Skip to main content

UCC Becomes First Mainline Church to Endorse Gay Marriage

The United Church of Christ, the first mainline Protestant denomination to ordain an openly homosexual minister 35 years ago, became the first to endorse same-sex marriage within its pews Monday.


Tuesday, Jul. 5, 2005 Posted: 7:31:55AM EST

The 2005 General Synod is being held from July 1-5 in Atlanta, Georgia.

The United Church of Christ, the first mainline Protestant denomination to ordain an openly homosexual minister 35 years ago, became the first to endorse same-sex marriage within its pews Monday.

Roughly 80 percent of the liberal denomination's 884-member General Synod voted to approve the resolution, which calls on member churches to consider wedding policies that do not discriminate against couples based on gender.

The resolution also asks churches to consider supporting same-sex marriage laws outside the church by working against legislation banning gay marriage.

According to a UCC press release, the denomination's president, Rev. John H. Thomas, said his church acted courageously to declare freedom.

"On this July Fourth the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has acted courageously to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of same gender couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate and bless those marriages," said Thomas.

However, not all were in favor of the controversial move.

A small group of traditionalists had proposed an alternative resolution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which did not pass.

The Rev. Brett Becker, who penned the resolution, said earlier this year that he knew his resolution does not have the slightest chance of passing, but hoped it would be used to bring reform to the ultra-liberal church.

I'm hoping God might use [the measure] to change some people's minds, said Becker, pastor at St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo.

Now, Becker one of only a handful of remaining evangelical pastors in the UCC says the passage of Monday's resolution may force him to leave.

"I would like to see us stay in the denomination and network for positive change," Becker said to the Associated Press. "However, many of my members have expressed very clearly that this decision would cause great consternation and that, if this happened, they would want to see us leave."

Becker also does not believe Monday's vote was representative of the wishes of most laity.

"If we had put it to a vote of the people in the pews, it would have failed overwhelmingly," he said. "This is truly Independence Day for the UCC we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture."

The United Church of Christ was formed in 1957 and has remained traditionally strong in the New England area. The denomination claims to have 1.3 million members in 5,700 congregations.

Like many other mainline denominations, UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the General Synod, which meets once every 2 years - cannot create policy for its congregations. However, each General Synod is recognized as the representative voice of the churches.

In the early 1970s, the UCC became the first mainline church to ordain an openly gay minister. Ten years later, the church declared itself to be open and affirming of gays and lesbians.

The 2005 General Synod is being held from July 1-5 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Monday's resolution reads:

The marriage equality resolution (1) affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage; (2)affirms equal access to the basic rights, institutional protections and quality of life conferred by the recognition of marriage, (3) calls for an end to rhetoric that fuels hostility, misunderstanding, fear and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, (4) asks officers of the church to communicate the resolution to local, state and national legislators, urging them to support equal marriage rights, (5) calls upon all settings of the church to engage in serious, respectful and prayerful discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal marriage rights, (6) calls upon congregations, after prayerful, biblical, theological, and historical study, to consider adopting Wedding Policies that do not discriminate against couples based on gender, and (7) urges congregations and individuals of the UCC to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, and to work again legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies rights to couples based on gender.



pauline@christianpost.com

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Post. Click for reprint information

Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I am a bit confused. If this is a CHURCH, which believes in the BIBLE, and the Bible explicitly refers to homosexuality as SINFUL, then how exactly is it okay to endorse gay marriage without going against the Lord? If God is the one with the final say, and He's been saying for centuries now, then how is it okay to go against His word and still claim to be devout, God-fearing citizens? God's word doesn't matter anymore?
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
I am a bit confused. If this is a CHURCH, which believes in the BIBLE, and the Bible explicitly refers to homosexuality as SINFUL, then how exactly is it okay to endorse gay marriage without going against the Lord? If God is the one with the final say, and He's been saying for centuries now, then how is it okay to go against His word and still claim to be devout, God-fearing citizens? God's word doesn't matter anymore?

This has been addressed in a number of earlier threads. E.g.,
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/880103466/r/346100766#346100766
A great many Christians (lay, scholars, clergy) do not find an understanding and allegiance to scripture incongruent with committed, covenanted, same-sex relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
I am a bit confused. If this is a CHURCH, which believes in the BIBLE, and the Bible explicitly refers to homosexuality as SINFUL, then how exactly is it okay to endorse gay marriage without going against the Lord? If God is the one with the final say, and He's been saying for centuries now, then how is it okay to go against His word and still claim to be devout, God-fearing citizens? God's word doesn't matter anymore?


