Homosexuality and the Church

Kebvin · July 28, 2011, 2:07pm

Anybody ever seen the movie “For the bible tells me so” ? It’s a documentary on this very topic…

It’s under a different name so that it can be hosted on YouTube. Good Movie.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 3:11pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

In christianity? No. It’s completely incompatible. It’s not simply shameful, it’s an abomination mentioned alongside adultery, fornication, murder, and the like. Homosexuality just by it’s nature can never be acceptable. It doesn’t fit into the sacrament of marriage (man and wife, no exceptions made) and is thus always a form of fornication. [/quote]

The biblical condemnation of divorce allows no exceptions, either. Nor does it allow women to pray in church with their head uncovered. Paul says it is unnatural for men to have long hair. Just because you have short hair doesn’t excuse your church sinning against the bible in allowing men to have long hair.

Mind you, I don’t consider any of the above to be inherently immoral. I’m just pointing out what seems to me to be high hypocrisy, and asking for consistent application. If the bible really is god’s word, people should follow all of it instead of cherry picking from it as they please.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 3:14pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?

SexMachine · July 28, 2011, 3:23pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife,

Most on this forum already know that it’s difficult for you to post even one word unless it has something to do with promoting homosexuality

:)[/quote]

‘A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.’ - Winston Churchill

DoubleDuce · July 28, 2011, 3:35pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

It would also be better for me to rape the women I meet, rather than rape AND kill them. But rape is still wrong.

And if they were following religious beliefs, they wouldn’t commit suicide more than they wouldn’t be a homosexual.

Sloth · July 28, 2011, 3:39pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

Well, the Christian outcome is the same with suicide and unrepentant homosexuality. So, yeah, might as well abandon the faith if one has decided to carry on in a homosexual relationship, as it’s not doing a bit of good as far as salvation goes. The question is like which damning immoral act is less evil. It doesn’t matter, both are tickets to hell. But, you’re agnostic, so that’s nothing to concern you.

HoustonGuy · July 28, 2011, 3:54pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Again, if a church condones homosexuality, is it preaching a Christian message?
[/quote]

No. In fact, it would be better for them to not make any claim to Christianity.

If anything, it’s an argument for more orthodox practices (even if some of the suggestions are misinformed). It pretty much admits that homosexuality itself can’t be reconciled with the bible, Christ, and the apostles. Basically it’s a plea to just accept it because some folks accept some other stuff.[/quote]

I know, and I think forlife does too. I just want his soap box to be fair and equal. It’s pretty black and white.[/quote]

Condemnations of divorce and of women praying with their heads uncovered are pretty black and white too.

Which is the point.[/quote]

Yes they are.

Your point was open ended. It was a question regarding the issue one may have with a church condoning homosexuality.

If you meant to ask what people think about a church condoning any thing in direct conflict with the Bible, you should have asked that question.

A church preaching or condoning a message that directly conflicts with the Bible is not preaching a Christian message, be it divorce, homosexuality or any other topic. Your question has been answered now at least five times and directly so.

Christianity is defined by the Bible and is what it is. A church that goes against any tenant of the Bible is not preaching the Christian doctrine. Accept it or don’t, that is your choice and that is all there really is to say about your question.[/quote]

No.

The point is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WHO USE THE BIBLE LIKE A CLUB TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY ARE HYPOCRITES, BECAUSE THEY DON’T SIMILARLY FOLLOW CLEAR BIBLICAL INJUNCTIONS AGAINST DIVORCE, WOMEN SPEAKING IN CHURCH, WOMEN PRAYING WITH THEIR HEADS UNCOVERED, MEN HAVING LONG HAIR, ETC.

You’ve said that your church actually follows every single one of these biblical injunctions. I’m dubious, because I have yet to find a Christian sect that does. But I’ll take you at your word. Clearly, you are the exception and if what you say is true, at least you are CONSISTENT with what the bible teaches. Feel free to ignore this thread, because obviously it doesn’t apply to you.

Now, I’d like to hear from the 99% of Christians to whom this thread actually does apply.

How about Catholics, for one? I have been in Catholic mass, and I assure you that Catholic women habitually pray in church with their heads uncovered. Why do you blatantly ignore this clear biblical injunction, while cherry picking the injunction against gays?

Why do you harp about homosexuality being “unnatural”, when Paul directly says that men with long hair, or women with short hair, are also UNNATURAL?

Why do you rationalize this by dismissing these biblical injunctions as “only cultural, a reflection of the times”’ while refusing to admit that Paul’s injunction against gays may also have been “only cultural, a reflection of the times”?

Why the hell can’t you just be CONSISTENT?[/quote]

You do a poor job of illustrating your points.

But the main point here is that there is a difference between accepting a woman who sins and the sin itself.

Gay sex is a sin. A gay person can walk in to any church in the US and should be welcomed with open arms. But that doesn’t mean the church accepts that persons homosexuality.

The church doesn’t say, “It’s ok to be gay. Being gay is not a sin.” That would not be uniform with the christian doctrine.

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:25pm

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.

DoubleDuce · July 28, 2011, 4:30pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:31pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

It would also be better for me to rape the women I meet, rather than rape AND kill them. But rape is still wrong.

And if they were following religious beliefs, they wouldn’t commit suicide more than they wouldn’t be a homosexual.[/quote]

Ok, but by the same token divorce is still wrong, so the woman can avoid sin by staying in an abusive marriage. Why put her eternal soul at risk, just to avoid a black eye every now and then?

DoubleDuce · July 28, 2011, 4:34pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

It would also be better for me to rape the women I meet, rather than rape AND kill them. But rape is still wrong.

