Homosexuality and the Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]forlife wrote:
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:

  1. What the six or so “clobber passages” about same-sex sexual
    behavior mean, according to historical interpretations.

  2. The policy that the faith group has taken towards homosexuality and
    homosexuals in the past.

  3. The individual members’ personal experience.

  4. 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]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm[/quote]

Of course there is no “consensus”. Because everyone can found a church (better said, sect), say it is “Christian”, and then say everybody else is wrong for not agreeing with him. Even if his doctrine blatantly contradicts the Scriptures, and the Tradition.

Anyone can decide to found a new sect and then proclaim his ideas are right, and then some retarded newspaper/news agency/etc. will say that “some Christian denominations hold that […]”, based on that person’s doctrines, even though he actually only represents himself and maybe that of a few other individuals.

Also, regardless of what “science” and “sociology” will ever say about adultery (“humans are not monogamous by nature” -yeah, right…will give references against this), premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, they will be as much of an evil as ever. (and their fruit will be evil).

Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.

142

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:<<< Of course there is no “consensus”. Because everyone can found a church (better said, sect), say it is “Christian”, and then say everybody else is wrong for not agreeing with him. Even if his doctrine blatantly contradicts the Scriptures, and the Tradition.

Anyone can decide to found a new sect and then proclaim his ideas are right, and then some retarded newspaper/news agency/etc. will say that “some Christian denominations hold that […]”, based on that person’s doctrines, even though he actually only represents himself and maybe that of a few other individuals.

Also, regardless of what “science” and “sociology” will ever say about adultery (“humans are not monogamous by nature” -yeah, right…will give references against this), premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, they will be as much of an evil as ever. (and their fruit will be evil).

Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.[/quote]Very very VERY GOOD indeed!!! Penetrating insight of the week right here kiddies. I don’t know anything about you so you may be an undiluted flaming heretic for all I know, but this post should be printed out and put up on the walls of everybody intending to have a conversation about religion and even politics, but ESPECIALLY Christianity. Post modern redefinition, as practiced by every cult I’ve ever studied is the order of the day. Nobody who denies the core belief system regarding faith and morals held by the church universal throughout all of history is a Christian, a disciple of Christ… period. Regardless of what THEY claim. Great post.

143

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:<<< Of course there is no “consensus”. Because everyone can found a church (better said, sect), say it is “Christian”, and then say everybody else is wrong for not agreeing with him. Even if his doctrine blatantly contradicts the Scriptures, and the Tradition.

Anyone can decide to found a new sect and then proclaim his ideas are right, and then some retarded newspaper/news agency/etc. will say that “some Christian denominations hold that […]”, based on that person’s doctrines, even though he actually only represents himself and maybe that of a few other individuals.

Also, regardless of what “science” and “sociology” will ever say about adultery (“humans are not monogamous by nature” -yeah, right…will give references against this), premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, they will be as much of an evil as ever. (and their fruit will be evil).

Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.[/quote]Very very VERY GOOD indeed!!! Penetrating insight of the week right here kiddies. I don’t know anything about you so you may be an undiluted flaming heretic for all I know, but this post should be printed out and put up on the walls of everybody intending to have a conversation about religion and even politics, but ESPECIALLY Christianity. Post modern redefinition, as practiced by every cult I’ve ever studied is the order of the day. Nobody who denies the core belief system regarding faith and morals held by the church universal throughout all of history is a Christian, a disciple of Christ… period. Regardless of what THEY claim. Great post.
[/quote]

Alas, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian he is compelled to view Calvinists in the same light he views progressive Christians who don’t consider homosexuality inherently sinful. You are no more Christian than they, but for different reasons.

Such is the cross to bear for believers who only admit the validity of their own beliefs, and decry all who disagree with them as heretics.

144

First, @forlife: while it is not my job to judge and categorise denominations, one that blatantly disregards Scripture (and, if you insist, Tradition), is already no longer Christian.

As an Eastern Orthodox, yes, I consider every other “faith”/denomination as heretical, although, considering that nowadays heresies are not ~born in the midst of the One Universal Church, you can’t say all that much about ~heretics. They’re actually called “etherodox” (vs. “cacodox”, which they would’ve been called before).