The Church has no problem marrying two liars, two thieves, two murderers, etc. (all things the Bible considers sins). Why should they have a problem marrying two gay people?
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
I am a bit confused. If this is a CHURCH, which believes in the BIBLE, and the Bible explicitly refers to homosexuality as SINFUL, then how exactly is it okay to endorse gay marriage without going against the Lord? If God is the one with the final say, and He's been saying for centuries now, then how is it okay to go against His word and still claim to be devout, God-fearing citizens? God's word doesn't matter anymore?

This has been addressed in a number of earlier threads. E.g.,
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/880103466/r/346100766#346100766
A great many Christians (lay, scholars, clergy) do not find an understanding and allegiance to scripture incongruent with committed, covenanted, same-sex relationships.


Wow...I find it amazing and somewhat offensive that some people don't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Whether you follow the faiths or not, it's somewhat ignorant to reject the blatant truth. The religious organizations that accept this way of living are deviating from the orthodox teachings. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as taught by tradition DO NOT condone homosexuality. Do the words Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) carry any weight here?! Eek
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
I am a bit confused. If this is a CHURCH, which believes in the BIBLE, and the Bible explicitly refers to homosexuality as SINFUL, then how exactly is it okay to endorse gay marriage without going against the Lord? If God is the one with the final say, and He's been saying for centuries now, then how is it okay to go against His word and still claim to be devout, God-fearing citizens? God's word doesn't matter anymore?

This has been addressed in a number of earlier threads. E.g.,
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/880103466/r/346100766#346100766
A great many Christians (lay, scholars, clergy) do not find an understanding and allegiance to scripture incongruent with committed, covenanted, same-sex relationships.


Wow...I find it amazing and somewhat offensive that some people don't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Whether you follow the faiths or not, it's somewhat ignorant to reject the blatant truth. The religious organizations that accept this way of living are deviating from the orthodox teachings. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as taught by tradition DO NOT condone homosexuality. Do the words Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) carry any weight here?! Eek

As a Christian minister, I find it equally offensive when people do not critically engage the tradition as well as the texts. For example, what does scripture actually say about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I pointed to that thread to reveal that the tradition is much more diverse and varied than people think. There is also a wealth of scholarship: textual, sociological, historical, and theologically for those who sincerely wish to wrestle with the issue.

If interested, I would suggest the scholarship of Kelly Brown Douglas, Delores Williams, Renee Hill, Victor Anderson, Vincent Winbush (African religionists) or for a more general orientation, that of Carter Heyward, Beverly Harrison, Robin Scroggs, Jon Boswell, etc.
Although I'm not in favor of civilly recognized same sex marriages, I don't have a problem with religion-sanctioned same sex marriage. That's probably because I don't really care what goes on in the context of a church.

But all that aside, I am curious: Where the Bible says that a man should not "have sex with another man; God hates that," or depending on the translation, that such a thing is an "abomination," etc., how exactly can one "interpret" that text to mean that homosexuality is not sinful, or wrong?

I don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, evil, or sinful. But guess what? I don't believe in the correctness or followability of the Bible, or any other religious text, either. But I don't believe it's possible to view homosexuality as being okay and at the same time holding the Bible as God's word.

Biblical admonishments against homosexuality are among the most clearly expressed passages in the whole Bible. It's right up there with the texts about the smell of burning cattle being "pleasing to the Lord." Yet, people reject these passages all the time, while simultaneously professing belief in the divine truth of the Bible.

Since it's obvious that homosexuality is not a choice one makes, and it is not inherently harmful to anyone, then I have no problem believing that if there's a God, that God created homosexuals. It's also clear to me, in addition, that God most certainly did NOT create religious texts. It seems to me that there has to come a point where a person says, "Too much stuff in this book just isn't right; I reject it," rather than, "the stuff in this book isn't right as I read it; there must be another way to read it." And yet, honest and intelligent people of conscience engage in the latter exercise all the time. How?

