According to the CBC website, they're now affiliated with the United Church of Christ. I imagine that the UCC has influenced their thinking. You can read CBC's statement on Marriage Equality here: http://www.cbcwdc.org/marriageequality.html It includes this statement, "Through Bible study, reflection on theology and history, and experience, we had come to believe that it was unjust to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to consecrate their relationships in the same way that we allow opposite-sex couples to. " I imagine these Baptists would feel rather at home in the United Church of Canada (except of course that they dunk rather than sprinkle.)

Like my favorite Baptist minister, Tommy Douglas, they would likely find most UCC congregations too conservative.

Religious leaders were crucial to gay marriage in Canada too.

As the story goes, the first gay marriages in North America were performed in Toronto by churches reading the banns during a service, a rite where a couple is legally married by a pastor who announces for 3 Sundays in a row that the couple is to be married. In 2001 Rev. Hawkes (MCC Toronto) married two couples. (certificate). Ontario refused to register the marriage. A couple of months later, Rev. DiNovo (I think Emmanual Howard Park United Church, maybe someone from there could confirm) married a couple, both of whom had latino-sounding names. The clerk didn't recognize they were both girls so the marriage was registered. 

Then in 2003 the Michaels (one of whom was a lawyer) and MCC Toronto won their legal case (case) in the Ontario Court of Appeals. The Michaels were the first to obtain a civil marriage license, a few hours after the ruling. The previous marriages under the banns were retroactively legal. 

The United Church of Canada officially began lobbying for nationwide Same Sex Marriage in 2003. The bill was finally voted on and passed federally in 2005 (Civil Marriage Act), making it legal nationwide. 

I note that one of the leaders mentioned was the minister of All Souls Unitarian. UUs were part of the movement here in Canada and my fellowship performed it's first same sex wedding shortly after the Ontario court decision that opened things up in this province. This is one area where UUs and liberal Christians are definitely on the same page.

Mendalla

It goes deeper then that. In the twenties Christian ministers started organising politically for social justice in western Canada. This turned into the CCF in 1932, a socialist political party that formed the government of Saskatchewan in 1944. Lead by Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister,  the CCF government In 1947, (a year before the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), passed into law a bill of rights which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race and sex.. The first such law in the world.  This became so popular  that the Conservatives and Liberals adopted its tenants and it became part of the Charter of Rights in Canada's constitution of 1982.

The courts based there  ruling on the prohibition of discrimination based on sex that is in our constitution now. So it all started with  church members and clergy in the twenties getting organised and politically active.

PS Cheri DeNova the minister that performed the same-sex weddings is now a member of the Ontario legislature for the NDP.  The CCF became the New Democratic Party, the NDP.

although i love tommy, i believe that he thought that homosexuality was an illness. 

i like to think that if he were still around, he would not feel that way anymore, but there it is.

Yes, Tommy Douglas considered homosexuality a mental illness. He was also not alone, it was the times and not the person...

We can include pretty much the entire psychiatric and psychological professions and most people at the time as well.

If mental health professionals of the day considered it and defined it as a mental illnes, people agreeing with "the experts" is not really that much of an outrage. Is it?

We have to remember we are talking about times where being gay you wound up in jail. Since, "experts" said it was a mental illness, Tommy Douglas showed enlightenment (yes, relative to his times) and, moreover, he showed compassion. Helooked at it that if it was an "illness" (again according to "experts" of the day) people should not be incarcerated, they should be treated. He wanted them treated as anyone else and not treated as criminals.

That is a sense of equality in a time of inequality.

 taking this off topic a little, the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness was progressive in those days. This was because homosexuality was seen as immoral and the basis of the laws against it.  men were actually sentenced to jail for longer then most crimes.

From wikipedia

 Everett George Klippert  Klippert was arrested after admitting that he had had sex with other men. When psychiatrists determined that he was unlikely to stop having sex with men, he was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to life in prison.

So moving from being a moral defect and or evil to that of an illness or disability was progress.  Now it is seen as just one of many aspects of how people are different. Most UCC congregations still believe it is an immoral. Over 90%  do, (It's hard to say because most have not talked about it since 1988. So he would find most UCC congregations too conservative.

