Not only did they vote to declare homosexuality incompatible with Christianity, they even voted to deny that Christians can disagree about it.
Then the Church’s judicial court decided to let Dammann’s acquittal stay, because they lacked authority to overrule; but they warned everyone not to do it again.
God is Love, eh? You couldn’t tell it by looking at mainstream Christianity.
Well, there’s always Islam.
Waht a pity Jodi isn’t here to post how tolerant and understanding mainstream Christianity is of gay people, given that she’s a Methodist.
I’ve got no use for that religion either, Lib.
You know, the Times statement Homebrew quoted is probably the most subtle irony I’ve ever seen:
“In one vote, church liberals failed yesterday by a 527-423 vote among the delegates to pass a measure that would have acknowledged **differing opinions ** among church members on homosexuality.” (Emphasis mine.)
20 years ago, it wouldn’t have even come to a vote, so the fact that acceptance of homosexuality is controversial among the Methodists right now is a good sign, not a bad one.
But it’s not controversial. They voted 527-423 that it isn’t. 
Well, that settles it, then. 
Disappointing, but by no means surprising. I wonder if self avowed, celebate homosexuals can hold appointments within the Methodist church, though. Is Rev. Karen Dammann celebate?
By the way, the language comdemns the practice of homsexuality, not homosexuals. I think there’s a difference.
If I had been a Methodist before, I certainly wouldn’t be now. I could only worship at a church which acknowledged that I should come to my own conclusions on these things. I refuse to be a mindless drone and accept everything the pastor says as gospel.
I see what you mean, but this can turn into a particularly mean-spirited attitude towards gays – I have heard more than one person of a conservative religious bent go so far as to say, “Well, if they can’t help being gay, they shouldn’t have gay sex. Sex outside of marriage is wrong, period. Of course, we are against gay marriage as well, so if you are gay, you must simply be celibate forever.”
To choose celibacy of your own free will is one thing; to have it imposed on you is another.
To you or to them (this is not meant to imply, since I see how it could be read as such, that you agree with this ruling)? The phrase “practice of homosexuality”, meanwhile, lends credence to the preposterous notion that one practices being gay. Wonder who’s the best among us doper at being gay, and the longest anyone’s ever managed to practice it without stopping…
I read the practice of homosexuality as engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same gender. I could be wrong, though.
It’s along the lines of love the sinner, hate the sin. Can a self-avowed, practicing philandererererer hold an appointment in a Methodist church?
I shouldn’t have to explain this but since I’ll probably get called on it, I will. I’m only equating same-gender sexual acts with philandering to the extent that they’re both sins in the eyes of most Christians.
Having homosexual sex is one thing. Being homesexually oriented is another.
I mean, I could theoretically have sex with another woman, but I would remain as boringly straight as I am. I couldn’t see myself actively falling in love with another woman. I have no desire to have sex with another woman either.
That’s where I lose the logic of people talking about “the practice of homsexuality” as in gays could just up and quit having gay sex, and they’d no longer be gay. That’s just not going to happen, unless you mean that I could quit having straight sex (not that I am right now, but that’s another thread altogether) and not be straight anymore.
My opinion of “love the sinner hate the sin” is…well, in theory it sounds good, in practice it seems to have the potential for being downright cruel. And in this discussion there’s the assumption that homosexual sex IS a sin, which is not one I could even begin to agree with.
A few years back I dated a woman whose mother was a District Superintendent for the UMC. It seemed to me back then that the UMC was headed to a more progressive stance. It obviously didn’t turn out that way. So, count me as one who is surprised.
That’s okay. I think it’s fine for people to be Methodists, as long as they don’t go to church.
closed-captioned for the sarcasm impaired
::sigh::
I was raised United Methodist, in a more progressive conference (the church is broken down for legislative purposes into several “conferences” which are basically districts), hopefully part of the 423. I’m not anything but atheist anymore, but I’m still disappointed.
*If Jesus came back and saw what’s going on in His name, He’d never stop throwing up. * Frederick (Max von Sydow), Hannah and Her Sisters
HI, I’m a christian and I have a differing viewpoint on homosexuality
no you don’t.
oh…I thought I…
well you don’t, we voted.
well now I really do!
sorry, no.
Sounds like a Monty Python skit, don’t it?