Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic

Timothy Kincaid

July 5th, 2008

gagnon.jpg Anti-gay Theologian Robert Gagnon was not pleased by the decision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to allow gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained by means of conscientious objection. The vote was in response to a judicial action and was to give the Judicial Commission direction. The Christian Post reports

Earlier this year, the PC(USA)’s high court – the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – ruled that candidates for ordination must follow the sexual behavior standards of fidelity and chastity and no ordaining body has the right to ordain a candidate in violation of those constitutional standards. The ruling was issued in February in a case involving the Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

On June 27th, the General Assembly adopted an supplementary authoritative interpretation of the church’s constitution that would allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object the current “fidelity and chastity” standard and the local ordaining body to discern whether the declared objection is disqualifying.

Not liking the vote at the General Assembly, Gagnon has decided that it doesn’t really have to be recognized. Because the vote guides ordaining bodies rather than the judicial commission directly, Gagnon thinks he’s found a loophole.

In logic similar to those anti-marriage activists who argued that a County Board of Supervisors could overturn the decision of the CA Supreme Court, Gagnon thinks that the church’s judicial commission can reverse the decision of the General Assembly.

he says “nothing” in the wording of the 2008 A.I. prevents the high court from coming to the same conclusion – of disallowing any departure from the fidelity and chastity standard – in future cases.

Nevertheless, the Pittsburgh professor cannot guarantee that the high court will rule similarly in future cases, but he says “they should.”

And there’s no guarantee that Gagnon will ever stop his anti-gay campaign. But he should.

I think that both are equally likely.

See also:
Gagnon Rants On And On
My Very Favorite Gagnonism
Robert Gagnon and the Grand Box Turtle Whirl of Immorality
Gagnon Revisited
Clarifying Robert Gagnon’s Tortured Logic
Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic
Robert Gagnon’s Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

chesterwaverly
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

Mr. Kincaid,

I came upon your site thanks to Google alerts.

I think it is disingenuous of you to label Dr. Gagnon as “anti-gay”, as though he is out hunting homosexuals with a lynch mob. Perhaps a more appropriate labeling would be “anti-gay-agenda”.

Most Christians who oppose the sort of action taken by the recent General Assembly of the PC(USA) are also “anti-gay-agenda”, not “anti-gay” (given, to the homosexuals in our midst, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two).

These people, who I will call “pro-Bible” people, are attempting to keep a denomination of the Christian faith from walking away from Scripture as the guidepost and standard for life and ministry. And like it or not, the Old and New Testament both teach against people living a homosexual lifestyle.

Personally, I think that the “pro-gay-agenda” people in the PCUSA should have left a long time ago and started a new denomination based on their liberal theology. Instead, they have slowly instigated a thirty year theological war that doesn’t show any signs of a peaceful or mutually satisfactory conclusion. And part of the end result is a whittling away of the PCUSA and our steady decline in membership.

Conversely, I don’t believe that any more “pro-Bible” PCUSA crowd need to leave. The Presbyterian Church has a long heritage of faithfulness to the Scriptures, to Christ and his teachings. Why does that need to change? And why should the “pro-Bible” people be pushed out of their own denomination?

Thank you,
Chester

Yuki Choe
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

Chesterwaverly said:

“These people, who I will call “pro-Bible” people, are attempting to keep a denomination of the Christian faith from walking away from Scripture as the guidepost and standard for life and ministry. And like it or not, the Old and New Testament both teach against people living a homosexual lifestyle…

…Conversely, I don’t believe that any more “pro-Bible” PCUSA crowd need to leave. The Presbyterian Church has a long heritage of faithfulness to the Scriptures, to Christ and his teachings. Why does that need to change? And why should the “pro-Bible” people be pushed out of their own denomination?….”

Know what, I absolutely agree with Chesterwaverly here. The PCUSA should continue to affirm the “pro-bible” community. And it is so clear in the bible that homosexuality is such an abomination and that theology had been twisted to suit the pro-gay agenda.

We of the pro-bible community should really bring back the days where we really hold on to the long heritage of faithfulness to the scriptures as Chesterwaverly said. We MUST continue to get ourselves slaves from other nations. Even Revelations detailing the end days said there still would be slaves! And as homosexuality is such an abomination we should condemn prawn and crab eaters as well. Blacks should continue to be second class citizens.

