<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="bbPress/1.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Unreasonable Faith Forum &#187; Topic: Episcopal Church approves same-sex blessing service (via CNN)</title>
		<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2223</link>
		<description>A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism</description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=1.1</generator>
		<textInput>
			<title><![CDATA[Search]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Search all topics from these forums.]]></description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/search.php</link>
		</textInput>
		<atom:link href="http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/rss.php?topic=2223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

		<item>
			<title>kessy_athena on "Episcopal Church approves same-sex blessing service (via CNN)"</title>
			<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2223#post-42106</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>kessy_athena</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">42106@http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/</guid>
			<description><p>Nox, is it okay with you if they only move one mountain at a time?  Progress is a slow and gradual thing (most of the time) because it involves convincing large numbers of humans to change the way they act or think.  And while there are certainly faster ways to accomplish that, they're also coercive.  Is that really a road you want to go down?</p>
<p>I believe that humans are fundamentally good and moral people who look out for each other.  Given enough time and prodding, I think we will always wind up doing the right thing.  Sometimes it just takes a while.
</p></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>FO on "Episcopal Church approves same-sex blessing service (via CNN)"</title>
			<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2223#post-42051</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>FO</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">42051@http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/</guid>
			<description><p>Yup.<br />
It's like saying "It's very good".<br />
It's an impressive step.
</p></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nox on "Episcopal Church approves same-sex blessing service (via CNN)"</title>
			<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2223#post-42006</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Nox</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">42006@http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/</guid>
			<description><p>As christian sects go, <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-15/us/episcopal.lesbian.bishop_1_gay-bishops-canterbury-rowan-williams-consecrated?_s=PM:US">Episcopalians have a pretty good track record in this area</a>.</p>
<p>I think the "blessing" is an attempt by the more progressive factions in the church to make some gesture of acceptance to gay people while trying to avoid the resistance from more conservative factions that would be inevitable if it was called a marriage.</p>
<p>It is a small step. For that matter it is a calculating and cowardly step. But it's clearly a step in the right direction. And we should applaud any steps in the right direction.
</p></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Kodie on "Episcopal Church approves same-sex blessing service (via CNN)"</title>
			<link>http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2223#post-41983</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:49:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Kodie</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">41983@http://forums.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/</guid>
			<description><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/episcopal-same-sex-unions/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/episcopal-same-sex-unions/index.html</a></p>
<p>I'm a little confused about this. It seems like a step in the right direction, or at least this century: </p>
<blockquote><p>The service is not considered a marriage ceremony, media affairs representative Nancy Davidge said.</p>
<p>"We have authorized a blessing, and a blessing is different than a marriage," she said. "A blessing is a theological response to a monogamous, committed relationship."</p>
<p>Marriage requires the additional involvement of civil authorities, and many states do not allow gays to marry.</p></blockquote>
<p>I could not find in the article if the Episcopals would consider it a marriage if it occurred in a marriage-equality state, or if they just wouldn't sign the paper. I can understand them having no choice in states where they don't allow it yet. But I guess it's nice of them to make a public effort toward acceptance.
</p></description>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
