The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney said he supports a church-related school’s decision to ban gay students from bringing their same-sex partner to a school formal.
Recently, a number of seniors at the prestigious Anglican Church Boys’ Grammar School in Brisbane, Australia, said they wanted to take their gay partners to their end-of-the-year dance, or prom, on June 19, according to The Australian. But school officials said under the current policy they are only allow to attend the ball with a female partner.
Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen concurs with the Brisbane school’s decision, saying that while he supports civil rights for gays in society, homosexuality in the view of the church is wrong.
"People do send their children to our schools – they send them there on the understanding that we understand from the teaching of the Bible that the expression of same-sex attraction ... is morally wrong," Jensen said to Macquarie radio, according to The Australian on Tuesday.
"I guess this will be a matter for the schools, but I think that the school will have my support for taking that line."
He added that he “completely” denounces any violence against gay persons, calling it “morally wrong and reprehensible.”
Likewise, Laurie Scandrett, chief executive of the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, supports the controversial decision by the Brisbane school. Scandrett said there is no umbrella “edict” among its schools banning gay students to take their partners to school dances, but it “would not be encouraged,” according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
"If you believe what the Bible says, that's how you should behave or act. It boils down to what you believe,” Scandrett said.
"The Bible is very strong that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexual relationships are not permissible in a sense, not encouraged, they are spoken very strongly against."
He expressed some sympathy for gay students who wanted to take their partners to the social function, but highlighted that students and their families enrolled knowing the Anglican school’s position on homosexuality.
"Most parents send their children to our schools because of the Christian values that our schools espouse, because our schools stand for biblical values," Scandrett said.
"We love all our [gay] students as we do all people in our churches but their lifestyle is not encouraged, particularly if it was a promiscuous lifestyle,” he said.
The Anglican school official added that in Sydney a homosexual person is “valued” as a person, but would not be appointed to a position in the diocese. However, they would be “welcome in our churches because everyone is welcome."
But the head of the Anglican Church of Australia, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, was more flexible in his response to the situation. Aspinall, who is also president of the Brisbane school’s council, said he has no “personal objection” if a school allows same-sex couples at their dance, and that he respects each school’s right to make the decision.
"But I understand in this particular instance the school has decided that its approach is to emphasize the interaction of young men and young women and providing them with an opportunity to do that in this kind of formal setting,” Aspinall said, according to Scopical news.
"And I have no objection to that either. I think that's a reasonable and legitimate approach.”
News on Brisbane school controversy has spread nationwide and has forced many Anglican schools to clarify their policy on same-sex couples at school formals. Each Anglican school has the right to make its own decision on policies related to its social functions.
RSS
Creed 3712. Am I angry?
Yes and I have every justification. I think you would be angry if you were put at an economic disadvantage and an increased risk of violence in this society because you happened to be heterosexual. Step into my shoes just for a moment. For you, this is an intellectual and moral debate in the abstract. For me, it has real world ramifications and affects the quality (and potentially length) of the life that I get to live on this planet now. Fortunately, people with your views are dying out and the world is changing just as it began to change for blacks in the sixties and women over the 20th century. But its not changing nearly quickly enough for me, because my life is going by quickly.
What gives you the right to judge others and deny me the rights that you enjoy. Have your views (silly and without rationality in my opinion) but leave me alone. Don't fight to restrict my civil rights, I don't fight to restrict yours.
As for the Bible, did you ever wear two types of thread in your clothes or grow two types of veges in your garden. These are as expressly forbidden as homosexuality. Yet christians ignore these passages, as in the light of the 21 st century, they are patently absurb. You are just using bible to justify your hatred.
But lets put the Bible to one side and assume, even if I don't agree, that the scholars have settled its interpretation. If your God really doesn't like homosexuality, would you ever ask whether its a God worth believing in. Or do you blindly believe because its in a book (a book that would have been a different book if you'd been born in a different part of the world).
