The Evangelical Universalist Forum

UMC to split over gay marriage

I believe both Baptists and Methodists split over slavery. And I find it insightful that the Christian traditions that held out the longest for the view that the Bible plainly affirmed a place for slavery also most tended to resist equal rights for other races, for women, or those with same sex attraction.

1 Like

From today’s Patheos’ Catholic newsletter. Science to the rescue. Problem solved? :wink:


What I think is morally wrong (immoral) about homosexuality is that it is unnatural. It is the same thing that is wrong with bestiality. Or do some of you think it is morally okay to copulate with a dog or a horse?

Homosexuality occurs in nature though. Non-human animals have been documented having intercourse with members of the same sex.

As a person raised on a simple farm, I saw female cows mounting other females. I have also seen male dogs mounting other males. This usually occurs when members of the other sex are not available. So this is unnatural even in animals.

I don’t think male animals actually consummate intercourse with other male animals, that is, enter the anuses of other male animals.I have never seen that happen.

How about Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal interbreeding - natural or unnatural?

It’s true that homosexual orientation is the exception rather than the rule or norm. But many things are in the minority, yet not necessarily immoral. How is “unnatural” being defined here?

Randy quoting a source:

I don’t see any reason that China should be in the ‘lead’ - the USA has such abominable laws on the books - abortion for any reason - I can’t see us stopping at any other moral question concerning the unborn.

Or born.

1 Like

Just because you’ve never seen it happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t.

Anyway, I find whether or not something is “natural” a weak argument on which to hinge something’s morality.

My solution to the issue of marriage in general would have been to completely remove the state’s involvement from “marriage” by splitting religious marriage and civil “marriage”. If a couple wants the legal benefits of marriage like tax benefits, then they register a civil partnership administered by the state. If they want a religious marriage, then they go to their religious institution. The state has no involvement in the religious marriage and the religious institution has no involvement in the civil partnership. This would be entirely in keeping with Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the separation of church and state.

This gives the couple the freedom to only have a religious marriage if they want to keep their religious marriage secret from the state eg. for privacy reasons or if they want the legal benefits, they can register a civil partnership.

1 Like