Also, considering they (the denominations) were born in the midst of the Roman Catholic Church, which had already derailed horrendously from the Christian faith, they seem to actually have an excuse. But, proud as they were, their founders thought they could come up with something better than the Apostles - I thoroughly agree with anyone saying that the Roman Catholic “church” is a “church” led by murderering, sadistic, money-hungry, unchristian bishops (i.e. the Pope), though. “Know the tree by its fruit”…

Also, I can not say whether they (the etherodox) will or will not be redeemed, and I’m not saying that their faith is going to damn them (usually, their faith is “just” lacking…much; although, when they get to accept homosexuality, adultery, fornication - since no one (yet) dares say that murder, theft, perjury etc. are not evil - while I can’t say anything about any individual “believer”, I can certainly say that their faith is no longer Christian…).

And, I certainly don’t have the pretense that my faith/Baptism will save me. Au contraire, if my deeds are evil, my faith will be an aggravating circumstance. But, yes, no other faith is complete or holds, in any way or in any part, “more of the truth” (or, Truth).

Finally, take note that when I say someone is a “heretic”, I mean that that person holds a derailed/wrong dogma/doctrine. Whether or not it is damning, depends on the certain dogma/doctrine, and the Lord knows upon what else. And, I can be (~)friends with anyone who doesn’t insist on blaspheming against the Lord or the Church (civil, intelectual debate is perfectly ok). (I’m still compelled to help anyone who would be in dire need of help, regardless of anything they might’ve done or said)

145

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
First, @forlife: while it is not my job to judge and categorise denominations, one that blatantly disregards Scripture (and, if you insist, Tradition), is already no longer Christian.

As an Eastern Orthodox, yes, I consider every other “faith”/denomination as heretical, although, considering that nowadays heresies are not ~born in the midst of the One Universal Church, you can’t say all that much about ~heretics. They’re actually called “etherodox” (vs. “cacodox”, which they would’ve been called before).

Also, considering they (the denominations) were born in the midst of the Roman Catholic Church, which had already derailed horrendously from the Christian faith, they seem to actually have an excuse. But, proud as they were, their founders thought they could come up with something better than the Apostles - I thoroughly agree with anyone saying that the Roman Catholic “church” is a “church” led by murderering, sadistic, money-hungry, unchristian bishops (i.e. the Pope), though. “Know the tree by its fruit”…

Also, I can not say whether they (the etherodox) will or will not be redeemed, and I’m not saying that their faith is going to damn them (usually, their faith is “just” lacking…much; although, when they get to accept homosexuality, adultery, fornication - since no one (yet) dares say that murder, theft, perjury etc. are not evil - while I can’t say anything about any individual “believer”, I can certainly say that their faith is no longer Christian…).

And, I certainly don’t have the pretense that my faith/Baptism will save me. Au contraire, if my deeds are evil, my faith will be an aggravating circumstance. But, yes, no other faith is complete or holds, in any way or in any part, “more of the truth” (or, Truth).

Finally, take note that when I say someone is a “heretic”, I mean that that person holds a derailed/wrong dogma/doctrine. Whether or not it is damning, depends on the certain dogma/doctrine, and the Lord knows upon what else. And, I can be (~)friends with anyone who doesn’t insist on blaspheming against the Lord or the Church (civil, intelectual debate is perfectly ok). (I’m still compelled to help anyone who would be in dire need of help, regardless of anything they might’ve done or said)[/quote]

Do you believe Calvinists are Christians, given their views on double predestination, etc.? And if Tiribulus were to say the same about your church that you say about the Catholic church, could you still be friends with him?

From my perspective, it’s a bunch of blind men pointing in the general direction of other blind men, and insisting that only they can see :slight_smile:

146

I believe the only true Faith, Dogma, and doctrine are those preached by the Eastern Orthodox Church. I can’t pronounce myself on this - if someone who derailed a little from the Christian dogma is a Christian - (the Synods have said predestiantion is a heresy, and predestination blatantly contradicts the Scripture; why would the Maker tell people to be good, or that he who sins will die?), and I certainly can’t say whether someone or else will be “saved” (I don’t like the term since it implies no effort of the one saved, only of the Saviour; for this, the quotation marks) or damned.