Oh, and maybe it is time we set up a “pro-Bible” killing squad. It is mentioned that we should kill women who are non virgins before marriage, children who disobey their parents and non-believers, all those folks at MC D’s, Wallmarts who work on Sundays etc.

And along the way Chesterwaverly, please ask NASA to stop wasting money on the astronomy crap. The earth is flat and set on its foundations and can never be moved. It so clearly written in the Bible and repeated so many times, Chester. So tell it to those pro-space agenda activists!

Do you agree with me, Chester? Amen!

PiaSharn
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

chesterwaverly: “Perhaps a more appropriate labeling would be ‘anti-gay-agenda’.”

You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of this mysterious “gay agenda”, would you? In all the years I’ve been out of the closet, I still haven’t managed to obtain a copy.

It’s rather frustrating… How am I supposed to know the exact day and time that we cause the downfall of civilization? I’m in the dark on all the important details. *sigh*

chesterwaverley: “These people, who I will call ‘pro-Bible’ people…”

These people aren’t really “pro-Bible”. Rather, they use the Bible like an a la carte menu; they pick and choose what bits they want and ignore the rest.

I’d give you examples, but Yuki Choe’s excellent comment already has that covered.

Emproph
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

chesterwaverly,

First of all, as any “not anti-gay” person worth their salt will tell you, you should always use the word homosexual in place of the word gay.

By using the word homosexual, you not only sexualize the person(s), but also the issue at hand.

“Gays” wanting to be treated as equals in the church might be seen as simply that. But by referring to them as homosexuals, you can characterize the desire for equal treatment as a “sexual” “agenda.” This is important because it sets the stage…

Now that we’ve established that persons who are same-gender attracted are nothing more than genitalia with legs, it will be much easier for your audience to blanketly accept any and every sexual study and statistic about them, no matter how baseless and untrue.

Robert Gagnon does this adeptly, as Autumn Sandeen notes in an Ex-Gay Watch article:

Dr. Gagnon has his own credibility problems as well. Gagnon’s book (The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics) contains thirteen direct references to Paul Cameron’s work, including two appeals to Cameron’s pedophilia “study” (pgs. 412, 479-80), one to his 1983 survey (pg. 419) and one to his lifespan myth (pg. 472). He also references The Gay Report (pg. 457) and the Bell And Weinberg study (pgs. 419-20, 453, 457) as if they were scientific studies, and in general displays a tendency to accept, with few or no reservations, any data that appear to support his arguments, while dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as “dogmatic.”

Once you’ve done all that, then when any gay person calls you a liar or a hypocrite or a bigot or “anti-gay,” you can just dismiss their concerns. After all, they’re a homoSEXual – someone who’s “lifestyle,” and therefore “agenda” revolves around having sex with as many people and things as possible.

At that point you can call yourself “pro-Bible” within your own circles with impunity. However, most of us here at BTB aren’t that stupid. So you might want to set up some more Google alerts in regard to the “gay agenda,” and then do some research on the “pro-Bible” lies associated with that term before passing semantic judgment on perfectly adequate vernacular.

Assuming of course that you’re at all concerned about your own credibility.

Priya Lynn
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

Chesterwaverly said “I think it is disingenuous of you to label Dr. Gagnon as “anti-gay”, as though he is out hunting homosexuals with a lynch mob. Perhaps a more appropriate labeling would be “anti-gay-agenda”.”.

Chester, the gay agenda is about ending the oppression of gays and achieving equality. If you’re “anti-gay agenda” you’re anti-gay, the two positions are one in the same.

Yuki Choe
July 6th, 2008 | LINK

Emproph said:

“After all, they’re a homoSEXual – someone who’s “lifestyle,” and therefore “agenda” revolves around having sex with as many people and things as possible.”

Hey, not fair. HeteroSEXual have sex in it too. We ex-straights cannot stand the media glorying the heteroSEXual lifestyle anymore. How many more of our young girls are going to fall victims of da “sex tape” or “sex scene” trap? :(

cd
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Chesterwaverly, consider that perhaps it is people like you that are the reason members are voting with their feet.