Basically, then, my questions are: how, specifically, does one read the sinfulness & wrongness of gayness out of these facially anti-gay texts? What do these passages mean, exactly? What truth from God do these passages express?
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Kresge, I understand time honored traditon. But what I have a problem with is the contorting and adapting of basic principles and original teachings. I believe that God's Message does not "expire", and I don't believe it should be up for change. But I guess that's the nature of people.

I also do not believe that God's message "expires", nor do the scholars that I cited. The issue is the discerning of the message. In this respect, I do not subscribe to a simplistic, biblicistic reading of the text. Indeed, for the majority of Christian history, no one would have asserted such a hermeneutic.

As I have said numerous times before, the Bible is an ancient text, having various authors, written over millennia in various languages, many of them now dead. This presents quite a challenge for one wishing to apply to text to the contemporary context.

Ironically, we do this all the time. In terms of sexuality, in this society, it is not permissible to practice polygamy, we do not subscribe to levirate marriage, the stoning of adulterers, the uncleanliness of menstruating women, etc.

In a larger sense, we do not support slavery, kill people who take the Lord's name in vain, wear strictly fabrics made of one thread source, observe the OT holy days. Indeed, I know of very few Christians that adhere to the 613 levitical laws.

It is for this reason that I would assert that it is not really religion that so much governs most peoples homophobia and heterosexism. Instead, religion becomes an ideological instrument for preexisting prejudices and biases.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Although I'm not in favor of civilly recognized same sex marriages, I don't have a problem with religion-sanctioned same sex marriage. That's probably because I don't really care what goes on in the context of a church.

But all that aside, I am curious: Where the Bible says that a man should not "have sex with another man; God hates that," or depending on the translation, that such a thing is an "abomination," etc., how exactly can one "interpret" that text to mean that homosexuality is not sinful, or wrong?

I don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, evil, or sinful. But guess what? I don't believe in the correctness or followability of the Bible, or any other religious text, either. But I don't believe it's possible to view homosexuality as being Tokay and at the same time holding the Bible as God's word.

Biblical admonishments against homosexuality are among the most clearly expressed passages in the whole Bible. It's right up there with the texts about the smell of burning cattle being "pleasing to the Lord." Yet, people reject these passages all the time, while simultaneously professing belief in the divine truth of the Bible.

Since it's obvious that homosexuality is not a choice one makes, and it is not inherently harmful to anyone, then I have no problem believing that if there's a God, that God created homosexuals. It's also clear to me, in addition, that God most certainly did NOT create religious texts. It seems to me that there has to come a point where a person says, "Too much stuff in this book just isn't right; I reject it," rather than, "the stuff in this book isn't right as I read it; there must be another way to read it." And yet, honest and intelligent people of conscience engage in the latter exercise all the time. How?

Basically, then, my questions are: how, specifically, does one read the sinfulness & wrongness of gayness out of these facially anti-gay texts? What do these passages mean, exactly? What truth from God do these passages express?

Vox, I alluded to some of the issues in the post above, regarding the consistency issue with respect to the levitical code in terms of sexual and no sexual ethics. To that I would add the following brief comments which I can expand upon later in greater detail.

Firstly, I would assert such texts must be read in a cultural context - that being the ancient near east, which was extremely patriarchal and even misogynistic. It is a culture in which it was not uncommon for males victors to rape defeated males as a sign of domination and as an act of humiliation. In such instances, one is not talking about homosexuality, one is talking about sexual violence. With respect to the levitical code, it is interesting to it makes no reference to female same sex relationships (indeed, it appears no where in the OT).

With the ancient Hebrews, one is also dealing with a population where insuring progeny is crucial. This is where the issue of levirate marriage comes in, why polygamy was so common place, and why you probably have the story of Onan in the canon. This is another reason that same sex relationships would not be desirable.

As for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, again as mentioned in other threads, what we find bares no resemblance to homosexual relationships. Indeed, other biblical texts characterized the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as lack of hospitality, not homosexuality.

As for the NT, Jesus says nothing about same sex relationships. In terms of Pauline text, one again is faced with to what is he referring. Here again we have the issue of translation. The words that often get translated in modern versions of the bible as homosexual are in the Greek malakos and arsenokoitai which may better be interpreted to mean male prostitutes and those who frequent them. If Paul had meant some other type of same sex interaction, there are other words in the Greek that he could have availed himself of. This also relates to what many read as Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1. Again, I would suggest that it is more fitting to see this as Paul's condemnation of ritual prostitution associated with certain cults. It is also clear that Paul is working from an assumption that these people are acting against their own natures, or their own orientations. As you suggest Vox, it is not against the nature of a homosexual to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It would be "unnatural" for them to form an sexually intimate heterosexual relationship.

