[RobbyS]

Liberal Episcopalians who support the reverend Robinson have a very different view of Scripture than you or I. I mean its authority. Specifically they reject not only the strictures of the Law but what Paul says about the matter. Generally speaking they deny Paul's authority and set it against that of Jesus. Even though we now stress more than ever the Jewishness of Jesus, meaning that as a faithful Jew he would share the Jewish hostility toward homosexuality as the actions of idolatrous neighbors. he never specifically spoke against it. Never mind that what he does say about sexual morality is the very opposite of the libertine lifestyle that is so much a part of the gay "community." When we get to the issue, they are "strict constructionists."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

When we get to the issue, they are "strict constructionists."

He never specifically mentioned a lot of things: child abuse, rape, necrophilia, bestiality, etc... He did say that He came not to abolish but to fulfil the law. And he extended the law to include intentions of the heart. So if anything, he would extend the sin of homosexuality to include homosexual lust. There's no possible way an honest person can claim he took no position on the matter.

And he did define marriage very clearly as being between a man and a woman.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Robinson has spoken many horrific blasphemies and if there were ever a heretic deserving to be burned alive at the stake – he’d be an excellent candidate. He’s a deviant, a wicked man, and a sodomite that abandoned his wife and children so that he could live with his male lover. He abides only in Satan.

"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way."(St. Augustine of Hippo, 'Confessions', Book III, Chapter 8, 15.)

"And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment."(John Chrysostom, 'Homilies on Romans', Homily 4.)