so different and unnatural and abnormal is the same and equal...



And yes Eddie... most amusing!

Tommy I really feel bad for you, it must be terrible being a member of a small (and ever shrinking) and increasingly desoised minority. especially one that, like yours, has no future...

Tommy Monk wrote:Pro poof propaganda and waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:Pro poof propaganda and waffle...

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Pro poof propaganda and waffle...

No just pro equality, which as seen you do not believe many groups should have equality, the same equality you have yourself which is denied to others. Basically you are treating them on the same level as criminals for no crime committed.
It proves your reasoning is absurd and based on hate.

@Victor have fun with Tommy, and have a good evening.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

mentor wrote:

Tommy I really feel bad for you, it must be terrible being a member of a small (and ever shrinking) and increasingly desoised minority. especially one that, like yours, has no future...

be careful in Britain the smaller the minority the larger the voice and the rights...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

No just pro equality, which as seen you do not believe many groups should have equality, the same equality you have yourself which is denied to others. Basically you are treating them on the same level as criminals for no crime committed.
It proves your reasoning is absurd and based on hate.

@Victor have fun with Tommy, and have a good evening.

i wouldn't spout about equality if I were you, you would take the choice of patients to refuse treatment... were is their right to equality??

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

i wouldn't spout about equality if I were you, you would take the choice of patients to refuse treatment... were is their right to equality??

That proves you do not understand what equality is.
So you are saying when a patient is not of sound mind, we should leave the choice up to relatives or experts? Equality is not being denied here but the patient given the best chances of survival.
So again you offer no reasoning to your points or even show what equality is lost. Where people like you think you know better than expert medical opinion then you are the problem and also a danger denying people the best treatment. It is you in fact that denies equality based on your opinions which are not expert opinions.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


That proves you do not understand what equality is.
So you are saying when a patient is not of sound mind, we should leave the choice up to relatives or experts? Equality is not being denied here but the patient given the best chances of survival.
So again you offer no reasoning to your points or even show what equality is lost. Where people like you think you know better than expert medical opinion then you are the problem and also a danger denying people the best treatment. It is you in fact that denies equality based on your opinions which are not expert opinions.

who was talking about whether they were of sound mind or not or are you backing up now, so if the patient was of sound mind and wanted to refuse say chemo, would you still say you would force them to take the treatment??

whoever they are they are entitled to their opinion, that is equality, the fact you think you know better is irrelevant, they can and should still be able to chose..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


That proves you do not understand what equality is.
So you are saying when a patient is not of sound mind, we should leave the choice up to relatives or experts? Equality is not being denied here but the patient given the best chances of survival.
So again you offer no reasoning to your points or even show what equality is lost. Where people like you think you know better than expert medical opinion then you are the problem and also a danger denying people the best treatment. It is you in fact that denies equality based on your opinions which are not expert opinions.

who was talking about whether they were of sound mind or not or are you backing up now, so if the patient was of sound mind and wanted to refuse say chemo, would you still say you would force them to take the treatment??

whoever they are they are entitled to their opinion, that is equality, the fact you think you know better is irrelevant, they can and should still be able to chose..

mentor wrote:Yeah...I like plucking parrots.....

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

who was talking about whether they were of sound mind or not or are you backing up now, so if the patient was of sound mind and wanted to refuse say chemo, would you still say you would force them to take the treatment??

whoever they are they are entitled to their opinion, that is equality, the fact you think you know better is irrelevant, they can and should still be able to chose..

Some people are not of sound mind to make decisions.
Take yourself for example, you do not take on board expert medical advice. That is not being of sound mind, its ignoring expert help that could very well save your life. You then place yourself at unnecessary risk.
If the patient wants to refuse chemo, they do so at their risk, its as simple as that.
We are talking about people like you trying to decide for others, where you have no expert knowledge. So where a mother wishes to deny a child a blood transfusion, she is deny her child equality to the best medical possible.

