The UCC announced on their official web page that church leadership will be pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriages in Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The oldline slide into radically liberal views on sexuality and matrimony continues ever on. The denomination, which has experienced some of the steepest membership declines over the past decade, will expend what strength it has left to champion the LGBT agenda.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Thank God! Thank you for sharing this good news. God bless you in sharing it!
Comment by Paul Hoskins on January 10, 2013 at 10:38 am
Perhaps you misunderstood the article. It’s hardly “good news” watching a denomination sinking ever lower in the sewer. Apparently the UCC and Episcopagans are having a competition to see which can drive more Christians from the church. If you think this deserves a “Thank God!” I wonder if you would draw any lines, morally speaking. Polygamy? Pedophilia? Anything at all?? Anything that you would consider “sin” – I mean, other than saying moral standards are important?
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 10, 2013 at 10:49 am
Paul, I did not misunderstand. I recognise that you do not think this good news. I was mocking a little. But I am delighted, and as a baptised Pisky I love your term “Episcopagans”.
I have questions for conservative evangelicals, and I wondered if you would answer them.
Gay people testify that we cannot change our orientation. Do you accept our testimony, at least of the people who say that, if not of others who claim otherwise of themselves?
Second, if it were not “clearly God’s will as revealed in the Bible” that gay sex is wrong, is there any independent moral argument that two people who so swear that they cannot change their orientation should not form an exclusive loving and sexual relationship?
Comment by Mark on January 10, 2013 at 10:17 am
The arrogant disregard of Scripture and historical Christian teaching continues, even by groups which are ostensibly Christian. Secular groups could not have plotted Christianity’s demise any better.
It’s odd that so many of the same people who have called marriage an outdated social institution are now sanctimoniously trumpeting marriage for same-sex couples.
Comment by Paul Hoskins on January 10, 2013 at 2:29 pm
We have radically different views of what a “loving relationship” is. Every pedophile fancies he “loves” the kids he’s molesting. Jerry Sandusky is probably fondling his memories of the “love” he gave to all those little boys. To use another human being as a sexual plaything just isn’t right, and you can call it “love” till hell freezes over. It’s wrong, period. Human beings are made in the image of God and ought to be treated as such. Real love involves more than just exchange of bodily fluids, and getting “married” in an Episcopal cathedral isn’t going to change that. I think we all know what the “marriage” debate is about. It’s not “equality” that’s the goal, it’s making the term “marriage” totally meaningless by applying it to a situation in which love isn’t even a factor. Give the country 5 years, maybe 10, and “love” between adults and minors will be perfectly legal, and pervs won’t have to fly to Thailand to get their kicks. I have no doubt that the Episcopagans will be in the vanguard in the drive to legalize it and bless it with a ritual.
Once a year, I hear my doctor say those awful words, “Drop your pants and put your elbows on the table.” To me and doc, that’s an “unpleasant necessity.” To the gay activists, it’s “love.” So how can we ever have any rational discussion on this issue, when words like “love” and “relationship” mean different things to each side?
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Thank you, Paul. That is helpful.
I say I am “born that way”, and the paedophile who disgusts us both would probably say the same thing. Now, some people say they have managed to change their orientation. I tried very hard, with my strong Christian background.
Do you believe me?
Comment by Paul Hoskins on January 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm
What difference does it make whether I believe you or not?
Your side has won the culture war, that should make you happy. Christians are the only group in our society that it’s OK to hate. Some day, not too far off, we won’t be allowed to say some of the things we now say on the Internet or from the pulpit, since it will all be considered “hate speech.” At least we’ll be free to think the truth even if we can’t express it. The constant propaganda will wear most people down, but not everyone.
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 10, 2013 at 7:06 pm
It would be hard to be convinced, yet still retain the former opinion. The quote originates in Hudibras by Samuel Butler: He that complies against his will is of his own opinion still.
Why does it matter? Because it is better for Christians to be able to talk to each other, and if you think I or other Christians, a lot of whom have endured “ex-gay” “treatments” are just lying, and have insufficient strength of character, it is hard to hold the conversation.
Pingback by My poor enemy « Clare Flourish on January 16, 2013 at 1:15 am
[…] in his comment here, says gay people cannot have a loving relationship. It is not Love, any more than paedophilia […]
Comment by J P Logan on January 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Regarding the ability to change orientation:
You claim a gay person cannot change, period. There is no such thing as an “ex-gay,” and so it’s wrong to try to change a person.
