Not a complete answer, but here’s a Pew Research article from 2015 which breaks down where the major churches / faiths in the US came down (at that time) on SSM:
I share your outrage.
There are many large groups which I don’t support, to which I don’t belong, and with whom I mostly disagree, and they won’t do as I tell them either.
Regards,
Shodan
Depends upon what you mean by “tolerance” and “accepting”.
From what I see the OP is stating that unless a church has it in writing in their bylaws, then that church is NOT “accepting”. If I am wrong, please clarify. Just what is an “accepting” church?
I go to a pretty conservative church and I’ve NEVER seen a gay person turned away at the door nor even heard it mentioned. What does come up is asking the person if they truly have committed their lives to Jesus Christ and living in accordance with his word. Our pastor doesnt hold back in asking people to search their hearts and asking God if they have sin in their lives.
Now a few years ago at my old church we had this lesbian couple coming. They were accepted and their wasnt really a problem until they as a couple, wanted their daughter dedicated. It is a public ceremony (sort of like a baptism) where the parents, must agree to bring up the child in the ways of the Lord. Our pastor met with them, just like he meets with other couples, and it came out that while one of them was a Christian, her partner admitted she basically went along with it just for her and she couldnt in all honesty, be a part of it since she herself was NOT dedicated to Christ, then how could she be a Christian role model for this little girl?
And all this means…what? Are you saying that if they had both been Christian lesbians there would have been no problem?
So, if there was a KKK infestation in your town, it is fine to say “well, I don’t discriminate,” while otherwise remaining silent? One who did that can’t be held accountable, but they would silently accept evil being done around them. Not a great ethical position, especially for a church who presume to lecture on morality.
From the discussion I hear, one could be excused for thinking gay action if not gay people. It would be nice for churches on the other side to say SSM, for instance, is supportable religiously as well as by secular ethics. Maybe it can’t, which is a problem for Christianity, but I suspect there is an argument for it.
I realize that even anti-LGBT churches say they are not against gay people, just against gay people acting sexually. Not a big help.
My 79 year old mother’s Baptist church has grown into what you would call a Megachurch over the last decade or so. Was a very small church when our family joined in 1970.
Sadly, despite the fact that my sister came out as gay in 1977, my mother insists that they’re fine with gay people only as long as they abstain from sex, since that part is sinful. :rolleyes:
The really sad part is that last summer my parents had to take the time to ruin a perfectly good day with my sister by telling her how they STILL didn’t approve of her being gay or her “lifestyle”. 
In speaking to my sister after the fact, she said the only reason she didn’t disown them in that moment is because after a lifetime of their bullshit, she wasn’t going to give them the satisfaction and was going to stick around long enough to get a share of their will.
Edit to add that my mother has, twice in the last 6 months, called my aunt a “liar” because aunt told her that our father’s great aunt and her life-long partner were gay (yes, they were) and how that really made her angry because “they were just two women who loved each other, they were NOT GAY!!!” (Yes mom, they were. Get over it.)
Disclaimer- I don’t speak for 100% of Israelites
Last time I checked, Reform synagogues were generally LGBTQIA friendly. Conservative synagogues vary greatly. Orthodox communities have special ceremonies to atone for sexual sins like hot man on man action, hold that trans folk are just mentally ill and so forth. For more on this exciting issue watch the great documentary Trembling Before G-d.
Personally, my sister told me after her second divorce that she was through with men. I said okay. She said that no, seriously she was dating only women from now on. I said I got that the first time and okay. Currently, my sister is living with a wonderful woman whose only fault is that she’s a shikseh.
I went (long story I don’t want to go into) to a Jewish hippie camp in Connecticut. They had a big sign in the bathroom reading roughly ‘Gender Policy- We want all guests to use the bathroom facilities fitting their gender identity. If somebody is in here, they belong here, If you have any problems with this, please contact resort manager.’ I contacted the staff and told them that I thought their policy of love and affirmation was wonderful.
OTTOMH What it means to be a man or a woman is defined under Jewish law. I feel that this interpretation can be changed. What it meant to be living or dead used to be defined by Jewish law as ‘still breathing’. Then came machines that would keep somebody breathing, and an understanding that somebody could be brain dead except for a stem that kept them breathing etc. The interpretation of what it meant to be alive changed. So, there is precedent.
Oh and I’m once again peeved that somebody uses the word “Religious America” to mean Christian America.
RE Ethics Changing
This may be another thread. I feel that what is right does not change. Society does. Slavery was just as wrong in 1800 as it is now. Acceptance of the rainbow crowd is right, and always was. It’s just that many people are only realizing it now.
