Our opinion on the United Church of Christ's controvertial advertisement

Great Debates
61

Yes, there are several differences between the two. In the context of this discussion, there’s no significant difference between skin color and sexual orientation.

If your point is that race/skin color is a predetermined trait whereas homosexuality is not, then the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

If your point is that the churches would be more welcoming to people who are homosexual but choose to remain celibate instead of indulging in sinful homosexual sex, then I would say the appropriate analogy is saying, “We have no problem with black people coming to our church, as long as they make sure to wear their white make-up, straighten their hair, and talk like proper white people do.”

62

Right, because most of the major denominations are fighting to make sure that homosexuals can’t be legally married, requiring it to remain extra-marital sex, forever.

63

I still agree with my point there, but after reading more of The Asbestos Mango’s posts, I’ve come to think that it’s a moot point. If an organization believes that homosexual sex is sinful, then there’s not much practical reason to expect it to accept those that engage in homosexual sex. I personally believe that Christianity and homosexuality (including the “sinful act” itself) are compatible, but I’m not going to be upset about being left out of an anti-gay church, because they’ve got nothing for me.

So I’ll just be sneaking out of the thread now…

64

Ya’ know, a while back I decided that I was going to stop trying to argue with people who had obviously not read my posts any further than to find things to quote out of context so they could rip me a new bodily orfice for a misrepresentation of my position. So, I’m not going to answer this.

I will say that I find it really annoying that so many people think its so horrible that a religion/denomination would have (gasp) moral teachings and require its members to abide by those teachings in order to enjoy the full privileges of membership. I’ll say it again. If you don’t agree with, or feel you cannot abide by, the moral teachings of a religion/denomination, than you should leave that religion or denomination and find one whose teachings are more in line with your own beliefs or lifestyle. I make no judgements on people who choose to do this, and I don’t understand why anyone would think I’m a horrible person for thinking that they should.

65

I think it’s pretty horrible that so many churches consider homophobia to be “moral.”

66

And I think it’s foolish to equate defining a particular behavior as immoral with homophobia.

67

Some people may indeed choose to do this. I was one of them. Although I’m not a homosexual, the Catholic church’s postition on it and on women was too uncomfortable for me to stay.

But others choose to stay and attempt to reform the church and the system they love from within. This is not new. If Catholics hadn’t pressed for changes to the church, Catholic widows’ land would belong to the church, there’d be something like 200 days a year you couldn’t have sex, and communion would mean sharing the same filthy and disease ridden cup with plague victims, no exceptions. To simply say that Catholics who don’t agree with official church positions should leave is to ignore the fact that sometimes (indeed, *often *in 2000 years or so) the Church has been proven wrong by its own congregants or priesthood, admitted itself wrong, and instituted sweeping reform.

I ask great blessings to fall on the heads of those who stick it out and attempt to transform things, although I wasn’t one of them.

68

This to you is not homophobic?

69

Did you even read the linked article?

70

That is not my point.

[/quote]
If your point is that the churches would be more welcoming to people who are homosexual but choose to remain celibate instead of indulging in sinful homosexual sex, then I would say the appropriate analogy is saying, “We have no problem with black people coming to our church, as long as they make sure to wear their white make-up, straighten their hair, and talk like proper white people do.”
[/QUOTE]

Actually that analogy would be more appropriately applied to Fund’ist Protestant churches that teach that gays can and should “change” their sexual orientation and marry people of the opposite sex.

71

All of these are matters of Church discipline, not of faith and morals, and are subject to change.

72

Yes. It made me sick to my stomach. I feel sorry for the poor bastard, who has clearly internalized so much of your church’s hatred that he has decided to cut himself off from the most important bond an adult can form with another adult. I hope he finds help before its too late for him. If you think this is a significant difference between this and the poisonous anti-gay movement promoted by some Protestants, you’re sadly deluded.