BUT, your side claims there are plenty of “ex-straights,” such as creepy Bishop Robinson. You applaud people like him – he “found himself.” he thought he was straight, but he was wrong. But you say no gay person can discover he is really straight. Why not? The human capacity to deceive oneself is very powerful. Bob can marry, father four kids, then “realize” he is attracted to men. Why can’t Kevin, lurking around bars and men’s restrooms for 20 years, “realize” he is NOT attracted to men?
Obviously a straight person can turn gay. Why can’t it go the other way? You afraid of reducing the “pool” of gays and lesbians?
Comment by J P Logan on January 16, 2013 at 5:18 pm
This was intended as a response to that Clare person and her foolish assertion that change is impossible. My post ended up at the top of the page, not sure whyl
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm
That is an interesting point.
Because of prejudiced views like yours, it can be frightening to admit one is gay, and many people try desperately to change, even to the point of marrying. The marriages usually become sexless or break down completely. Why do you imagine Bishop Robinson was ever really straight?
Of course some people are bi, and some people claim to have changed, but when I say I cannot though I tried so hard, kindly do me the courtesy of believing me.
Comment by J P Logan on January 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm
You didn’t answer ONE of my questions, you just called me “prejudiced,” and that’s supposed to end the discussion, isn’t it? Well, it did. You lost.
But I’ll ask again: If a person can go for years and think he is straight, then “realize” he is gay, why can’t a person go for years and think he is gay, then “realize” he is straight?
Call me “prejudiced” if you like, say people are “frightened” to admit they’re gay, you’re just being evasive. You don’t answer my questions because you can’t. You don’t use logic, you browbeat people by using your buzzwords – bigot, prejudiced, hate, etc. That tactic doesn’t work on me, it just makes it obvious you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you spent any time around people who don’t see the world exactly as you do, you’d realize how ridiculous your arguments are. People who think rationally would not fall for that nonsense.
Whether you personally tried to change or not is no concern of mine. However, it’s pretty darn self-centered to say that just because you and people in your circle weren’t able to change, that NO ONE can. Did it occur to you that, in the circles you move in, you wouldn’t meet the ones who changed, only the ones who didn’t? I’m sure prostitutes think ALL married men cheat on their wives, because they meet many who do. They wouldn’t meet the ones who are monogamous, would they? Obviously you have a vested interest in saying that NO ONE can change, so even if you knew of people who changed, you would lie to cover that up. People with an agenda willingly conceal the truth.
You ought to take off your blinders, see things through other people’s eyes. Dividing the world into evil oppressors and oppressed victims doesn’t do the world justice. People are more complex than that. The people you hate and call “bigots” and “prejudiced” are human beings, whether you admit that or not. You would be amazed at how seldom straight people even discuss this issue. We would probably ignore the subject completely except that agitators and whiners continually get in our face – not a really good way to make friends, btw.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 19, 2013 at 12:23 am
Hi, JP. I think my reply will come above your questions, because of a setting on the blog.
Wow. You write all that, and accuse me of browbeating. Answer, you say, when I have never asserted here that no-one can change, just that I could not, friends could not, many (we could debate proportions later) cannot.
Well, to your rude question, No. No-one can realise he is straight. He might realise he is bi after imagining he was solely gay, but he could not “become” straight. Converters are probably bi to start with, or suppressing their sexuality.
I move in predominantly straight circles, at work and at church, at the karate club, in other social groups. We are a minority, after all. And as for how seldom straight people discuss the subject, you seem obsessed with it.
And I checked this comment thread: despite your strident complaints, I have not called you a bigot until now.
Comment by Ray Bannister on January 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm
A straight man can become gay, but a gay man can’t become straight. – so you say. So the occasional gay man who says he’s become straight is lying, right? How do you figure that? unless you follow him around with a video camera, how can you confirm just what he is? I guess your answer would be, even if he’s not fooling around with men, he’s “repressing,” and heaven knows there’s no dirtier word to a liberal than “repression,” because, after all, God made us the only animals that are in heat 24/7/365, right, and no opportunity for sex should be wasted, right?? Liberals see the world very differently from Christians. If I knew a guy who had tired of the gay lifestyle, married, and had kids, I would applaud the fact that he overcame temptation and honored his marriage vows – but libs would call that ‘repressing,’ wouldn’t you? Do you extend that to pedophiles? For the time being, the ones who don’t repress the urge can end up in jail. Ditto for rapists. They’re supposed to repress, aren’t they? How about a male boss groping his female secretary? Should he repress that urge?
