smooth

Well, splck, I don't have a problem with someone "being gay." For me, this is more of an issue over whether people who continue to "live in sin" (according to the tenets of the denomination) should be leaders in the church.

My understanding is that this requirement appies to everyone--liars, thieves, adulturers, and everyhing else Paul (and various other biblical writers) listed as sins. This is not to state that such people are not or will not be saved. But the requirement is clearly for someone to renounce one's sinful past and lead a new life without sin.

I don't believe that is possible for me and I suspect the same holds true for the people posting in this thread who are/were Episcopalian--that could be the reason we don't practice that particular faith anymore.

But I also don't believe that our claim that living sinlessly is impractical or impossible is an appropriate rationale for not following the tenets laid out in the "rulebook." If one says he or she honors and desires to live by the book, then one should do so rather than attempting to justify one's lifestyle or else quite claiming to respect the book.

EDIT: But I also maintain that I support this person for bishop on the grounds that he claimed he doesn't entertain sexual impulses or engage in them.

I am not claiming that homosexuality is immoral but I am stating that practicing Episcopalians believe the bible tells them it is immoral.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman