ELCA changes stance on gay pastors

[vandy125]

First off, thanks for coming at this from a good discourse. I always learn new things when discussing these topics and hope that others do as well, and I appreciate that ability.

 

Well, the OT condemns it, and the NT not so much. By extension of your reference to the cast the first stone Gospel refence in which Jesus supplants the Law of Moses, I should take Jesus' apparent lack of concern over homosexuality (he never mentions it) as an unspoken dismissal of the uptight OT dictums, yes?

No, he actually upholds the law of the OT for the most part. What he has done is fulfilled all of the prophecies of the OT, and has brought about a new way of atonement. We are now able to ask him for forgiveness and repent instead of having to go sacrifice a lamb, etc. Instead of the need of a harsh punishment (death by stoning) there is now forgiveness. Also, the ceremonially cleansing and other practices are no longer needed to be pure because of this. We can go before God at any time now.

 

But, I'll use your own acid test and discount one of the rare NT references to homosexuality, from Paul in Romans 1:

This is a verse commonly pulled out to demonstrate that, yes, homosexuality is bad by NT standards too. But, this is one of the examples you are talking about that is "merely writing down what happened":

Can we step back and look at the full context of the verse there? It actually says:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I'm reading it as saying that it is "shameful", "indecent", "unnatural", and "perverse". It is doing more than just stating what has happened in this case. It is saying things about what happened as well.

 

Your drawing the distinction between condemnation of a practice versus writing down what happened I can accept on its face, but, I know I can draw out other OT examples where practices that are quite normal today were explicitly condemned. I can't recall the book or verse at the moment, but the one about men with poor eyesight being unworthy to approach God's alter comes to mind. I'll have to find it.

I would be fine commenting on them if you brought them up. Just try and keep in mind my comments up above about the difference in the ways that God can be approached and the new forgiveness available through Jesus.

As for common ground and appealing to with a non-Christian. . . this is the sort of discourse that must occur in a society where not everyone shares the same belief system yet we still try to seek understanding of where our operspectives come from. More to the point, the but about the Bible clearly condemning homosexuality, but that shouldn't matter to non-Christians is an illogical statement. There are lots of non-Christians whose rights are compromised because they are gay and therefore not allowed to enter into civil unions, adopt, share parental custody, enjoy spousal hospital visitation priveledges, etc. If vestigial belief in the condemnation of homosexuality by conservative Christians is holding our society back from correcting this injustice, then it should matter and does matter to me.

You will probably be very surprised by this, but here it goes. I am actually not against giving homosexuals the same rights and considerations that heterosexual couples receive from a government marriage or civil union. What I am against is my church blessing that as a Christian marriage since I do not see it as fulfilling what God had ordained. I would say that there are many Christians not making the distinction between the government they live under and the rights provided by it and the church's power that they live under.

 

After saying this, we are told to live under the laws of the land we live in, and we need to respect those around us. I see church ordained marriage as different from state marriage. One is a religious thing, the other is not. As such I do not see why we should be pushing those beliefs on the state. Something such as stealing though (as an example), is not a religious thing that is separate from the state. If we see that not being addressed, we do need to push on that.

 

Here are some verses that speak to this a bit:

Government Verses

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Vandy,

 

I have total respect for that. For whatever reason, plenty of churches have decided to view homosexuality as something other than what it turns out to be - for the most part, an innate part of the self. Although that approach saddens me, it makes me glad to know that there are people out there that can still understand that same sex couples deserve the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples while still holding that religious view.

 

My own personal experience tells me that being dishonest with myself is more wrong than being with someone I love or care for. Other people may disagree with that, but that gives them no right to persecute or discriminate based on that, IMO.

 

Thanks for being honest, and thanks for trying to offer a clear viewpoint.

[CanOfCorn]

You will probably be very surprised by this, but here it goes. I am actually not against giving homosexuals the same rights and considerations that heterosexual couples receive from a government marriage or civil union. What I am against is my church blessing that as a Christian marriage since I do not see it as fulfilling what God had ordained. I would say that there are many Christians not making the distinction between the government they live under and the rights provided by it and the church's power that they live under.

 

After saying this, we are told to live under the laws of the land we live in, and we need to respect those around us. I see church ordained marriage as different from state marriage. One is a religious thing, the other is not. As such I do not see why we should be pushing those beliefs on the state. Something such as stealing though (as an example), is not a religious thing that is separate from the state. If we see that not being addressed, we do need to push on that.

 

I agree with Rex on this, but I have to say that, personally, I disagree with you on the civil vs. ordained marriage. I understand what you are saying, but to me, I'm not saying "I do" in front of God, a minister or a judge (and I've been married twice, once by a judge and once by a minister, and yes, I am Jewish, but my wife isn't and her stepfather is a UCC minister and was kind enough to marry us)...I'm saying "I do" to the person that I am marrying. To me, that is the most important person in the universe and beyond at that particular time. I don't give a hoot if God says ok. I don't give a hoot about my marriage license from the state. Those are both formalities, in my eyes.

 

And I think that is a major part of this issue, is that people forget that marriage, or any union for that matter, isn't about what God thinks, the state thinks, it's about the two people actually uniting. When people can think about that and that LOVE is the most important thing in any marriage, maybe this issue will subside.

[vandy125]

I agree with Rex on this, but I have to say that, personally, I disagree with you on the civil vs. ordained marriage. I understand what you are saying, but to me, I'm not saying "I do" in front of God, a minister or a judge (and I've been married twice, once by a judge and once by a minister, and yes, I am Jewish, but my wife isn't and her stepfather is a UCC minister and was kind enough to marry us)...I'm saying "I do" to the person that I am marrying. To me, that is the most important person in the universe and beyond at that particular time. I don't give a hoot if God says ok. I don't give a hoot about my marriage license from the state. Those are both formalities, in my eyes.

 

And I think that is a major part of this issue, is that people forget that marriage, or any union for that matter, isn't about what God thinks, the state thinks, it's about the two people actually uniting. When people can think about that and that LOVE is the most important thing in any marriage, maybe this issue will subside.

I completely agree with you that you are making a sacred promise to your spouse when you say "I do". However, I think that there is something to be said about making that promise in front of God and other people and having their full backing (blessing). Marriage is not easy; you have two different people trying to be one. LOVE does fade at times, and you need to work at it during those times to make sure that it grows again. If you do not have God and other people holding you to your promise during that time when your love fades for your spouse, what else is going to hold you to that promise? A lot of people are not being held accountable for that promise, and it makes it easier to break.

 

Now, I know that marriage statistics are pretty much the same for Christians and non-Christians. So, what is that saying about the extra accountability that should be occurring by being married before God? I'm really not sure, but I think, unfortunately, that it says something about a kind of lethargy I have seen in the Christian community in regards to relationships with both God and people. We don't really "talk" with either one about deep issues that matter. This is JMHO.

[FlaSoxxJim]

After saying this, we are told to live under the laws of the land we live in, and we need to respect those around us. I see church ordained marriage as different from state marriage. One is a religious thing, the other is not. As such I do not see why we should be pushing those beliefs on the state. Something such as stealing though (as an example), is not a religious thing that is separate from the state. If we see that not being addressed, we do need to push on that.

 

We are in close agreement on these issues than it first appeared, then. I respect the right of churches to allow or disallow the recognition or sanctioning of gay marriage in the manner that best reflects the views of the flock. Differences of opinion among the flock may lead to schism as we are seeing in the Anglican/Episcopal church, but the dialog and decisions need to take place.

 

I appreciate your insights into the transforming nature of Jesus and sin/repentance, and what it means to the OT take on the wages of sin. Even if I only see him as a human role model and not a Word made flesh facet of a divine agent, I continue to find attractive his central messages of forgiveness and love.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

A bright spot in the darkness of American Christian leadership woes. Whatever version of the Bible the ELCA is using, it must be the only version that hasn't had that bit about "love your neighbor" redacted.

 

I told you I'm not much of a literalist.

 

I figured Jesus meant like bake cookies for them and occassionally mow their lawn while they're on vacation....not eff them.

 

hmm, boy did I get that wrong.

[sox4lifeinPA]

2 Samuel 1:26 (King David speaks)

 

I'm sure they were toking papyrus cigarettes too.

 

conveniently, you left out the CONTEXT which is that Jonathan just died in battle and David is speaking/lamenting this. I'm sure I'll say some nice things about my friends, especially if they die prematurely/unexpectedly.

 

 

 

nice try though.

[sox4lifeinPA]

And I think that is a major part of this issue, is that people forget that marriage, or any union for that matter, isn't about what God thinks, the state thinks, it's about the two people actually uniting. When people can think about that and that LOVE is the most important thing in any marriage, maybe this issue will subside.

 

For you, that might be true. and Good on you if you don't feel that God has a place or input in your marriage. You're correct in saying that Love is the most important thing in any marriage, but isn't love from ourselves without the input of a pure Love only "trying" or "obligation"?

 

ok, so I'm only in the "gregory pratt" stage of marriage, but Love isn't something I've only just stumbled upon. God's love in my life is the only reason I've been able to sacrifice and love mrs pa like I have.

[santo=dorf]

Does this mean Soxtalk will let cwsox back in the near future?

 

Sorry, first thing I thought of when I saw the title. Surprised PA didn't make the reference first.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sure they were toking papyrus cigarettes too.

 

conveniently, you left out the CONTEXT which is that Jonathan just died in battle and David is speaking/lamenting this. I'm sure I'll say some nice things about my friends, especially if they die prematurely/unexpectedly.

nice try though.

 

 

There's other evidence too of David and Jonathan's love for each other.

 

1 Samuel 18:

After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan (Saul's son) than became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

 

So, David slays Goliath and Saul's son is so pleased that he immediately strips naked in front of David and enters into a covenant with him. David than moves into Saul's house. Hmmm.... what does the bible say about the union of two people?

 

Genesis 2:24

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 

So they loved each other as they loved themselves and entered into a covenant with each other by getting naked. David then moved into Jonathan's parent's place. The language here seems oddly similar to the language used to describe marriage in Genesis. And there's no additional context in the surrounding passages of the bible. The story goes on to talk about David's conflict with Saul over the glory David acheived in Saul's service.

 

Now you might also say that David was presented with a wife, Saul's daughter. This is true. But then again, Merv Griffin was married to women too.

[sox4lifeinPA]

There's other evidence too of David and Jonathan's love for each other.

 

1 Samuel 18:

So, David slays Goliath and Saul's son is so pleased that he immediately strips naked in front of David and enters into a covenant with him. David than moves into Saul's house. Hmmm.... what does the bible say about the union of two people?

 

Genesis 2:24

So they loved each other as they loved themselves and entered into a covenant with each other by getting naked. David then moved into Jonathan's parent's place. The language here seems oddly similar to the language used to describe marriage in Genesis. And there's no additional context in the surrounding passages of the bible. The story goes on to talk about David's conflict with Saul over the glory David acheived in Saul's service.

 

Now you might also say that David was presented with a wife, Saul's daughter. This is true. But then again, Merv Griffin was married to women too.

 

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of someone trying to find something where it's not...water from a stone, if you will.

 

1) What is Jesus' response to the Nicodemus in the "what is the greatest commandment" story.... after loving God? Loving your neighbor...."as thyself". I think I've already made my point on that one. Jesus didn't mean this in the literal carnal way.

 

2) to enter into a "covenant" with someone in OT times usually entailed cutting an animal in two and walking through the middle to symbolize the blood bond between the two individuals. (which we know was undone by Jesus' death) "getting naked" had nothing to do with this. In fact the ESV simply says "4And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." No mention of nudity whatsoever. I would read this as Jonathan rejecting the past and accepting his future. We'd later learn that Jonathan would die fighting for David.

 

3) In fact, your use of Genesis contradicts what you're trying to prove. Samuel writes that Jonathan and David were of "one spirit" and genesis speaks of being "one flesh"....which are two MAJOR differences. What do they call two people that are inseparable because of the things they have in common and their like mindedness? "kindred SPIRITS.

 

 

Sorry, dude, but I don't buy it. I'm sure if I looked at the actual Hebrew, it would smoke your argument even more. The translations often leave us with a little wiggle room.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I was going to stay clear of the Jonathan and David row mostly because I didn't know the nature of their relationship was much in question. Whether or not the lovers' relationship was physically consummated or not, this is way more than a coupld dudes knocking back beers at the bowling alley.

 

PA, explain away this statement of Saul's from 1 Samuel 20:

 

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? (20:30)

 

It is quite evident that Johnathan "delighted much in David." And in 2 Samuel, David confesses his delight in turn:

 

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (1:26)

 

I think we've definately got some Brokeback Gilboa Mountain here. But I think the relationship is on the whole shown in a favorable light which is refreshing for the OT.

[santo=dorf]

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

meh...not exactly what I was thinking.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I was going to stay clear of the Jonathan and David row mostly because I didn't know the nature of their relationship was much in question. Whether or not the lovers' relationship was physically consummated or not, this is way more than a coupld dudes knocking back beers at the bowling alley.

 

PA, explain away this statement of Saul's from 1 Samuel 20:

 

 

 

It is quite evident that Johnathan "delighted much in David." And in 2 Samuel, David confesses his delight in turn:

I think we've definately got some Brokeback Gilboa Mountain here. But I think the relationship is on the whole shown in a favorable light which is refreshing for the OT.

 

For verse 30, it seems NIV is easier to read:

 

"30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" "

 

it would seem that Saul is pretty pissed about his flesh and blood siding with David...who Saul had to know was just waiting to take his place as king.

 

 

To jump to the conclusion that they some how had a homosexual relationship is pretty ridiculous and seemingly an attempt to mischaracterize a biblical story for political gain or at least a foot hold for an argument in favor of homosexuality.

 

This is the same guy that let his rape his daughter and another son kill that son with little response.

[FlaSoxxJim]

To jump to the conclusion that they some how had a homosexual relationship is pretty ridiculous and seemingly an attempt to mischaracterize a biblical story for political gain or at least a foot hold for an argument in favor of homosexuality.

 

Jumping to that conclusion s less of a leap than the leaps requierd to turn other Biblical passages into anti-homosexual screeds. The relationship is drawn out in Samuel, and dwelled upon and the reader feels a bit voyueristic at the end of it.

 

There are criticisms with every translation, and you know that NIV is no exception. A cheif criticism is that it has a slant to it that supports an evangelical agenda (what was that you said about biblical stories for political gain?) compared to KJV and others. Convenient substitution of "effeminate" as "homosexual" is a populatrly cited case in point (would that we all could read Hebrew), and it's likely the NIV authors similarly intentionally dialed down the gay in Samuel to nuance the translation as they saw fit.

Edited August 17, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[sox4lifeinPA]

Jumping to that conclusion s less of a leap than the leaps requierd to turn other Biblical passages into anti-homosexual screeds. The relationship is drawn out in Samuel, and dwelled upon and the reader feels a bit voyueristic at the end of it.

 

There are criticisms with every translation, and you know that NIV is no exception. A cheif criticism is that it has a slant to it that supports an evangelical agenda (what was that you said about biblical stories for political gain?) compared to KJV and others. Convenient substitution of "effeminate" as "homosexual" is a populatrly cited case in point (would that we all could read Hebrew), and it's likely the NIV authors similarly intentionally dialed down the gay in Samuel to nuance the translation as they saw fit.