I can  imagine he would be either in an Affirming UCC or a Peace Baptist church today.

A similar progress has happened were other kinds of people. Many of the characteristics Autism, were believed to be caused by moral defect. Then they moved it to an illness of disability. Now many people with high functioning autism are just calling it a difference.

So as far as I am concerned Tommy stance shows compassion and understand for his time. He actually was on of the few federal MPS who raised the rights of convicts, and specifically addressed cases of individual sex offenders in the 70s.   . Something to this day no MP would dare do, in fear of being smeared by the opposition.

Alex - we have talked about this before, and I think that you will disagree again, but I find it hard to believe your statement that over 90% of UCC congregations believe homosexuality to be morally wrong.  I live in a rather conservative part of the country, yet two of the six UCC churches in this city have a policy in place to marry homosexuals.  Homosexuals also serve in high profile positions in these congregations, as they do in several other UCC congregations.  And a nearby community is now served by the lesbian minister they called.  I know the struggle is not over, there is still and perhaps always will be battles to be fought, but it seems to me, just looking around the churches in my area and my presbytery, that we have made great strides and that your 90% negative is quite a bit off. 

Now when it comes to the Fellowship Baptist denomination, I'd hazard a fairly safe guess that 100% of the congregations believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. I live in a reasonably moderate part of the country, and all of the FB churches in this city have no policy in place to marry people who are known to be living a homosexual lifestyle. As far as I know no homosexual serves in a high position in any of our congregations.

jae - if they were in your church (and there probably are a few) wouldn't they likely be 'in the closet' and you wouldn't know them?   Fifty years ago I didn't realize that I knew any homosexuals - I guess I  thought that they all lived in the big cities someplace else - and that there weren't very many of them.  Now I know that the 'boy next door' was gay.  So probably were a lot of my school mates and work mates, and neighbours.  The ratio hasn't changed - just that now they are out of the closet. 

. 

Most probably, yes.

However, given that the option exists to go to a church of a different denomination where they can feel more accepted,  and given that homosexual behavior is generally considered to be sin by our denomination, I believe they would most likely simply choose not to go to one of our FB churches.

In 1995 when my partner and I were married at Trinity St Pauls United Church in Toronto we were the first same sex couple to be married there - we had the bans read and are registeredin the marriage register but had to "re-marry" in 2006 prior to the birth of our daughter because at the time the laws hadn't changed yet and my partner would have been required to legally adopt our child.  ridiculous.  But when the new law came into effect 2 weeks after our daugther was born, we were the first couple in Ontario to register both of our names on her birth certificate.

The church has an opportunity to be a powerful ally or enemy... and it makes me more than sad to think of the times when I've known if I walked into a particular church with my partner and child, we would be turned away. 

Oh, and, I don't have a "lifestyle" ... I have a life. Just to be clear...

It is good to hear that Fredericton UCC has been making progress on the issue.  I would hope my estimate of 90 percent is off.  So I am taking the chance to clarify the issues now. I guess my point of view is shaped by the fact that I live in Ottawa. I should also distinguish between UCC clergy, UCC members, and UCC boards.  I would say that most UCC clergy are supportive, I would also say that among the general membership of the UCC that you will find out much larger level of acceptance. 

The main way to determine for me whether or not a church is accepting is whether or not they go public and say that they'll accept the the queer community. Whether or not to do so is decided by the church boards. In Ottawa only one UCC is publicly accepting of the queer community, and we have over 90 churches in the UCC.  There are about six or seven churches that provide marriage services in Ottawa to the gay and lesbian community. However only two of them as far as I am aware will allow all people who are gay or lesbian to get married in the church itself.

I also know of one other church in Ottawa, which is one of the largest UCC's in eastern Canada where the membership has voted to proceed on providing equal access, however according to the clergy of this church the board has put up roadblocks to make it not happen. So it has not happened. 

Like I said I determine whether or not a church is really accepting of all GLBT persons by their willingness to go public and declare so. This can be done through the affirming process, or it can be simply down through listing your church on one of the many GLBT directories on the Internet or through their local GLBT social service agencies. Take a look for yourself at any of these directories, like gaycanada.com.