I can say that if someone is a murderer/adulterer/homosexual/merciless etc. until his death, this means he will probably be damned, but, then again, only the Maker knows this (that person might’ve done much good during his life, might’ve only had bad influences around him, might’ve repented at the last moment etc.).

And, neither Tiribulus, nor anybody else, could say this (that it is heretic) about the Orthodox Church. Oh, forgot, sola Scriptura, and anyone can interpret it as he wants to. In that case, maybe.
Anyway…
First of all, this was the Church that the Apostles found.
Secondly, this was the Church that defended Christian faith from heresies: arianism (saying that Christ was not God), those who held that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament, saying that any part of the Creation is unclean (eating meat, sex in the context of marriage etc.), self-mutilating (they usually said the body is unclean) etc. Basically, things the protestants also hold as dogma.
Also defined the Canon of the Scripture. Which the protestants usually respect.
Also…
The Orthodox Church didn’t have anything like the Inquisition (“oh,oh, let’s torture them and treat them worse than dogs, until the “demons of their sins” leave them”).
Didn’t launch the Crusades and give total pardon for any sin, past, present and future, to anyone(OTOH, they were justified since those territories once belonged to Christians, and it was muslims who attacked first).
Didn’t kill people for reading/owning/translating Bibles.
Didn’t persecute the other denominations (after the Reformation).
Didn’t involve itself in/start religious wars (although the Orthodox might’ve defended themselves against those who tried to, literally, kill them).
Nobody was ever allowed to claim being infallible. Not a Synod, not a patriarch, not a saint.
Each Orthodox Church is also autocephalous (independent from any “universal Patriarch”/“Vicarius Christi” - such as the Pope; all decisions of local importance are to be taken by its Synod, all decisions of global importance are to be taken by a Great Synod in which patriarchs/bishops of each church participate).

(did you read the previous post in detail?)

147

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.[/quote]

Oh has to be careful in declaring Christians not Christian. If one has a valid baptism one is a Christian until they die. Though one maybe a heretic or committed apostasy, they still hold the grace of their baptism. That said, Catholics for Choice…heretics and they have no authority to use the name Catholic and their local Bishop should demand that they remove it from all identifying markers (he might have already done that, I am not sure).

148

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:<<< Of course there is no “consensus”. Because everyone can found a church (better said, sect), say it is “Christian”, and then say everybody else is wrong for not agreeing with him. Even if his doctrine blatantly contradicts the Scriptures, and the Tradition.

Anyone can decide to found a new sect and then proclaim his ideas are right, and then some retarded newspaper/news agency/etc. will say that “some Christian denominations hold that […]”, based on that person’s doctrines, even though he actually only represents himself and maybe that of a few other individuals.

Also, regardless of what “science” and “sociology” will ever say about adultery (“humans are not monogamous by nature” -yeah, right…will give references against this), premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, they will be as much of an evil as ever. (and their fruit will be evil).

Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.[/quote]Very very VERY GOOD indeed!!! Penetrating insight of the week right here kiddies. I don’t know anything about you so you may be an undiluted flaming heretic for all I know, but this post should be printed out and put up on the walls of everybody intending to have a conversation about religion and even politics, but ESPECIALLY Christianity. Post modern redefinition, as practiced by every cult I’ve ever studied is the order of the day. Nobody who denies the core belief system regarding faith and morals held by the church universal throughout all of history is a Christian, a disciple of Christ… period. Regardless of what THEY claim. Great post.
[/quote]

I’m assuming this is a tongue in cheek response, if so bravo. This previous quote highlights the closed door “nope you’re not christian cause my flavor of christian says your not christian-y enough to meet our standards” very rarely have christians or catholics on this board done their religion a favor. Mostly what you see is the true division among people that religion creates through doctrine, dogma, and false beliefs built on false principles from books that have been whitewashed over thousand of years to meet a regime’s standards.

149

[quote]storey420 wrote:<<< I’m assuming this is a tongue in cheek response, if so bravo. >>>[/quote]Nope. Absolutely honest. My job is to obey my God. How anybody responds is then His problem. (if He had problems).

Elder Forlife is just aching for more condemnation of the sovereignty of God.