 

I don't think verse 30 is dialed down. I think it just makes more sense from a clarity standpoint. I see where you are making your leaps and see how there's a logical and reasonable answer to your comments.

 

The Message:

 

30-31 Saul exploded in anger at Jonathan: "You son of a slut! Don't you think I know that you're in cahoots with the son of Jesse, disgracing both you and your mother? For as long as the son of Jesse is walking around free on this earth, your future in this kingdom is at risk. Now go get him. Bring him here. From this moment, he's as good as dead!"

 

KJV:

 

30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

 

NASB:

 

30Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

 

ESV:

 

30Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die."

 

 

They all show Saul pissed at Jonathan for choosing David over his flesh and blood. (something that our culture doesn't have the same depth of understanding for) These aren't lovers fighting their parents, they're best of friends defending each other to the death.

[FlaSoxxJim]

These are lovers fighting their parents, they're best of friends defending each other to the death.

 

You said it well.

 

 

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

You said it well.

 

check the quote. I said nothing.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think the Jon and Dave story is as hit-you-over-the-head obvious as anything gets in the Bible. Admittedly, I'm reading from KJV where this stuff really, er. . . comes out.

 

I read your explanation of an OT covenant. But whether or not a ritual sacrifice was involved, THE recurring love covenant was a marriage covenant. I don't see how you can say the getting naked part had nothing to do with that because of the proximity of the verses to each other. And there is already the admission that these two men loved each other. This is a gay marriage OT style.

 

Samuel goes on to record more physical affection, kissing, between the two of them. And, to make sure that readers don't misconstrue this as merely a strong brotherly bond, the author doesn't say Jon and Dave loved each other in a way that surpasses other such fraternal male bonds. No, the author makes the purposeful point of comparing this love with love between a man and a woman, and says that this love surpasses it. Odd, indeed, if the point was to emphasize the fraternal aspects of the relationship.

 

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

check the quote. I said nothing.

 

I knew it was a typo and had to jump on it before it got fixed.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just want to interject here and say that I am impressed - we've got a 4 page, very involved discussion of the Bible's takes on homosexuality, and its been remarkably civil. Well done.

 

Carry on.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

I think the Jon and Dave story is as hit-you-over-the-head obvious as anything gets in the Bible. Admittedly, I'm reading from KJV where this stuff really, er. . . comes out.

 

I read your explanation of an OT covenant. But whether or not a ritual sacrifice was involved, THE recurring love covenant was a marriage covenant. I don't see how you can say the getting naked part had nothing to do with that because of the proximity of the verses to each other. And there is already the admission that these two men loved each other. This is a gay marriage OT style.

 

Samuel goes on to record more physical affection, kissing, between the two of them. And, to make sure that readers don't misconstrue this as merely a strong brotherly bond, the author doesn't say Jon and Dave loved each other in a way that surpasses other such fraternal male bonds. No, the author makes the purposeful point of comparing this love with love between a man and a woman, and says that this love surpasses it. Odd, indeed, if the point was to emphasize the fraternal aspects of the relationship.

 

I agree, that these verses seem a little odd...

 

But again, you're making leaps that aren't there. There a numerous occassions that nudity in the bible is not connected with sexual activity. One guy swears on Abrahams testicles, and a disciple goes streaking, for instance. You've never gone skinny dipping? or gone to the doctor's office and put on a gown? changed a diaper? These are activities where heterosexual males see each other naked and sex is not present.

 

the hebrew word for love used in this passage is also used in describing God's love for his people. It's not an erotic or sexual word.

Please post the scripture that Samuel writes about their physical affection.

 

You still haven't made a remark on the difference between being "one as flesh" and "one in spirit". Or what I like to call 1 Corinthians 6:16-17

16Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written,(U) "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who is joined to the Lord(V) becomes one spirit with him.

So, there is a big difference.