If you read your Bible closely, and it is a correct translation, you will not find it as condemning of homosexuals and homosexuality as represented to you and represented by you. In the big picture of the Bible, homosexuality is a trivial concern.

Being against gay rights and ducking behind some vague bits of text from the Bible is just the latest attempt to draw a line so that a group of people you don’t like aren’t “Christian” or “moral”.

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Sorry it took me so long to respond… I was trying to formulate my responses carefully.

Yuki Choe:
Knowing the context in which I was posting, I was attempting to be respectful. I was hoping for in kind responses. I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am disappointed that you took things the way you took them.

Yuki, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. That means many things, but it doesn’t mean that I am support the ideas you suggest. Scripture tells us a follower of Jesus is free from the bonds of the Old Covenant and we’re under a New Covenant that is composed of God’s grace. So, your comments about organizing “killing squads” and NASA (etc) don’t apply. Maybe if Jesus hadn’t come… but he came.

Obviously, Yuki Choe, you enter this conversation with more at stake than me. I followed the link to your blog and read a bit about you, and so I can understand a little of the reason you would post such a strong, passionate response, even if I think you took an unnecessary tone in responding.

Chester

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Priya Lynn wrote:
“Chester, the gay agenda is about ending the oppression of gays and achieving equality. If you’re “anti-gay agenda” you’re anti-gay, the two positions are one in the same.”

I am not “anti-anyone”, and neither are the majority of my friends who are opposed to things like the ordination of practicing homosexuals – or heterosexuals who also don’t wish to conform to Biblical standards, for that matter.

What is going on in the PCUSA church is that a group of people have decided that they know better than Scripture (which speaks very clearly on this subject).

Let me add that I do differentiate between civil rights and ecclesiastical rights. Homosexual citizens should have the same civil rights as heterosexual citizens. But as far as the church goes, I have to stand behind the clear teaching of Scripture.

And also, please know that I don’t write all of this with any sort of misconception that I have it all together as a believer and follower of Jesus. I am a sinner, and the only hope for me is God’s grace, which I know about because of the words found in Scripture.

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Cd:
Considering the fact that the majority of people leaving the PCUSA are the “pro-Bible” crowd (or conservatives) then there’s not much chance what you ask me to consider is valid.

I agree that in the Big Picture of the Bible homosexuality is a trivial concern. So is the mandate for people to take care of the environment. Is that also unimportant?

Do you know what is a Big Picture part of the Bible? Honoring God by attempting to obey His Word as much as possible.

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching” (Jn. 14:15, 23, 24).

“This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out His commands. This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome…” (1 Jn. 5:3).

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13).

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned” (Gal. 1:6-9).

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4).

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Hope nobody felt knocked over the head with those passages… I just wanted to show CD what Scripture teaches about the importance of attempting to follow the clear teachings of Scripture – even when it’s not easy.

CD wrote:
“Being against gay rights and ducking behind some vague bits of text from the Bible is just the latest attempt to draw a line so that a group of people you don’t like aren’t “Christian” or “moral”.”

CD, please refrain from commenting on my liking or disliking a “group of people”. You don’t know anything about me other than a random post on a random website. You don’t help your cause with ad hominem attacks like this (which are against the comment policy of this board, btw).

Timothy Kincaid
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Chester,

From the perspective of a gay person, there is very little difference between anti-gay-agenda and anti-gay. Once you recognize that the “gay agenda”, to the extent there is such a thing, is that persons be treated equally without regard to sexual orientation, this becomes obvious.

That which opposes this “gay agenda” is that which opposes equality. And any efforts to distinguish along sexual orientation lines and to treat those who are gay in a manner that is less than the way in which heterosexuals are treated is, by definition, anti-gay.

Having said that, I am perfectly capable of recognizing that some persons may have theological beliefs that differ from mine. Those persons are not necessarily anti-gay.

If, for example, you truly do believe that all civil rights granted to heterosexual individuals and couples should also be granted to homosexual individuals and couples, I certainly wouldn’t consider you anti-gay.

Robert Gagnon, however, does not support civil equality. Gagnon has clearly illustrated himself to be anti-gay; frequently and consistently.