To me it seems more important that a church is willing to come out and declare that they will accept gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgendered people, than is there a marriage policy. Most GLBT activists would disagree with me but I believe You can still be accepting without performing marriages. Two local Anglican parishes, in Ottawa are an example of that.

I also understand that in small towns, that churches have other ways besides listing themselves in a directory. My sisters church in Sackville New Brunswick is a good example of that. It is well known in the community that they are accepting, because they have spoken out as a community in support of the GLBT community.

I can believe that in Fredericton the UCC's are more likely to be accepting, if you look at the directories like gayCanada.com, it seems that the more conservative parts of the country have much higher percentages of accepting churches. Alberta, is a good example. Edmonton alone has six UCC's listed. The more liberal cities of London Ontario has none, and Ottawa has only one.

Also I should state that many of the churches in the UCC are not actually against the GLBT community, because just like any other change it would require discussion, and because of the dynamics of the church, they are on willing to do so. I have come to the conclusion that this is not because they are homophobic, but points to a much deeper problem within these congregations that have nothing to do with the GLBT community.

But, how can GLBT people that live in cities believe that a UCC church is accepting if their board is unwilling to list themselves as being accepting in public directories that are geared towards the GLBT community.

Jae take a look at http://books.google.com/books?id=RioEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA104&dq=methodist+bishop+gay&ei=7DKlS5jqG4TmlATkx7j3Bw&cd=3#v=onepage&q=methodist%20bishop%20gay&f=false

my family just celebrated the marriage of friends yesterday who are a same sex couple... they were married in our UCC. 

"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
      These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come. To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—
 'He will rule them with an iron scepter;
      he will dash them to pieces like pottery'— just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

 So what is your point? .  Are you saying God will kill children because their parents are false prophets, or bad?

or what?

 I know that Revelations was a book written at a time when Christians did not have free speech, and thus it  uses metaphor and code to attack the Roman Empire and it's emperor.

However beyond attacking the Roman Empire, what are you trying to say?  What does this passage mean to you. Everyone can read metaphor differently. To understand it, one must understand the code that was use. Who stands in for who, and which actions stand in for other actions.

I do not know the code used by the writers. can you explain it?

Yup if you havn't got substance, you can always resort to empty religious rhetoric. Cut and pasting scripture often works in the absence of any inane words of your own.

I support gay marriage. Just in case Witch tries to claim the opposite. I was very upset of Prop 8 in California, but I think they will get it one day. The state should stand behind same sex marriage without any doubt.

Ichthys

I have to say I find that rather surprising. I apologise for pre-judging you on this account. I was sadly mistaken.

 Still can you explain what point you were making with these verses.

Do you believe the state should preform marriages, but not church ministers?

What most ministers are doing and most churches recognize is blessing of same-sex unions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_ch...

There is little difference in the ceremony (it looks just like a wedding), but "when churches use the term "Union" in a same-sex blessing ceremony, they may or may not be blessing this union in an equivalent way as they would bless a "marriage" as opposed to blessing the commitment between the two individuals." - Wikipedia

My feelings are mixed on this one. On one side, those people love each other so why not. On the other side, there is no back-up from the scripture that could justify same sex marriage under God. But then again, there are so many things that we shouldn't do (e.g. building streets, wasting money on gadgets) that don't harm us. I think the same applies to same sex marriage.

My opinion ranges from opposed-divided on this one. But I strongly support same sex marriage under the state. They should have the same access to the same benefits and rights as all other married couples. There is no reason why religion should have influence on a democratic constitution.

Ichthys

Btw. it is LGBT not GLBT. Ladies first!

Alex

I am with Seeler on this one.

I find your statements misleading & unfair.

You have stated above "that over 90% of UCC congregations believe homosexuality to be morally wrong"   and you imply in your first post that churches in DC understand same-gender marriage better than Ottawa churches.

You then go on to defend this point, by naming the number of churches in Ottawa, and the # that are Affirming.

There is a significant difference between "finding homosexuality morally wrong" and "having not actioned the Affirming process".

Churches, congregations, members and boards do advocate for lgbttq2 without being affirming.    They welcome folks without being affirming. They vote for those who support same-gender marriages without being affirming.

In addition, though I recognize that accessability is important to you, and to me as well, they are not automatically linked.  One can be affirming of same-gender marriage without having an accessable church.   Yes, it should be done, as should many others.

