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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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”.

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.