Timothy Kincaid
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Chester,

I’ve found that quoting selected Scripture is not a particularly effective way to gain credibility for your position. We can all quote Scriptures at each other all day long and at the end we’ll only each feel more self-righteous.

The truth is that the Gospels are not particularly clear on the issue and, irrespective of Gagnon’s peculiar theological notions, there’s as much to support an inclusive theology as there is a condemnatory one.

If you wish to debate and dispute interpretations and word selection in the first century, this is not the site for you. You’ll just have to accept that we don’t share your belief about grace or sin or Jesus’ message.

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy,

Thanks for your response, and your willingness to withhold judgment. You have obviously had more dealings with Dr. Gagnon than I have, and at the end of the day, this is your site to label people how you would like, so my use of the word “disingenuous” was probably incorrect. My apologies.

I guess my hope was that people who hold the position you (and others) hold would be careful to avoid lumping people into the “anti-gay” camp without knowing them (example – CD telling me that I dislike gays and lesbians based on my original posting).

As to my use of Scripture, message received. You can tell that I have been having these sorts of conversations recently in PCUSA related blogs, where we have to go to Scripture to help us work out our positions.

I’ll just leave you folks to your subject matter. If anyone wants to engage me further about these issues, you can email me directly at chesterwaverly@yahoo.com.

Thanks,
Chester

Yuki Choe
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

Unfortunately for you Chester, what I write has nothing to do with my personal situations, however you wish to drag it as part of your argument. See how badly you interpret? And what is it with ‘I enter the conversation at what more stake then you?’ You are the one who is trying to oppose something you have no understanding of. You are the one who is trying to dispute the existence of a group of people. Anti-Gay Agenda? Is that a new word here dear?

When you ask “pro-gay agenda” people to leave and “pro-Bible” people to stay, since when are you showing the “grace” of GOD you are mentioning? And when you claim to be “a follower of Jesus Christ”, a much stronger word than “Christian”, your credibility in treating people like people should be protected, not tarnished by Phariseetic behaviour from you. Only Christ would call for the reconciliation of with the Greeks, even the lowest cast of people, the Samaritans. The Samaritans have extended you grace here, so where is your “Christ-like” behaviour?

And mind you, non of these are ad hominems. They are directly related to what you said. If you really do not oppose a group of people, maybe you should just retract, or even apologize for suggesting “pro-gay agenda” people to leave PCUSA and accusing them of instigating a “theological war” that do not exist.

And sorry to mention, I said what I said based of what you call “pro-Bible”. If you had written, “pro-New Testament Bible” perhaps it would have attracted a different response. So you have accidently annulled you own position about the “new covenant” by contradicting what you said.

Because if you claim scriptures are only to be followed if it is based on the new testament, then you better ask you mothers and sisters to shut up in the PCUSA. See how slippery biblical arguments can be? But like it or not, it is the truth, the only war that is raged is by any church who wish to still selectively use the bible to persecute people, and some for their own convenience. Like what you are doing now.

Chester, I am sure no one needs to tell you that the onus is on you to validate your dogmatic position in interpreting scriptures. You cannot say dogmatic-agenda now, can you? Well here we are, men and women who are capable of loving the same sex, a little of us may be bisexuals, and a few of us celibate. If you wish everyone to respect and accept you as face value, learn to watch your words and extend the same for everyone here.

Yuki Choe
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

I see you responded, my only problem with you is only the use of the word “pro-Bible” and “agenda”, while asking the “pro-gay” party to leave. I also do not take kindly of people being accused of theological war.

If you do not wish to be lumped, just be neutral and do not get involved. I think that is the best way as a Christian sister would tell you.

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
(Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.)

Take care and God Bless.

chesterwaverly
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

I really did mean for that last post to be my last one here. ;)

Yuki wrote:
“Unfortunately for you Chester, what I write has nothing to do with my personal situations,”

If you say so. I apologize for my presumption.

“your credibility in treating people like people should be protected, not tarnished by Phariseetic behaviour from you.”

How am I not treating people like people? How is my behavior “Phariseetic”?

“The Samaritans have extended you grace here, so where is your “Christ-like” behaviour?”