Because there really isn't a rational basis for God to despise homosexuality. I really hate to say this to you all, but we have been around a lot longer than the Scriptures that you are quoting. We are older than most of the major religions of the world. We aren't a "New Thing" but we are a constant in mankind and in nature. We don't reproduce, that seems to be the main argument but think of us as population control. We dont all need to reproduce, infact we need less people in the world not more. And we can still contribute in other ways. We have had World Leaders, Popes, Kings, Thespians, great artists such as Michaelangelo and Da Vinci.
Why can't you just let this go. Who gets hurt when a gay person lives there life without your interference.
jason1010,
"you probably know that the translation of the passage you quote has not been settled even by scholars with far more learning in these matters than you and I. So why do you choose a modern translation that best serves your prejudices?"
Then let's go to the Greek... arsenokoitai is not vague at all, and those scholars who claim this probably have an agenda. The Septuagint translation of the following two verses is probably source of arsenokites and related terms. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:
Lev. 18:22 - meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gunaikos
Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gunaikos
The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai. Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning.
So, the meaning of the term is not vague or ambiguous at all. In fact, according to one commentary I found, the word ARSENOKOITAI is found in some classical Greek literature many years before and after the New Testament made use of the word. It appeared in the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus 6, 10, 25; Anthologia Palatina 9, 686, 5; and Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum viii, 4, p. 196, 6; 8; and the Sibylene Oracles 2, 73 and Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3. The pedigree is established, and thus, any claims to “homosexuality” surfacing as merely a “nineteenth century” classification is simply fallacious.
Jason1010
By the tone in your writing you seem very angry. DannyPoo was correct in his statement because he simply quoted “God 'made them male and female.” Which this tells you that this is the way it was, it is, and it will be because the Lord God Almighty created us this way. In Romans 1:18-32 (paraphrase) it said that He gave evil men over to the lustful desires of their heart for degrading of their bodies with one another.
Also to say that 1 Corinthians 7:2 is being debated as to the meaning, it states it very clearly that it is between a man and woman. This is not “Flimsy evidence” as you would call it. The Bible has multiple passages that are against homosexuality.
You also said that DannyPoo has “no rational basis but from the outdated prejudice”. My question is how is this out dated? Because we are in the 21st century and man should have new/better ideas? This is the Word of God our Heavenly Father. He is never changing and He will not change just to justify your or my thoughts or ideology.
I am sadden to say that if you believe that being homosexual is ok then you are taken in by the worlds desires to rebel against my Creator and Master’s commandments and His will. If your generation is X, that is my generation too, then they are confused and wanting to go the way of the world. I know, I was in that same thinking at one time.
To Jason
""Aritonang" - you probably know that the translation of the passage you quote has not been settled even by scholars with far more learning in these matters than you and I. So why do you choose a modern translation that best serves your prejudices?"
Are you kidding me, it can't be anymore clear then that, every translations speaks the same, it is only the person that reads it that wants to change it. You can't go and cherry pick the bible either you believe all of it or you believe none of it...
"Dannypoo" - you argue that homosexuals will always be unacceptable because they have sex outside of marriage. the passages you quote say nowhere that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals. "God created marriage for the purpose of a male and female joining together". Well I suppose a heterosexual would write that wouldn't they; but in any event where does it say in the Bible "God created marriage for the purpose of a male and female joining together to the exclusion of all other relationships".
"Aritonang" - you probably know that the translation of the passage you quote has not been settled even by scholars with far more learning in these matters than you and I. So why do you choose a modern translation that best serves your prejudices?
You are both very quick to seize on flimsy evidence to deny other good people the rights that you enjoy. And it seems to come from no rational basis but from the outdated prejudice and bigotry for which many parts of the Christian religion are renowned amongst people of my generation.
Sex outside of marriage is wrong, this is known as fornication:
"...to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)
God created marriage for the purpose of a male and female joining together, when Jesus was asked about Divorce he defined what marriage was and it's purpose:
"Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.''For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10:5-9
Therefore, even if someone were to discount every single verse that mentions homosexuality in the bible, other verses demonstrate that Homosexuality cannot be acceptable. At least from a biblical viewpoint. One might accept homosexuality from a worldly viewpoint and they are certainly free to do so.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.