Bishop Davies is right on. If we agree the Bible proscribes homosexual practice, then why does the ABC tell us that, ” ....no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the body of Christ?”  Certainly that is true with respect to those living a celibate life but the Archbishop’s comment is not limited to those folks. He’s talking about the entire LGBT community. Would serial unrepentent adulterers, polyamorists, child sexual abusers and those who practice beastiality be entitled to the same respect and dignity?  What is it about the LGBT community that entitles them to this protected class status? Some might suggest that there is a difference when the sins take place between consenting adults, but God hasn’t consented to the practice has He? Perhaps the Church would be more effective in combatting sin if serial sinners were called to repentence and until such time as they recognized their sin, they were shunned or denied communion or the other sacraments of the Church including ordination and marriage.

Mr. McGovern, the Bible addresses all sinners.  It does not recognize a special identity, special folk or exclusion from God’s proscriptions and definitions of sin on the basis of our feelings and inclinations.

It is a sin to call oneself or another by the agenda invented propaganda terms and concepts. (LBGT, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc.)

These desires are symptoms, conditioned responses, emotions that result from human sins, wounds and brokenness.  I Corinthians 6:9-20 and Romans 1:18-32 are completely inclusive.  NO ONE is excluded or exempt from God’s moral law.
And no one is exempt or beyond His help.  He is able to save us to the uttermost.  Hebrews 7:25

It is a sin to call oneself or another by the agenda invented propaganda terms and concepts. (LBGT, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc.)

Last I knew, these terms were “self descriptors”, not labels applied externally.  Is it preferred that we use the Biblical terms?  I am comfortable with describing homosexual acts as an “abomination” [Leviticus 18:22].  Cross-dressing is also an “abomination” in Biblical terms [Deuteronomy 22:5].  Male homosexuals are referred to as “dogs” and “sodomites” in Biblical terms [Deuteronomy 23:17-18].

Same-sex attraction is termed a “vile affection”, “against nature”, and “unseemly” in the Bible [Romans 1:26-27].  Another Biblical term for male homosexuals is “effeminate” and they are called “abusers of themselves with mankind” [1 Corinthians 6:9].

I am comfortable with using this terminology, if everyone else is.  Otherwise, why not let us continue to use the self-descriptors of the group and individuals in question?

The important point to remember about terminology is, that no matter what the terms used are, folks that practice these things (among other things), shall not “inherit the kingdom of God” [1 Corinthians 6:10].

Bill McGovern provided some excellent questions, and I think that they should not be ignored by a re-direction of the conversation through the distracter of questioning the terminology used (especially because it was intended to be the respectful use of self-descriptors).

The significant questions he raised bear repeating:  Would serial unrepentent adulterers, polyamorists, child sexual abusers and those who practice beastiality be entitled to the same respect and dignity?  What is it about the LGBT community that entitles them to this protected class status?