150

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:<<< Of course there is no “consensus”. Because everyone can found a church (better said, sect), say it is “Christian”, and then say everybody else is wrong for not agreeing with him. Even if his doctrine blatantly contradicts the Scriptures, and the Tradition.

Anyone can decide to found a new sect and then proclaim his ideas are right, and then some retarded newspaper/news agency/etc. will say that “some Christian denominations hold that […]”, based on that person’s doctrines, even though he actually only represents himself and maybe that of a few other individuals.

Also, regardless of what “science” and “sociology” will ever say about adultery (“humans are not monogamous by nature” -yeah, right…will give references against this), premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, they will be as much of an evil as ever. (and their fruit will be evil).

Arguments from such “progressive” “christians” are worthless. “Catholics for choice”…umm…they’re no longer Catholics? Even though they hold that they are.[/quote]Very very VERY GOOD indeed!!! Penetrating insight of the week right here kiddies. I don’t know anything about you so you may be an undiluted flaming heretic for all I know, but this post should be printed out and put up on the walls of everybody intending to have a conversation about religion and even politics, but ESPECIALLY Christianity. Post modern redefinition, as practiced by every cult I’ve ever studied is the order of the day. Nobody who denies the core belief system regarding faith and morals held by the church universal throughout all of history is a Christian, a disciple of Christ… period. Regardless of what THEY claim. Great post.
[/quote]

I’m assuming this is a tongue in cheek response, if so bravo. This previous quote highlights the closed door “nope you’re not christian cause my flavor of christian says your not christian-y enough to meet our standards” very rarely have christians or catholics on this board done their religion a favor. Mostly what you see is the true division among people that religion creates through doctrine, dogma, and false beliefs built on false principles from books that have been whitewashed over thousand of years to meet a regime’s standards.[/quote]

I’m confident Tiribulus meant every word.

Stern, thanks for answering my questions. I find it all fascinating, how people can be so convinced that their particular church is THE TRUE CHURCH, and equally convinced that anyone that disagrees is a heretic. Some of the Catholics in our midst of course fundamentally disagree with you, but that is the nature of religion.

151

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:<<< I’m assuming this is a tongue in cheek response, if so bravo. >>>[/quote]Nope. Absolutely honest. My job is to obey my God. How anybody responds is then His problem. (if He had problems).

Elder Forlife is just aching for more condemnation of the sovereignty of God.
[/quote]

Really??? You think that horseshit is “penetrating insight?” If you’re serious then I’m confused. It should be should be printed out and put up on the walls of everybody intending to have a conversation about religion and even politics but mainly to point out that once people have drank their particular flavor of kool aid its “my way or your wrong”. I’m sure the big G-O-D is just fine with people having personal relationships with “it/him” without judging whether someone follows some person’s particular slant. The funny thing is that even the orthodox people are following a book that has been edited, mis-translated and copied for thousands of years as though THAT was the actual word of god alone with no winkering onman’s part…jeesh.

152

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I find it all fascinating, how people can be so convinced that their particular church is THE TRUE CHURCH, and equally convinced that anyone that disagrees is a heretic. >>>[/quote] Lemme help Elder Forlife out… again. I DO NOT believe that my visible church is THE TRUE CHURCH. I believe my GOSPEL is THE TRUE GOSPEL and MANY CHURCHES have it. Even MANY churches with which I hold serious disagreements in some areas. One need not be a Calvinist to be saved… to be a Christian (but it sure helps =] ). Ya jist havta get that already. Please? How many times have I said that at least 500 local Detroit churches from lots of different denominations are working together to bring the Gospel to this dying city? Many of them are unfortunately not truly reformed (Calvinistic), but they are my brethren who worship the same God I do. It all comes out in prayer time.

The point is, this preoccupation with Calvinism being a prerequisite for salvation and everybody else being heretics is ALL you guys. I have never said or implied any such thing. Unlike my Orthodox friend here I consider heretics to be outside the sphere of God’s saving grace which is why I am very judicious with my use of that word. People can be in error and have the gospel. Heretics don’t have the gospel. Semantic difference? Perhaps, but that’s the orthodox protestant view That I very much agree with.