I appreciate whatever grace that has been extended. And I’m sorry that you don’t see Christ-like behavior from me. Personally, I feel like being Christlike is a combination of things, including extending grace, love, forgiveness, and seeking to be true to Scripture.

“If you really do not oppose a group of people, maybe you should just retract, or even apologize for suggesting “pro-gay agenda” people to leave PCUSA and accusing them of instigating a “theological war” that do not exist.”

I don’t know your church background, Yuri, but there HAS been a theological war in the PCUSA that has been going on for about 30 years.

Certainly it is not all at the feet of “pro-gay agenda” people, but “pro-gay agenda” people have been working very hard over the past twenty or so years to force the church to ordain people (again both hetero and homo) who don’t want to live according to Biblical standards; as well as denying fundamental orthodox truths that I won’t go into now.

If I have been unChristlike here, then I do apologize. But I don’t apologize for wanting my church to maintain those Biblical standards.

“I said what I said based of what you call “pro-Bible”. If you had written, “pro-New Testament Bible” perhaps it would have attracted a different response.”

You make a good point. And frankly, this is the problem I have with this site’s use of the “anti-gay” label. It’s just as simplistic and inadequate.

“the only war that is raged is by any church who wish to still selectively use the bible to persecute people, and some for their own convenience. Like what you are doing now.”

Yuki, please show me how I am persecuting anyone.

“I am sure no one needs to tell you that the onus is on you to validate your dogmatic position in interpreting scriptures.”

That may be so for this site, but outside of this site, especially in the church, the onus is actually on you and your fellow “pro-gay agenda” friends to validate YOUR dogmatic position in interpreting Scripture.

You are the ones, after all, trying to overturn two millennia of Scriptural understanding and orthodoxy.

“If you do not wish to be lumped, just be neutral and do not get involved.”

This has been my way for the past 15 (or more) years. But I have reached a point where I am unable to be neutral any longer.

If you try to look at it from my perspective, and consider the recent actions of the PCUSA General Assembly (my church), and you might be able to understand.

Thank you, Yuki, for the dialogue.

Chester

Yuki Choe
July 7th, 2008 | LINK

“That may be so for this site, but outside of this site, especially in the church, the onus is actually on you and your fellow “pro-gay agenda” friends to validate YOUR dogmatic position in interpreting Scripture.

You are the ones, after all, trying to overturn two millennia of Scriptural understanding and orthodoxy.”

Okay, let me first assure you and confirm that I am a transsexual female, and had been celibate, even across my short marriage. This test is just to gain understanding from each other so that we can understand just whose views are “dogmatic” and whose views are based on “fact”

Let us go with one word from the old Scriptues in Greek, some two thousand years ago.

What do you think “malakoi arsenkoites” mean?

Now let go play a word commonly used to persecute homosexuals in the world today.

What do you think “sodomy” mean?

Answer me and I will present to you perhaps something you would refuse to accept. Timothy would know what I mean.

PiaSharn
July 8th, 2008 | LINK

chesterwaverley, I’m a bit confused by some of the things you wrote.

Originally, you defined people like you as being “anti-gay-agenda” rather than “anti-gay”. You then later stated that you had no problems with GLBT people having equal civil rights.

This is where I get confused… see, if the “gay agenda” does exist, it is nothing more than the desire for GLBT people to be treated equally.

Since you claim you are in favor of equal civil rights, why do you define yourself as “anti-gay-agenda”? It’s a contradiction.

Do you have a differnt definition for “gay agenda”? If so, what is it?

I also notice that you used the term “homosexual lifestyle” in your first comment. As an FYI, there is no such thing. There is no more of a “gay lifestyle” than there is a “straight lifestyle”.

Timothy Kincaid
July 8th, 2008 | LINK

Yuki,

I told Chester that this was not the right place and time to debate the translation of Greek compound words coined by Paul.

I’m going to ask you to do the same.

We may at some point debate those translations, but not on this thread.

Also, you and I share frustration with dogmatic attitudes within Christendom. But Chester is not the appropriate recipient of punishment for past injustices. He has no greater requirement to justify his theology than do you.