Vicar of Dibley wrote:children are never denied blood transfusions because the courts overrule that and rightly so .

As for accepting medical advice well not every doctor or medical professional are right they do make mistakes .

Cuchulain wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:children are never denied blood transfusions because the courts overrule that and rightly so .

As for accepting medical advice well not every doctor or medical professional are right they do make mistakes .

Hence why its best to get many different doctors to advice on problematic medical conditions Dibs. I never said just take one expert advice but many, to see the best options open to you.

Some parents have denied their children blood transfusions, but glad to see you agree the courts should overrule and rightly so


Right until later

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Some people are not of sound mind to make decisions.
Take yourself for example, you do not take on board expert medical advice. That is not being of sound mind, its ignoring expert help that could very well save your life. You then place yourself at unnecessary risk.
If the patient wants to refuse chemo, they do so at their risk, its as simple as that.
We are talking about people like you trying to decide for others, where you have no expert knowledge. So where a mother wishes to deny a child a blood transfusion, she is deny her child equality to the best medical possible.

so just because someone knows more than someone else you think that by equality that means they should make the decision for that person....

how is that equality...

you are confusing the issue between lack of knowlege and lack of capacity here
if someone of sound mind but little (or wrong) knowlege makes a decision..so be it
if someone with limited capacity (as determined by a court of course) makes a decison , that decision is NOT regarded as valid (and rightly so, since to do othewise could, and would lead to exploitation of vulnerable people)

do these so called experts no the future, do they know it will definitely save the patient and even if they do, is it not the right of the patient to say, you know what i want to do it my way even if it means dying...

mentor wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so just because someone knows more than someone else you think that by equality that means they should make the decision for that person....

how is that equality...

you are confusing the issue between lack of knowlege and lack of capacity here
if someone of sound mind but little  (or wrong) knowlege makes a decision..so be it
if someone with limited capacity (as determined by a court of course) makes a decison , that decision is NOT regarded as valid (and rightly so, since to do othewise could, and would lead to exploitation of vulnerable people)

do these so called experts no the future, do they know it will definitely save the patient and even if they do, is it not the right of the patient to say, you know what i want to do it my way even if it means dying...

Tommy Monk wrote:But that is 'progressive' HF... why should they let the truth get in the way!?

Tommy Monk wrote:But that is 'progressive' HF... why should they let the truth get in the way!?

mentor wrote:could not the same be said for you HF...after all you seem to dismiss the OT with ease...

despite jesus saying that the law will not pass....

moreove you seem quite "picky" about which bits of the NT you wish to avail yourself of....

clearly therfore you too omit a fair proportion of the bible....

this is in addition to the fact that in reality even if you followed the whole of the EXTANT bible, you would be omitting large chunks of it since much was left out by the bishops who cobbled together the present version......

Tommy Monk wrote:You can't unleash a logic bomb like that on those people here HF!!!



That will hurt their minds!!!

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

mentor wrote:could not the same be said for you HF...after all you seem to dismiss the OT with ease...

despite jesus saying that the law will not pass....

moreove you seem quite "picky" about which bits of the NT you wish to avail yourself of....

clearly therfore you too omit a fair proportion of the bible....

this is in addition to the fact that in reality even if you followed the whole of the EXTANT bible, you would be omitting large chunks of it since much was left out by the bishops who cobbled together the present version......

well which way would you like the argument, if you are so convinced that neither dibs nor myself are Christians as many on here say because we do not act like Christians, then you would have to declare that the church in this topic are certainly not Christians either....
so no gay Christians....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

well which way would you like the argument, if you are so convinced that neither dibs nor myself are Christians as many on here say because we do not act like Christians, then you would have to declare that the church in this topic are certainly not Christians either....
so no gay Christians....

HF and Tommy, I wouldn't slap one another too hard on the ass over this logic, as it's the same logic I used to prove these people have the same right to claim to be Christians as HF does.

So either they can be Christians and still support gay people, and you can be a Christian and still be an asshole, or none of you can be Christians.