I get you get frustrated and angry.

But, blanket statements, such as the ones you made, will tend to divide, rather than build.

I said that based on my personal experiences, I also clarified it further down. 

However, other than your personal experience, is there any empirical evidence. There are a lot of UCCs. You were at GC when they defeated a motion for equal access. Where you given any poll or study that said how many had already equal access policies?

Or they might get some people in some local churches to do something to prove me wrong. Or if I am right maybe it will make people aware of the the situation and do something to change things.  As they have done in your church.

I am just asking why you posted it?

Alex, in fact, I was there as a commissioner...and in the commission that created the motion that would pass.  We have discussed this item, and the why's of the motion, the issues with it....

Next time, the conference might want to consider sending a motion that is worded in a way that could pass. 

The division didn't make us choose to do an accessability project, Alex.   We have been working on it for years.  Affirm & accessability in fact, went to the same board meeting...askingto initiate both projects.  Affirm went forward, Accessability did not.  Why? straight up --- it was the $$$.    Having access to funds has made our project move forward.....not a change in will or politics.

I just ask because I like to think highly of you. You make me think you are intelligent and well informed, and good hearted, with a deep faith in our God Jesus Christ.   I respect what you say, even when I disagree with you. Even when I disagree with your position, you usually have a well thought out explaination.

But I did not understand what that post was about. I was hoping to be enlightened. All I know is that Revelations is full of codes and is an attack on the Roman Empire. I was hoping you could explain the code to show me the secret meaning behind it. 

Or if you were making another point.

i understand that and I respect your work, I understand that things can take time. I also understand that as a leader you had to make very difficult decisions. Ones that I would not be able to do. You need to deal with many complex and different variables.    We need leaders like you and I am glad you were there. I also understand the need to comprimise and that kind of leadership requires you to sacrifice your own views and keep in solidarity. Ultimately if you did not then things would get worse in general. You are a better person than me. I could not do that.

However I am not a church leader, and althrough I respect church leaders, ( and I am sorry to have been unrespectful). I have a different role and can speak out my truth.  I see a lot of people, including LGBT  under the impression that  UCC congregations are all welcoming, or liberal or progressive.  That is not a problem except that it means  that the work to make churches welcoming to all will not get done. There is a role for people like me to challenge assumptions.

I believe even Conservative UCCs can (or already are)be welcoming to LGBT without doing marriages.  I believe Beshpin, when he says he welcomes LGBT in his church, even if he is against marriage and the Affirming process. I believe that is possible.

Being welcoming and letting people know that you either do not judge LGBT or even if you personally think it is wrong, but are willing to accept LGBT people who disagree with you in your church,  is progress from 20 years ago. I do not expect perfection.

However to show that and to enable me to tell others that that is true I need the information. I and I believe some other LGBT people need to know. 

i need to see signs inside and outside churches.(even if it is a small sign)   I need to see it on church web sites. I need to see it on the church listings on wondercafe. I need to see local LGBT  social services to be informed. I need to see listed on LGBT web sites(under church listings, but also under the senior groups and youth group listings)

All I ask for proof is that members and boards declare that they welcome diversity (and specifically indicate those groups who have not been welcome in the past, which includes openly LGBT) , and tell the community.

If people believe more than 10% of UCC  churches are welcoming than I would say they might be fooling themselves, or unaware, or lucky like Seeler to live in a community where it is true.

I would pick to attend church with belshin rather than "liberal" UCCs in Ottawa who say I can go, but that I can not tell other members about myself,  or that I can not tell other gay people, because they do not want too many LGBT.  Which has happened to me in Ottawa. 

I find more honesty with belshi and Christian acceptance than with these "liberal churches"  What is worse is that these liberal churches send representatives to church courts, and vote for inclusion, but do not speak out or do anything in their home church.   It's like LGBT people who shout I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it, at gay pride events, but keep silent the rest of the year.

I hope it is analogous to a church, that spends lots of time and money making their building accessible. They install ramps, lifts, etc. However they forget to tell people in the community, so no one in a wheelchair thinks they can come. or no one who works with those who use wheelchairs knows and so do not tell there clients. As a result the church remains inaccessible because of a communication barrier.