Wow, aren’t you a deep thinker? Who, pray tell, endowed you with your brilliant insights? Anne Heche?
Btw, Christians are not “obsessed” with gays. Unfortunately, the movement has become so obnoxious and loud that we can’t quite ignore it, considering that we’re watching our culture go to hell in a handbasket. You couldn’t understand a religion of self-discipline, living a life that is pleasing to God. For you, the church is just a tool to use in the culture wars. Guilt-trip Christians, make them think that “love” means accepting any form of trashy behavior. You have no clue what real love and commitment are like, and for that I pity you deeply. You are missing out on things that define what it is to be human.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 20, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Ray, what gay lifestyle? I know gay couples faithful to each other for years. You compare that to rapists, so let me explain the difference. The gay couple is faithful and consensual. The rapist is non-consensual. Simple, really.
No, for me the Church is the place I worship and the people I worship with. Your pity would be worth more if you had a clue who I am. From what you write, my life is more pleasing to God than yours.
Comment by Ray Bannister on January 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Glad to see you have a sense of humor.
OK, I’ll play along. Enlighten this poor benighted straight guy: what epiphany revealed to you that your “life” is more pleasing to God than mine? And don’t say you got it from the Bible, because that particular deck is stacked against you.
I get the impression from liberals that they get extremely vexed when Christians talk about who’s in and who’s out of God’s favor. But I know liberals well, and with you folks there’s always the old double standard.
“My life is more pleasing to God than yours.” My my, such certainty, such deep conviction. Such snobbery. Such a blatant lie.
Your reply should be extremely amusing.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 20, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Ray, I wrote “from what you write”. In what you write, you show your anger, hatred, obsession, denial of truth, and lack of self-knowledge. These things are not pleasing to God. Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly, Ray.
Comment by Ray Bannister on January 22, 2013 at 8:57 am
So you think someone who is trying to defend his faith is full of anger, hate, obession, denial of truth, and lack of self-knowledge? I’m surprised you didn’t put hate at the head of the list, since throwing out that word is intended to end the discussion. You really ought to read the New Testament, specifically Paul’s letters. Talk about ANGER. This was a spiritual father who took his job seriously, and he could be VERY harsh telling Christians when they were departing from the faith. Paul used that famous phrase “fight the good fight of faith.” If anyone ever accused him of anger, hate, etc, that didn’t bother him one iota. It appears your particular religion, whatever that may be is the warm fuzzy, group hug, Kum Ba Yah type – nothing challenging, a religion that exists only to build up the self-esteem of losers. In any deep relationship, there’s an element of self-sacrifice. When you love someone, you have to be open to them correcting you. Liberals don’t have that. Your god exists to stamp “OK” on whatever you choose to do. This “unconditional love” mantra is pure crap, definitely not rooted in the Bible. Jesus talked a lot about God’s love – also about the Last Judgment.
I’ll own up to anger (just covered that), also obessesion (no point in being half-hearted about something as serious as Christianity). Hate? Hate for stupid ideas, yeah, not hate for people. Lack of self-knowledge? Never heard a liberal use that before. Must be a euphemism for “stupid.” As for “denial of truth” – oh, please. If you say I’m denying truth, then you’re saying the Bible and 2000 years of Christian history deny truth. You say “these things are not pleasing to God.” Who says? You? Thanks, but I’ll take my marching orders from the Bible.
I’m familiar with the liberals’ code words – “do justly” means support feminism and gay rights, “walk humbly” means “conservatives, shut up or we’ll accuse you of hate.” Accusations like that work only on the softminded lukewarm “Christians.” They don’t work on someone who knows the Bible.
Comment by Clare Flourish on January 22, 2013 at 10:27 am
What? Like Romans 2:1? You know nothing of me, or of my religion. You have no ears to hear.
Comment by Ray Bannister on January 22, 2013 at 4:46 pm
I have no clue what your religion is. Bloggers on this site are either Christians or Christian-bashers.
Liberals like to use Romans 2:1 to try to shut Christians up, but in context, 2:1 means don’t judge others if you are committing the same sins as them. Taking a verse out of context is an old trick, one I don’t fall for. Btw, a few verses earlier (1:26-27) Paul condemns homosexuality, seeing it as a sign of degenerate minds. You might want to stay away from Romans, it is the least gay-friendly book in the Bible.
Comment by Paul Hoskins on January 25, 2013 at 10:13 am
Looks like Ray B won that one.