And if they were following religious beliefs, they wouldn’t commit suicide more than they wouldn’t be a homosexual.[/quote]

Ok, but by the same token divorce is still wrong, so the woman can avoid sin by staying in an abusive marriage. Why put her eternal soul at risk, just to avoid a black eye every now and then?[/quote]

You are ignoring what I already stated. In that case there are only 2 options. Getting abused and getting divorced. Divorce can be the best option.

They don’t have any other options.

But you will probably just ignore this point too.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:39pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?

HoustonGuy · July 28, 2011, 4:40pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

Some churches blatantly disregard many of the Bible’s doctrines. Female preachers, ordaining divorce et cetera. Most do not.

They may not preach directly to divorce, or uncovered heads, but their own doctrines are typically aligned with biblical doctrines. There is a difference between allowing divorcees or gays to attend church and re-writing Christian doctrines to state divorce and homosexuality are no longer sins.

Individual members of a church may be highly hypocritical. They may point fingers at “faggots” after having just cheated on their spouse or gotten divorced or what have you, and this judgement itself is a sin according to the Bible.

We all have a thorn and before removing the spec from anothers eye we remove the log from our own.

You can’t blame a church or a religion for judgemental, equally imperfect people. You can’t judge them either, according to the Bible.

Turn the other cheek, forgive, love… be the Light they are not. But know your sexuality is in direct contrast with the Bible and while you can and should be loved and forgiven as any other Christian with his or her sins, you too must struggle with the thorn in your side to live according to the tenents of the Bible, just like every other Christian, if you want to legitimately call yourself a Christian.

For what it’s worth, the Bible mentions all sin, from lying to homosexuality to murder is equal in God’s eyes. The judgement you feel is human in nature, and, according to the Bible, evil.

What is important is the Bible, which is clear on it’s issues and does differentiate between the Law of God and opinions of prophets when read in full context. If you deliberatly edit or bend the Biblical tenents, you are no longer following Christian doctrine.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:44pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

Well, the Christian outcome is the same with suicide and unrepentant homosexuality. So, yeah, might as well abandon the faith if one has decided to carry on in a homosexual relationship, as it’s not doing a bit of good as far as salvation goes. The question is like which damning immoral act is less evil. It doesn’t matter, both are tickets to hell. But, you’re agnostic, so that’s nothing to concern you. [/quote]

Depends who you ask.

I prefer the biblical interpretation of the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians

DoubleDuce · July 28, 2011, 4:47pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.

HoustonGuy · July 28, 2011, 4:52pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]
90% of all rebuttals.

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:53pm

I think this is a good overview on where various Christian
denominations stand on homosexuality and the church. I found the final
sentence especially interesting, which applies regardless of how
conservative or liberal the particular denomination is:

All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards
homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more
accepting stance of today’s youth. We are unaware of any religious
groups becoming less inclusive.

[quote]Overview:
Most Christian denominations, sects, and new religious movement have
stated policies towards gays and lesbians:

Whether to allow known, sexually active homosexuals to:

become and remain church members with full privileges.
be considered for ordination
hold other positions of power.

Whether to allow known celibate homosexuals to:

become and remain church members with full privileges.
be considered for ordination
hold other positions of power.

Whether to provide a formal religious ceremony for committed gay and
lesbian couples. These are variously called union, civil union,
commitment or marriage ceremonies, depending upon the laws of the
individual state.
Whether to have an active study program to reduce homophobia within
the denomination.

There is no consensus within Christianity about:

The nature of homosexuality,
What Bible passages that discuss same-sex sexual behavior actually mean, or
What policies to enforce about gay and lesbian members, candidates
for ordination. commitment rituals or study programs.

The core reason for this lack of consensus is related to how an
individual faith group defines truth. The main criteria are:

What the six or so “clobber passages” about same-sex sexual
behavior mean, according to historical interpretations.
The policy that the faith group has taken towards homosexuality and
homosexuals in the past.
The individual members’ personal experience.
The findings of scientific research into homosexuality.

Conservative faith groups like the Roman Catholic Church, and Southern
Baptist Convention tend to give criteria 1 & 2 much more weight than 3
& 4.

Religious liberals and progressive Christians tend to stress 3 & 4 in
comparison to 1 & 2.

The response of Christian faith groups to homosexuality thus cover a
wide range. An individual faith group’s stance, can be predicted,
based on upon their position in the liberal - fundamentalist
continuum:

More liberal denominations and Christians tend to view homosexuality
as a civil rights matter; they generally believe it is fixed,
unchosen, normal, natural, and morally neutral sexual orientation for
a minority of adults.
More conservative denominations and Christians tend to view
homosexuality as a profound evil; they generally believe it is
changeable, chosen, abnormal, unnatural and immoral behavior,
regardless of the nature of the relationship.

Thus:

The more liberal denominations, like the United Church of Christ,
have changing their positions on homosexuality, in recent years, to
adopt a more inclusive stance.
Mainline denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians and
Episcopalians are actively debating the question. Denominational
schisms may result., particularly in the case of the Presbyterian
Church (USA), and Episcopal Church. USA. Similar splits have occurred
in the past over human slavery, whether women should be ordained, and
certain theological debates.
More conservative denominations are taking no significant action to
change their beliefs and policies at this time.
Fundamentalist denominations commit significant effort to prevent
equal rights for homosexuals. For example, they:

Opposed hate-crime laws that protect persons of all sexual orientation,
Opposed laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on
sexual orientation,
Opposed the elimination of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Occasionally expel congregations from their denominations over “the
issue.” In the case of the Southern Baptist Convention three of their
congregations were expelled. The latter had conducted a study of
homosexuality, had concluded that the denomination’s beliefs were
invalid, and had welcomed gays and lesbians as members.

All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards
homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more
accepting stance of today’s youth. We are unaware of any religious
groups becoming less inclusive.[/quote]

forlife · July 28, 2011, 4:56pm