There are certainly Christians who will disagree with this quick overview. My point is that Christians who endorse same sex relationships, can do so without dismissing the biblical text as irrelevant.

If you are interested in a more thorough treatment of some of this material, I would suggest Walter Wink's well distributed essay, Homosexuality and the Bible. I have used it countless times over the last twelve years or so, in numerous settings.
The scripture also says to 'Do not wear thy hair plated or adorn thyself with the Gold of Babylon'...a.k.a anyone wearing braids and gold jewelry is going against the Helio Biblio(a lot of Black folks are sinning eh?) if you're a Biblical literalist and don't take into consideration such things were said in the period of times that the Hebrews were in Bavylon and they had to make sure their traditions weren't lost to the dominant culture.

Literalists kill me.
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
I missed this message when it first appeared. Abomination is a bad translation of the Hebrew word toevah, so an English definition is not going to do anyone much good.


It works for me. Here's a link to Strong's Reference, a popular Hebrew translation site.

Strong's is may be "popular", but only for evangelical Christians. A more common text used in elementary Hebrew courses is Brown, Driver and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. As a none Christian, I would have thought that you would have gone to a Hebrew source. Indeed, why are you even using the KJV Bible and not the Tanak based on the Masoretic text? The KJV is simply a bad translation of the Bible, and resources based on thus susceptible to its failings.
quote:
kresge: I would assert that it is not really religion that so much governs most peoples homophobia and heterosexism. Instead, religion becomes an ideological instrument for preexisting prejudices and biases.


bravo, well said. tfro

this is one of the most intelligent and objective threads on this topic I've come across. btw: aren't hyperlinks great. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
quote:
kresge: I would assert that it is not really religion that so much governs most peoples homophobia and heterosexism. Instead, religion becomes an ideological instrument for preexisting prejudices and biases.


bravo, well said. tfro




I suppose that's true. But for others who were brought up religiously, it is an automatic response. They are taught, because religion tells them so, that homosexuality is wrong. If people are taught this as children before they have had a chance to explore it for themselves, then they don't have preexisting prejudices to justify through religion. It is the actual faith that has formed their opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
quote:
kresge: I would assert that it is not really religion that so much governs most peoples homophobia and heterosexism. Instead, religion becomes an ideological instrument for preexisting prejudices and biases.


bravo, well said. tfro




I suppose that's true. But for others who were brought up religiously, it is an automatic response. They are taught, because religion tells them so, that homosexuality is wrong. If people are taught this as children before they have had a chance to explore it for themselves, then they don't have preexisting prejudices to justify through religion. It is the actual faith that has formed their opinion.


Sis it's precisely the 'automatic response' part of religion that I have most trouble with. A religion that allows a person to ask, test, challenge and reflect is a healthy one. Any way of thinking that automatically judges or incriminates people based on assumptions or even brand of religion they are, rather than an individual's actual character is to me grossly unfair and illogical. There never will be peace on the planet while people are judged on assumptions and prejudices. You never know, maybe some of those judgements in the Bible/wherever were put there as a test to see how people walk the peace talk.
Why do people choose to erase and redraw the lines of what's moral and immoral. Morality isn't pre-existing assumptions and prejudices. Morality is based upon the consciousness of our souls reflections of the spiritual standards that were set before us. Without morality there is no Justice, without Justice there is no peace.

These days, morality, peace, and justice, are implicitly taboo. These are now notorious concepts that are obsolete and can't keep up with what society deems feasible and comfortable standards. They say sex sales, but what really sells is the freedom from the guilt of promiscuity. Yeah, BET has noticed a trend of unsafe sex, so now the theme is 'Wrap it up'; not, 'Wrap a ring around her finger'. It's o.k. to be a dog, just so long as you 'Wrap it up'.