BTW, I respect people with consistent convictions even when they’re wrong. I respect the Catholic church of the 16th century that would have burned me at the stake (ok, would’ve declared me a heretic so the state could burn me at the stake, sorry Chris). I have no respect for this modern version that not only won’t even give the honor of a martyr’s death, but tries to put me in heaven to boot. Shameful wishy washy crap in my view. Oh they claim it hasn’t changed, but until I go up in flames at the hands of some Catholic state acting on the theological authority of the church? I could be forgiven for my skepticism.

154

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Also, considering they (the denominations) were born in the midst of the Roman Catholic Church, which had already derailed horrendously from the Christian faith, they seem to actually have an excuse. But, proud as they were, their founders thought they could come up with something better than the Apostles - I thoroughly agree with anyone saying that the Roman Catholic “church” is a “church” led by murderering, sadistic, money-hungry, unchristian bishops (i.e. the Pope), though. “Know the tree by its fruit”…[/quote]

Wow! Hate from my Orthodox brothers, now?

155

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
First of all, this was the Church that the Apostles found.[/quote]

St. Peter and St. Paul ruled in Rome. St. James (one son of Thunder) built the Church in Spain.

Where did most of these heresies come from?

Council of Rome was the first Council to define Scripture.

Except they take out Seven books.

[quote]Also…
The Orthodox Church didn’t have anything like the Inquisition (“oh,oh, let’s torture them and treat them worse than dogs, until the “demons of their sins” leave them”).[/quote]

Neither did the Catholic Church, it was the States that tortured them.

The Crusades were in effort to help the Orthodox who asked us for help and to help other in different lands. And, there was no pardon of sin past, present, and future. There was indulgence for dying on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and other Sacred sites.

Neither did Catholics.

Again, look to the States. Heresy has never been capital offense in the Catholic Church, it has been in Monarchies.

157

[quote]pushharder wrote:
secular activity[/quote]

Never said that.

Yes, and we still have the office of Inquisition, called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And, guess what? It still tries heretics and punishes them. I actually know two priests in my diocese being “punished” for their heresy. They were excommunicated and removed from public ministries. They are excommunicated until they repent and apologize. I’m not sure if or when they’ll get their public ministries back.

And, the Church declares you a heretic worth consideration only if you are a heretic within the Catholic Church (i.e. you’re baptized as a Catholic, represent yourself as a Catholic, and teach heresy). So, Protestants need not apply.

160

So, I would only point out that I understand the frustration and desire to not accept anything less then the strictest, far, and equal distribution and interpertation of the bible. Perfection is something that the mind can clearly see, and the bennifits of acheiving such a worldly state would be heaven on earth. So it streanghtens the argument to strive to achieve this state. I do not think that it is reasonable to believe this is a possibility. Our lifes are very short and our journys overlap with verying levels of personal development intellectually and spiritually. The churchs that are founded by man are the individuals attempts to increase perfection of our lives during out short stays, as this is the only way to validate our existisance.

There is not much to be won in ones own personal life by condeming others actions if they are not harmful to society or the indivdual. My bone with organized religion has been a similar one, in that I see that they do little or nothing to increase the individuals actual relationship with thier G-d. The do spend alot of time on things that will do little to actually improve ones chance of salvation and are quick to be condeming of those who participate in things outside of the flock.

The divorve rate in the Catholic Church here is the US is deplorable, but you do not here much from the leadership on the matter. I remeber several years back reading that something like 70% of the “annulments” that occure in the Catholic Church world wide occure in marriages here in the USA. That is enough to make me question the motives of the clergy in providing leadership to salvation for their congrigations. That being said, i can attest to the fact that the church does take the stance that marriages are worth keeping, and as a result even with as many devorces as do occure, there are still plenty of misserable uniions that remain in tact for religiuous beliefs by members of the faith. Perhaps that is some condolence to you. J/k

Anyway, it is what it is. There are religious people who live lifes dedicated to G-d and they come from many different faiths. None have time to debate this type of BS. I also know that people like us who are frustrated with this stuff are really more frustrated with the political spill over from the hypocrates into our daily lives. It is not reasonable though, as many have pointed out to ask churches to accept acts they define as sins. I think that the hope is that if the faiths would be more accepting then our diverse societies woud be so as a result.