73

This is a tricky one. No, actually, I don’t think the official Catholic Church stance is homophobic, although I do think it encourages and breeds homophobia in its members. Officially, homosexuality is looked at as a trial sent by God. We all have our trials - some of us are born with a great desire to overeat, some of us with missing limbs, some of us with infertility. All of these are challenges which we must deal with, and when dealt with in accordance to the Church’s teachings, may bring us closer to God. A compulsive overeater can learn to master and love the body that God gave her. A person with a missing arm can become dexterous and strong. A couple with fertility problems can pray for guidance and end up adopting a needy child.

Now, and this is where it gets sticky - the Catholic Church places a great value on celibacy. They see it as a *good *thing, a holy thing, a thing which is required of priests to bring them closer to loving God. Once upon a time, priests and laymen alike embraced celibacy - were considered the lucky ones! Those who were married had to be lectured and encouraged to have sex in order to procreate and make new Catholics. Homosexuality as an orientation (not an activity) is seen as an indication from God that He wants you to live a celibate life. Overcoming the urges to have homosexual sex will lead you to an inner strength and love of God.

So, given the assumptions of the Church, I don’t actually think it’s fair to call them homophobic. Antiquated, outdated and lacking an understanding or appreciation of the myriad forms of love that can exist between people, sure. But Catholics who are homophobic are NOT homophobic because they’re following the reasoning of the Church. They are homophobic for their own twisted reasons.

All the issues I mentioned, with the possible exception of the seizing of widows’ property, were once considered matters of faith and morals, not simply rules and regs. The dipping of the Host into the Wine, instead of drinking from the cup, was a scandal which nearly tore the church apart and got many priests threated with excommunication. (And I’m totally blanking on the name of the practice, or I’d provide a cite or two.)

Regardless, there are Catholics who believe that the issue of homosexuality is one of Church discipline, and not of faith and morals. That the reasons given behind the Church’s stance have not been adequately supported by scripture, and that the stance is nothing more than Church discipline.

74

I can’t speak for Miller, but I did indeed read it, and I found it homophobic. Especially the line:

So basically, Siege, Polycarp, Baker, RTFirefly, Crunchy Frog, SolGrundy, andygirl, and TeaElle, among others, all believe in a “watered-down Gospel?”

:dubious:

Quit acting like the Catholic church is above reproach. I was raised Catholic and though I’ve left it I’ll still probably never totally get way from it. But there are more than a few instances in the church that make Catholicism every bit as guilty as any fundamentalist Protestant denomination.

As for “faith and moral matters”, don’t tell me the church hasn’t flopped around on that as well. (Not to mention things like celibacy and birth control).

75

My apologies–I did not know that Levdrakon was gay.

But now I am confused by his post–was it sarcasm? Who does he think will be doing the match making–and what matches are they making?
I think that the answer to Asbestos Magic’s stance,

is that the teachiings themselves are considered to be immoral, so therefore, the churches that tout such teachings have immoral postions. I understand and somewhat agree with the premise that a denomination can lay down “rules” guiding behavior and actions to ensure that a member stay “true” to the creed. To use one example, honor the Sabbath or don’t eat pork. Nowhere in Jesus’ teachings does it say to turn away gays or whoever.

But when it comes to homosexuality, race, or gender equality, that premise falls down. Thankfully, thru the centuries, Man has been able to change misperceptions and outright falsehoods about human behavior. IMO, the churches that don’t tolerate/welcome gays or people of color, that don’t allow women to be full members/preachers/leaders are dealing with outdated info. Take women, for example–they have proven that they have as much intelligence as men and are as capable of interpreting Scripture/counselling people/running churches. There is no rational reason to not ordain women in all denominations.

Sorry, don’t mean to hijack–just trying to illustrate a point.

76

If the Catholic church placed the same expectations of celibacy on all its congregants, that would be one think. To demand that one minority segment of its followers be forced to live under an onerous burden that is not required of the majority in order to be a member in good standing of the Church is bigotry. The church is basically saying that homosexuality is a curse from God! How is that not homophobic? For that matter, how is that any better than the various fundamentalist sects that consider homosexuality to be a disease or mental aberration?