Morality is being attacked from all angles. Especially when it comes to the sacredness of Marriages and Family. Can you be Holy and homosexual? Or should we change the words to "Unholy matrimony". A homosexual can be Good, Obedient(up till dealing with their sexuality), and even Righteous. But is he/she Holy? The burden of proof of the error of homosexuality lies with morality, but since we can't get a consensus on what's moral anyway, I guess it's ok to be gay. Right?

What's wrong with two men who are in love, getting married to eachother, in holy matrimony?

What does a community/society gain from gay marriage? Tolerance? But at what expense? MORALITY
I think with tolerance comes truth or at least acknowledgement.

If gay Black men stop being persecuted, or judged, just for being gay, then I imagine there would be fewer men hiding in hetero marriages, living a lie. Not just their own lie, but a lie to their wife, family, and society.

Maybe then they could feel freer to choose what kind of life they really want to live?

I just can't see any marriage between a gay man and a woman as either happy, or healthy.

This is the issue I have with most propaganda and censorship.

What does a community/society gain from gay marriage?

Excluding children, maybe the same things as from hetero marriage?
A commitment to their community, civic pride, homemaking, an emotional and civil commitment to a monogamus relationship. Maybe someone should ask them? Are you interested in hearing their answer is perhaps the question?

A question of morality? IMHO, I think a more relevant word for 'morality' today is ethics. Ethical decisions put the onus on the individual to make conscious decisions, not just leave it to a prescribed religious text.

You are right that sex sells... but let's look at how sophisticated that imagery has gotten? And I am not talking about cameras glaring up at big butts. The issue I have with singers such as Britney is their very carefully designed marketing formulae. I am not going to go on a rant, but Big Grin a caustic eye should also be applied to the type of supposedly 'wholesome' white-bread college music that gets churned out ad nauseum.

Someone should write a thesis on how skillfully marketers appease religious zealots while at the same time sending out the same old subliminal (and perhaps more insidious because it is so skillfully disguised and dishonest) sex message.

Those truly concerned about morality, should aim their ire at the marketing companies because they are the creators of illusions and delusions. Consumers just do want they do best - consume.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Why do people choose to erase and redraw the lines of what's moral and immoral. Morality isn't pre-existing assumptions and prejudices. Morality is based upon the consciousness of our souls reflections of the spiritual standards that were set before us. Without morality there is no Justice, without Justice there is no peace.

These days, morality, peace, and justice, are implicitly taboo. These are now notorious concepts that are obsolete and can't keep up with what society deems feasible and comfortable standards. They say sex sales, but what really sells is the freedom from the guilt of promiscuity. Yeah, BET has noticed a trend of unsafe sex, so now the theme is 'Wrap it up'; not, 'Wrap a ring around her finger'. It's o.k. to be a dog, just so long as you 'Wrap it up'.

Morality is being attacked from all angles. Especially when it comes to the sacredness of Marriages and Family. Can you be Holy and homosexual? Or should we change the words to "Unholy matrimony". A homosexual can be Good, Obedient(up till dealing with their sexuality), and even Righteous. But is he/she Holy? The burden of proof of the error of homosexuality lies with morality, but since we can't get a consensus on what's moral anyway, I guess it's ok to be gay. Right?

What's wrong with two men who are in love, getting married to eachother, in holy matrimony?

What does a community/society gain from gay marriage? Tolerance? But at what expense? MORALITY

Yes, GLBT people can be holy, righteous, obedient (even in the area of sexuality). Love him or hate him, Nietszche has a point in Genealogy of Morals, as far as the human level is concerned, morality is a human construct. Morality is mutable, has always been mutable. Look at the very Bible that people use to condemn GLBT people. There is no one sexual ethic there (refer to the article I posted by biblical scholar Walter Wink. Polygamy, levirate marriage, sex biased understanding of fornication, etc. Moving beyond the area of sexuality, slavery was condoned; cursing/dishonoring God or your parents were capital offenses, total war (the killing of innocent men, women and children) was deemed acceptable, even the act of human sacrifice was in rare instances tolerated, if not encouraged.

Also, the taboo's against same-sex relations have not ever been univeral. It was common among certain classes in ancient Greece. In Native American culture, two-spirit people have a special role and function in society. I have also in other threads referred to the interesting work of Ifi Amadiume entitled Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society that explores the diversity of sex and gender relations on the continent.