That can be easily fixed.

 I will continue to challenge homophobia, or (which I hope(and can believe) is more common) barriers that exist due to communication.

Peace, Unity and Love is my goal, not division. I can do that by raising awareness and challenging assumptions.

It is possible that there are more than 10%

Based on my experience in Ottawa, and talking to church ministers on Wondercafe and in Ottawa, I am still under the impression that less than 10% of UCC are welcoming to Gay men. The last survey was done 20 years ago and I know things have changed. Especially with the members. However not so much with church boards. I hope I am wrong.

These verses reflect a divide in me. It is from the Book of Revelations and refers t the seven churches of Asia. I think this letter is directed to all churches.

I'm desperately finding for verses that are in support of same sex marriages under God, but I can't find it. But I also oppose to alienate Ls and Gs from the church. Help me to find a passage that speaks for gay marriage so that I can finally have peace in my mind.

alex, for crying in the sink our congregation supports same sex marriages... we just celebrated one a few weeks ago.

why the heck are you so adament that we don't?? 

i'm starting to get a little tired of your tirade all over the place about what a closed minded bigot i am.

Where did I post that about your church?

 Your church is the only other church in Ottawa that I know of that performs marriages in the chapel. What I said was that less then 10% did.  Now according to the church locator here on Wondercafe there are 90 UCC churches. 2 churches out of 90 is only 3%.

Are  there other welcoming churches in Ottawa that you know of? If there are more than 9 I would stand corrected. Just show me 9 churches, that are out of the closet about accepting LGBT, or who pergorm weddings in the chapel of the church. There are 4 churches in Ottawa I know of that allow their ministers to perform marriages, but not in the church. However they keep it a secret for  members of the church, and their relatives.  I presume they are like the church in the Glebe who told me 5 years ago I was welcomed, but that I should not tell others, as they did not want too many LGBT people.

Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-10,

Matthew 8:5-13 (King James Version)

Luke 7:1-10 (New International Version)

 ⁹When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." ¹⁰Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well. 

from http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

For many centuries before Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, the Greek word pais was commonly used to refer to the younger partner in a same sex relationship. The younger partner was often an adult male but was sometimes a teenager.

The use of pais in this social and historical context leads some to believe that the story of the Roman centurion and his pais in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 tells the real story of the day Jesus met and blessed a gay man. Although this understanding of the text is controversial, it is important for us to discuss and understand it in our conversation about the Bible and homosexuality.

As we begin our study of this true story about a gay Centurion, from Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-10, it is important to remember that we are two thousand years removed from these events. For that reason, traditionalists cannot prove their contention, that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.

If we cannot prove, to everyone’s satisfaction, that this story is about a gay centurion, why bother discussing this controversy?

The short answer is that scripture is important and what we believe, based on scripture, is important. For centuries, the organized church has insisted gay people are never presented in the Bible in a positive light.

Many Christians refuse to believe that God would include a positive story about a gay Centurion in the Bible. In recent centuries, many openly gay Christians have been excluded from the spiritual life of the church.

Our goal is to examine the available evidence. If the evidence and a faithful, believing approach to scripture supports the understanding that this story is about a gay centurion and his pais-same sex lover, that dramatic fact should be public knowledge.

Pais conveyed the idiomatic meaning of same sex lover. The idiomatic meaning of words derives from the way a particular culture uses a word. First century Greek and Roman culture often used the word pais with the meaning of "same sex lover."

Idiom refers to a way of using words that is natural to native speakers of a language but which does not convey the literal meaning of the words. An idiomatic expression uses a word in a way different than its literal meaning, such as using the word for servant to mean something more than servant, like same sex lover. Servant is a literal meaning. Same sex lover is the idiomatic meaning. For example:

1. We say ‘I’m going to keep tabs on’ a person. We don’t mean literally putting tabs on someone. We mean we are going to observe or track the activity of the person.

    

    

2. We say ‘Get lost!’ meaning Leave me alone, not literally to become unaware of one’s location.

    

    

3. If we’re feeling sick, we say we’re “under the weather” yet the idiomatic expression for feeling sick has nothing to do with weather.