77

So, there is no difference between saying “The evil faggots are out to destroy our families, molest our children and convert them to their evil lifestyle and are calling down the wrath of God on our nation!!!” and saying, “Yes, we believe that sexual relations between members of the same sex are contrary to moral, but someone who is struggling with a same-sex attraction should be treated with love and dignity and be helped to deal with his struggle and draw closer to God.” Now, who’s being hateful here?

And Guin seems to have read the article I linked to only enough to find something to quote out of context and rail against.

I can see I’m wasting my time here. I’ll be monitoring the thread, but I won’t be posting to it again.

78

Is there a difference between stealing $20, and stealing $20,000,000? Yes, obviously. Does that make it okay to steal $20? No. It’s still stealing. And while the Catholics may not be in the same league as Fred Phelps, what it preaches is still bigotry, and that will not change no matter how hard you try to appropriate the language of tolerance and acceptance, until it finally divorces itself from the inherently bigoted idea that homosexual relationships are more sinful than heterosexual ones.

79

Well fine then, the UCC commerical is pointing out a substantial difference between their church and others. They believe that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity and other churches don’t. What’s wrong with saying that? If other churches don’t offer that benefit to potential members, what’s wrong with saying, “hey, look at us, we’re different.” I don’t see why this commerical actually offends people.

80

There are a whole lot of things going on in this thread that bother me.

First, the OP issue: The UCC is saying, “C’mon, folks, one of the main points Christ made is that there’s not a nice neat line between righteous churchgoing folk and sinners – we’re all sinners whom God loves and forgives, so stop making rules about who’s ‘good enough’ to be a part of church – Nobody is, or else everybody is. Our doors are open, without ‘bouncers.’” And that is about as true to the message of Christ as anyone gets.

Second, this last little scuffle about celibacy. Chastity (not celibacy) is the virtue expected of everyone – sex only within a committed relationship, and having the willpower to abstain outside one. (Let’s not play games about what “marriage” means, in this context – that is, and has been, fodder for a bunch of other threads.) Celibacy is the charism (“gift”) given to a few to enable them to abstain from sexual relations entirely – not because sex is evil, but because they’re called to a role where sex is inappropriate. A committed husband who is a M.D. undertaking a short-term mission (church or otherwise) to a place where medical help is badly needed and where his wife and family cannot accompany him, might receive this gift to remain chaste until he can return to the arms – and bed – of his wife. A monk, nun, or friar, or a Roman Rite Catholic priest or a bishop, might receive it as a permanent gift, to enable him or her to do the ministry he/she feels called to, which precludes marriage and family. Save for a few celibate mystics and a couple of heretical sects, marriage and celibate life have always been held in equal regard in the church.

Third, The Asbestos Mango has a point – of sorts – and a link that is very much less than tasteful. Certainly any group has the right to set membership standards, and to reject anyone who is unwilling to abide by those standards. But “any group” does not include the Church – and particularly the Catholic Church, thankewverymuch, with its claim to be the church. Membership in the Church is governed by Christ’s call to people to come to Him, and their response to do so and undergo any rites of initiation that the church deems appropriate (Baptism, in particular). Deciding to exclude people who happen to have a particular unchangeable character that someone in authority finds distatestful, is not an option for the Church. (That was the point of the commercial referenced in the OP, in case that didn’t come clear to anyone.)

And I personally and very emphatically take great offense at that particular quote which Guin was kind enough to extract, Mango. Either disavow it as an unfortunate bit of wording in a link that generally states your position, or defend it, and what you mean by it.

I trust you don’t need to have about a third of the Gospel According to Matthew, with selected excerpts from Luke and John, quoted here, to demonstrate that the Gospel calls us to treat all other human beings with love, compassion, acceptance, grace, and forgiveness, just as we hope to be treated by Christ, Who will take what we do to them as done also to Him. If that is “watering down” the Gospel, then it’s the Water of Life, washing away the stains of a false gospel propounded by Neopharisees, which we preach!