Again, as I have argued, if there is an ethical norm, I believe that it is for mutual, respectful, reciprocal, loving relationships between two adults. All the better if they wish to bare witness to love that they share through a covenant before God and witnesses. The sex of the parties for me is irrelevant. Such an understanding is the basis for groups like Reform Jews, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, and now the United Church of Christ supporting and affirming same sex weddings and/or commitment ceremonies. For that they recieve a big tfro from me.
quote:
morality is a human construct. Morality is mutable, has always been mutable



In that case, God is also a human construct. Is God mutable? The obvious answer is yes, because we change Him/Her to fit our tastes, preferences, and sexual needs/desires.

These gays are sexually unhealthy, as it (health) relates to their spirituality.

NO religion can endorse homosexuality.

Sex between a married couple is the merging of two halves of spiritual energy coupled together to create one conscious unit. Two of the same sexes can't contribute anything to eachother spiritually because, either the woman will be lacking the spiritual forces of a man, or a man will be lacking the spiritual equalizing of a woman. What happens to the man is his spirit goes through some ugly metamorphosis.

Which I believe is the downfall of society as a whole. We too go through this metamorphoses as well. The construct/character/constitution of society will change. Why do people feel like Gay couples will make this world better?


IMHO, gays are moral criminals without any regard for sexual 'ethics' or morality. They should be held accountable for their social trangressions, not rewarded.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
morality is a human construct. Morality is mutable, has always been mutable



In that case, God is also a human construct. Is God mutable? The obvious answer is yes, because we change Him/Her to fit our tastes, preferences, and sexual needs/desires.

These gays are sexually unhealthy, as it (health) relates to their spirituality.

NO religion can endorse homosexuality.

Sex between a married couple is the merging of two halves of spiritual energy coupled together to create one conscious unit. Two of the same sexes can't contribute anything to eachother spiritually because, either the woman will be lacking the spiritual forces of a man, or a man will be lacking the spiritual equalizing of a woman. What happens to the man is his spirit goes through some ugly metamorphosis.

Which I believe is the downfall of society as a whole. We too go through this metamorphoses as well. The construct/character/constitution of society will change. Why do people feel like Gay couples will make this world better?


IMHO, gays are moral criminals without any regard for sexual 'ethics' or morality. They should be held accountable for their social trangressions, not rewarded.



I co-sign with that, and let me just say I find it very disturbing that humans attempt to 'mold' God and reinterpret His Word to fit their lifestyles.

It's a sad, sad world.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
morality is a human construct. Morality is mutable, has always been mutable



In that case, God is also a human construct. Is God mutable? The obvious answer is yes, because we change Him/Her to fit our tastes, preferences, and sexual needs/desires.

These gays are sexually unhealthy, as it (health) relates to their spirituality.

NO religion can endorse homosexuality.

Sex between a married couple is the merging of two halves of spiritual energy coupled together to create one conscious unit. Two of the same sexes can't contribute anything to eachother spiritually because, either the woman will be lacking the spiritual forces of a man, or a man will be lacking the spiritual equalizing of a woman. What happens to the man is his spirit goes through some ugly metamorphosis.

Which I believe is the downfall of society as a whole. We too go through this metamorphoses as well. The construct/character/constitution of society will change. Why do people feel like Gay couples will make this world better?


IMHO, gays are moral criminals without any regard for sexual 'ethics' or morality. They should be held accountable for their social trangressions, not rewarded.

How do you know that what you believe about God/Being/Reality is not a construct? If it is predicated on an external source, you choose it to be authoritative for you. There is no way to escape the problem of subjectivity.

Further, I have already established the point that numerous religions and spiritual traditions do endorse homosexuality. There are "homosexual" priests, bishops, shamans, imams, rabbis, monks, etc.

I do not believe that God is a human construct. The question of whether God is mutable is another issue. It depends on your religious tradition and metaphysics. Immutability is a concept that Christianity inherited from Greek philosophy. It is extremely problematic, especially for those who use the Bible as a source of authority. The God of the Old Testament repents for the destruction that takes place in the Flood. He also changes his mind about killing Moses, etc. There are process and emergence theologies that do indeed assert that God changes, evolves, is in the process of becoming.

On related thread, are you as vehement in your condemnation for heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage. Surely there are many more of these out there than homosexuals. How should they be held responsible for their social transgressions. Should these criminals be exiled or stoned ala the Old Testament?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×