 

You're right. David and Jonathan loved each other beyond that of a women. But you have to look at the context. OT israelites didn't exactly have "E-harmony" to "meet their soul mate". Love for a women from a man was sexual in nature and has served purposes throughout history for reasons ranging from keeping peace to satisfying debts. However, the love between two men (friends) can be deep if they face life threatening situations with each other.... like two guys in a fox hole or police partners.

 

The division between Saul and Jonathan predates David even arriving. Read 1 Samuel 14. Jonathan is commanding an army and goes out to fight without his father knowing. (verse 1). And then later breaks his father's vow and commandment on his people by eating honey (Verse 24). So then David is annoited King and Saul is rejected by Samuel. (Which leads to)

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die."

 

Which, again, should be read as "John, you son of a b****, don't you see that you're choosing Jesse's son David over me? This is shame to me and to your mother who was naked as she bore you. In other words, Saul is pissed at Jonathan because after God had abandoned Saul, now his own family was doing so. David is pretty much set up to be king, this is something Saul knows and fears, and it's pretty much sad ending away from happening. Even if their sexuality was real, it would be a foot note to the real issues at hand. Therefore, it seems less obvious because the argument in favor depends heavily on Saul's reaction.

 

So as it seems, David, who's greatest sin was that of adultery WITH A WOMAN, was highly unlikely a homosexual. This is a reach at best and an attempt to justify behavior that seems contrary to biblical teachings. That being said, I believe homosexuals have a place in heaven as would anyone.

 

 

Flaxxseed, if you would have posted

'The king desires no(AI) bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines,(AJ) that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies

I might agree with you...THAT'S odd and extremely homoerotic.

[Texsox]

A few thoughts

 

I am glad a major religion does not change easily. Our understanding of Biblical truths happens gradually and change must be done with great thought and not to bend to popular whims.

 

I wonder why God would spend so much time allowing gay sex.

 

I great deal of people are offended by the notion of homosexuality. It isn't that they are concerned about what others do, as Soxy mentions, but become involved when the issue is placed in front of them with protests, demands to allow homosexual unions, etc. It becomes a matter of public discourse then and people have opinions. Seismic shifts in our society do not occur without a great deal of debate, anger, and sometimes hurt feelings. When we are messing with eternal life, some people get really concerned. So I applaud the intelligent debate, no matter their opinion.

 

I personally favor civil unions as the only legally recognized contract recognized by this country. Further, since we would be taking sex out of the equation, you should be able to form one of these unions with anyone you desire. Relatives for matters of health care, survivorship, etc. But one at a time.

[sox4lifeinPA]

A few thoughts

 

I am glad a major religion does not change easily. Our understanding of Biblical truths happens gradually and change must be done with great thought and not to bend to popular whims.

 

I wonder why God would spend so much time allowing gay sex.

 

I great deal of people are offended by the notion of homosexuality. It isn't that they are concerned about what others do, as Soxy mentions, but become involved when the issue is placed in front of them with protests, demands to allow homosexual unions, etc. It becomes a matter of public discourse then and people have opinions. Seismic shifts in our society do not occur without a great deal of debate, anger, and sometimes hurt feelings. When we are messing with eternal life, some people get really concerned. So I applaud the intelligent debate, no matter their opinion.

 

I personally favor civil unions as the only legally recognized contract recognized by this country. Further, since we would be taking sex out of the equation, you should be able to form one of these unions with anyone you desire. Relatives for matters of health care, survivorship, etc. But one at a time.

 

 

We agree on all accounts, ESPECIALLY the last part. Churches should not be influenced by popular movements and legislation shouldn't be influenced by churches.

 

Civil unions should be allowed for ANY two people. Sex shouldn't matter, relationship shouldn't matter. Apply at the court house and get it signed by a non-church official.

 

Marriage, if it is of a religious nature, should be monitored more closely and should be up to the church leadership.

 

Two seperate issues, imo.

 

I'm sure I come off as "anti-gay"...but I'm really not. I'm anti-agenda. David and Jonathan being gay is an agenda. Accepting anyone into the kingdom is not.