And if, indeed, he’s not seeking to impose his views into the civil realm, then he is entirely within his rights to seek to influence his denomination and their beliefs.

Let’s not get angry and hostile. That builds walls, not bridges.

Agreed?

Timothy Kincaid
July 8th, 2008 | LINK

Chester,

You may have picked up from the comments on this thread that you have selected words that are offensive.

If you want to enter into respectful dialogue with a racial minority, you don’t start with a racial slur. Not only will it get you nowhere, it is an indication that you are approaching the discussion from a place of arrogance and contempt.

Certain words and phrases used when discussing gay people also are indicators that the speaker is coming from a place of ignorance and hostility. Such phrases include “gay agenda” or “homosexual lifestyle”.

They are accusatory and, frankly, ridiculous to anyone who knows real living breathing gay people. When we see these words we know that the person using them has no concern about gay persons other than to see them as enemies in some Culture War.

We’ve pointed out that you are using these phrases, and that they are inaccurate and offensive, and yet you persist. You do realize, don’t you, that this comes across as disrespectful, arrogant, and dismisive?

I will ask you again to cease using offensive language to speak to our readers.

Yuki Choe
July 8th, 2008 | LINK

Agreed, Timothy. Apologies, it has always been my intentions to engage in fruitful and neutral discussions.

I am just not comfortable with the notion that church members, whatever denomination or sexual orientation, should be ask to leave just because of differing views on theology as Chester mentioned in his first comment. When he accuse us of starting theological wars, it hit a very sensitive nerve in me.

The rest on the annoying slurs is already addressed by you. So I rest my case in this topic. Thanks, take care.

chesterwaverly
July 8th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy,

Got it. I apologize for offending. It was not my intention.

I’ll just go ahead and scoot out, for good this time.

Y’all take care.
Chester

Patrick ONeill
August 2nd, 2008 | LINK

To tell you the truth I agree with chesterwaverly.

While I understand that it is helpful that churches do not actively campaign for bigotry, as the Catholic, Baptist and Mormon churches do, otherwise I would prefer for them to be left to stew in their theological juices and for gays ( and everyone really ) to come to realize that basing morality upon Bible quotes and papal pronouncements is a very poor morality indeed.

It would be best for everyone, gay and straight alike, to leave these churches – and if they still feel the need to attend a chuch, just change their Sunday driving route to a church more worthy of support like the UU or UCC or even some Episcopalian churches.

revtj
August 2nd, 2008 | LINK

But if all who support an LGBT welcome leave our churches, who will be there to support change? And if you think going to the UU or UCC will be greener pastures you simply can’t smell the manure.

Those who stay and fight should be commended! Those who can’t stay but must leave in order to find welcome must not be deluded into thinking prejudice or bigotry is only “those” people over there. Despite all their idealistic claims, churches are, in the end, just human beings trying to do good.

Patrick ONeill
August 2nd, 2008 | LINK

Actually I think that going to the UU and the UCC, along with the contributions churchgoers make, will aid those churches growth and will diminish the power of the more fundamentalist churches – no mention of manure.

I cannot commend those who stay and fight – they are financially contributing to an organization that oppresses them – evidently because other than the “gay” issue they agree that moral decisions should be made using bible quotes or papal pronouncements.

And this is a bigger evil than simply such churches anti-gay pronouncements.
If the church should suddenly become gay affirming then these gay christians are likely to be the first in line to support some other bible-based nonsense like creationism or opposition to stem cell research.

A much better outcome is for everyone – gay and straight alike – to realize that translating bible verses is a stupid way to guide your morality or run your life.

Emily K
August 3rd, 2008 | LINK

Patrick, you are basically saying that living a life based on Scriptural guidance is “stupid,” and are thus passing baseless judgment on a large part of the population, including Jews, whom you are angry at for passing judgment upon YOU. This is America, and even though bible-believers can be disruptive of basic Freedom, they also have the right to practice and preach what they do. Their freedom ends where yours begins, but they STILL have those inalienable rights. Many hold fast to scripture not out of fear or guilt but because it fulfills them and DOES help them lead a moral life. Those people should not be condemned any more than atheists or more liberal religious types.

Not everyone, no matter how gay-affirming, is comfortable in a UU church.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.