Actually, that’s a remarkably common ethical position on this board if we tweak the example away from evangelical churches and the KKK. Let’s say the bad guy was Islamic State. Let’s say I started a thread proposing that Muslims needed to do more than simply remain silent in response to the violent, death-cultists that claim to share their religion. How do you think that would go over?
There’s also some issue with an ethical sense of duty to intervene if applied too strictly. If there’s nothing productive that can be achieved or if the effort could produce something more valuable if redirected elsewhere, that duty could make society worse off. Time and effort is limited. We can’t work on everything in the world at once. Even if we all agree there’s a duty to intervene, is it unethical to prioritize?
To be fair, that approach also applies to a huge chunk of common heterosexual activity too. My sex life is one of repeatedly and unrepentantly sinning my ass off in Baptist eyes and I’m straight.
Your argument is awfully* reminiscent of the argument that all Muslims are terrorists because the good ones don’t protest enough.
But to your point, the reason the non-evangelical churches don’t get on the political stage is because they are not evangelical. For the most part these have the render unto Caesar view of mixing church and state which I happen to support as a general rule. Although left wing theocrats would be an improvement over the right wing ones they would still be theocrats.
*according to both uses of the word in this context
But there are dissidents. My mother frequently talks about a family friend that is a Baptist minister and a therapist who also provides religious/ spiritual counseling. I always rolled my eyes at this until I found out she was an active member of this group.
It’s called the Association of Welcoming and Affirmimg Baptists. It s drop in the bucket, it seems like they have about a hundred churches nationwide but hopefully it reflects a trend.
IIRC, Jimmy Carter is involved somehow. On the other hand, I’m sure there are unwelcoming people who are members of welcoming churches. We used to get a newsletter from traditionalist Presbyterians, who seem to have lost on this issue.
I think we can distinguish between those close to the problem or with some degree of power versus others. Someone five states away doesn’t have the obligation to “do” something about the KKK as someone living in the town with them. A Muslim in a mosque where hatred was preached has more of an obligation to say something than one living in my town, where we all get along pretty well.
Likewise, random members of “good” churches have less of an obligation than do the leaders of these churches, who have more of a voice and more power than congregants. However congregants do have the power to encourage their leaders to speak up.
BTW there are religious leaders who speak - but it seems not loudly and not as effectively as the bigots. Except maybe for the case of the married Episcopalian minister who has been pretty vocal, and pretty effective.
Here’s the source of the data in question: Scoring America's 100 Largest Churches for Clarity (2018) | Church Clarity
Affirming is distinguished from welcoming LGBTQ: [INDENT]The score for churches that CLEARLY communicate affirming policies for LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and/or Queer) people in a way that can easily be found on their websites. An affirming policy means much more than “welcoming” LGBTQ+ people. It means that the church will ordain, hire, marry and baptize LGBTQ+ people. A clear church website’s either indicates this this policy in its primary pages (e.g. Beliefs, About, Values) or clearly and accessibly links to a policy from those pages. [/INDENT] So you can be clear but not affirming and visa versa. Also, you can welcome LGBTQ members, but if you won’t hold a gay marriage ceremony or permit gay ministers, you are not affirming.
Here’s a list of clear affirming churches, unfortunately without associated membership or church capacity. https://www.churchclarity.org/score/clear-affirming
So: which denomination does the SDM-board nominate to deliver a much needed pro-gay ass kicking? Storm troopers, sort of like the Jesuits.
The Unitarians are a non-creedal religion. So they are out. The Episcopalians are ecumenical to a fault. I had high hopes for the Quakers, but they don’t show up on the above list and are internally divided, with a large contingent in Africa which is anti-gay. The Presbyterian Church USA voted to marry gays in 2015, but the vote was 87 presbyteries for, 41 against. I doubt whether they could effectively deliver the smack.
I suppose we could call upon the Satanic Temple, but I understand that they don’t consider themselves to be Christian.
Yeah, that part only becomes discriminatory in that the alternative of “approved” marital sex is denied to the gay. A simultaneously small AND huge detail.
What about priority in your opinion?
I don’t think anyone is asking for it to be the number one or sole item on their agenda. I think maybe poverty and health care would be more important. But new conferences and press releases and working with like-minded churches wouldn’t take up that much time.
I want to make sure I understand you. You’re saying that the question you’re proposing for debate is whether the churches that claim they have more members than the 100 largest megachurches put together are doing enough when it comes to LGBT rights. Do I have that right?
I’m glad they’re discussing it. I may be wrong, but I think the OP is asking about churches in the U.S. I hope so, as the discussion on the United Methodist website that said
I’m impressed.
To make a short (and repeated) story long-Yes.
And if we agree they are not, what next?