I admit that I do not know much about this debate, just that it is huge and in the news enough that I, with no newspaper subscription or TV, am a bit tired of hearing about it. I'm far from fully informed of the intricacies, but I don't really get why this is such a big debate. I mean, it shouldn't even be a debate at all, but it still is, and I wonder why.
I think it has something to do with how all the coverage never seems to cover the issue as a moral one. The papers make it seem like anyone who opposes homosexual clergy does so for the same reason they would discriminate against clergy who don't like golf or who like to read mystery novels or who prefer chocolate almond ice cream. But that's not at all what this is about.
I think most people who oppose homosexual clergy do so for the same reason that they oppose adulterous clergy or unmarried clergy having sex outside of biblical marriage or clergy molesting altar boys: this is a moral issue, and these things are immoral.
In organizations based on morality, why is there such outrage over a moral issue being a determining factor in leadership?
Maybe I'm just missing something?