Posted on 10/21/2010 9:54:54 PM PDT by marshmallow
BANGALORE: Archbishop of Canterbury Reverend Rowan Williams is known to be broad-minded, liberal and outspoken in his thoughts.
As the Archbishop was about to rush in his car to a programme after the inter-faith dialogue at ECC concluded, TOI asked him what his view on gay rights was. Williams replied: "The answer to this question is a long one. But yes, I support gay rights as a personal and legal right in the civil domain."
Dr Mani Chacko, director of ECC, said: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is broad-minded and liberal. It is true that he had proffered gentle criticism of the Pope's stand on the issue. But he and the Pope have a good working and personal relationship. The Archbishop and Pope were together at a recent programme and the Pope even stayed with the Archbishop."
Asked whether it wasn't a rather serious difference of opinion and outlook with the Pope, and how they could get them to see things similarly, other church heads who were with Chacko said: "There may be a difference in opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...
While not enough to make me abandon the Anglican Church, this is yet another groan-inducing contribution from the Archbishop.
It’s making me wonder what his REAL position on PB Schori is.
Rowans problem is that, like the Pope, he is an intelligent man and a gifted theologian. Unfortunately, reasoned thought and considered opinion is of little import to the media. They want quick "sound bites", summations of very complex things that can be twisted to mean just about anything they want, which is usually something very controversial...
“The answer to this question is a long one. But yes, I support gay rights as a personal and legal right in the civil domain.”
It is the ultimate of political correctness naming a self destructive sexual behavioral choice, sane, healthy and lovely and persecuting and hating anyone who tells the truth.
A big problem is that when someone says they “support the legal and civil rights of gays,” you can’t be sure if they mean they support homosexuals being held to and represented with the same standards of legality and civility as heterosexuals, or whether they are referring to “gay rights” as coined by those who see the term as indicating something special, such as gay marriage and the right to pull your wang out in the street and flog the bishop in front of toddlers, as was done at the Folsom Street Fetish Festival.
I have friends who are homosexual. They are aware of my stance, and accept that I do not acknowledge them as anything more or less than I do heterosexual individuals. They do not get special treatment in any case. Period. And I call them by their names, not their sexual preferences.
I don’t identify people by their sexual behaviors either. I don’t want to even know that about people because it is private. Too bad gay activists don’t agree with us. They are parading it in the streets, on televison, at work and in our schools. Soon they will be doing it in their military bunkers.
I count myself as lucky that the people I am friends with, who choose to be homosexual, do not make a big deal of it. It is known, but not promoted or advertised, at least around us.
My only real complaint with them, other than their choice, is that they don’t take their fellow homosexuals to task about the public displays. Especially since one of the individuals has expressed that he feels that sort of thing is damaging all around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.