    

    

4. If someone dies, we say he “bought the farm” or “kicked the bucket”yet dying has nothing to do with literally buying a farm or kicking a bucket.

Those are idiomatic expressions 
with a meaning different from 
the literal meaning of the words used.

Just so, the Greek word pais carried an idiomatic meaning for native Greek speakers for many centuries prior to Matthew writing his Gospel. The well-known, widely recognized idiomatic meaning of pais was "beloved or same sex lover."

That Matthew and Luke possibly used pais with the meaning of same sex lover raises the interesting possibility that Jesus met and blessed a gay centurion who was honest enough to tell Jesus he was gay.

Remember, in our story, the Centurion uses the word pais to describe his sick "servant." He is an utterly honest man and refuses to insult Jesus by asking for healing under false pretences. The gay Centurion openly admits to Jesus that he is a gay Centurion by using the Greek word pais to describe his servant.

From the same web site. 

We conclude that God can and does bless loving homosexual relationships like the one between a gay Centurion and his pais-beloved, as long as those relationships are within the Biblical moral framework - committed, faithful, noncultic.

Hmm.. Interesting interpretation. But I think that Jesus praised the man's faith. I was thinking about the verse about eunuchs:

Matthew 19:10-12. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

It means to me that Jesus tells them that there are certain people who are not able to get married because they are born that way.

But my problem is, if they are not born that way how can ministers perform same sex marriages under God?  Can you find some verses in favor of that? You would really do me a great favor on this one.

It only says it is better for a eunuch not to marry a women. It does not say they should not marry another eunuch, nor does it say a man should not marry a man, nor a woman marry another woman.  In fact perhaps what Jesus is saying to eunuchs who fall in love in love with women and women who fall in love with them would be better served by not marrying each other.

In our culture that might be the equilivant to telling people to accept their nature. Gay men would be happier if they marry other gay men, something the Queer movement has been saying.

It's good advice for those who can accept it.

Have you checked out the web site?

People are "born that way", that's absolutely certain. I know a few don't like to admit it but informed people acknowledge sexual orientation is determined prior to birth. That's what seals the deal for me. GOD is the author of creation. GOD made people black and white, tall and short, male and female, and gay and straight. Objecting to homosexuality is the same as telling GOD that HE was wrong to make humanity in the beautiful diversity that HE did. Since GOD made someone gay, who is anybody to tell them that they only get partial legal rights because of it.

Yes I checked out the website. It had the same points for same sex marriage that I had. I strongly support same-sex marriage as a civil right. What I'm trying to say is I think ministers should stay neutral on this one as long as there is no clear theological base.

jon71 "that's absolutely certain" Well, I'm not sure on that one because science says there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. But I support the right to get married.

WHOO HOOO!! 

THE FLAME WAR IS ON!!

man, its been awhile...

Just one question as this conversation really irks me...

If God did not make me, then who do you say did?

Some people (on both sides) prefer to argue "gay genes" and then when there is no proof, it leaves it open for the claim by some that GLBTQ people are not "made" that way.

The fact is, there is no "straight gene" either and most straight people I have ever met would claim they are "just that way" or "God made them that way".

GLBTQ people come from the same place straight people come from. The same processes, often biological, lead to one orientation or another. We understand the complexities of orientation, but not much of the origins of sexual orientation even when it is straight.

I prefer to leave genes out of it. Simply because there is as of yet, no "gay gene" and no "straight gene".

To me, I prefer talking about the biology of sexual attraction. There are biological elements to all forms of sexual orientation. There is psychology, neuroscience, endocrinology, genetics and evolutionary biology... there is also environment. Yet, the role environment plays cannot be the end all be all or even tantamount, simply because GLBTQ people tend to come from straight parents.

I tend to refer people to work done by the likes of Dr. Glenn Wilson and Dr. Qazi Rahman. Dr. Wilson is one of the top ten British scientists most cited in scientific journals.

I speak of sexuality being largely innate. That means inherent, unconditioned, natural, not learned, automatic....  I may argue that it is largely congenital - present at birth. I would not however argue it is hereditary or that it is aquired during fetal development (genes). Why? I cannot do so for a straight sexual orientation. Why would I be expected to do so for any other orientation?

That seems to ease confusion about "gay brains" and "gay genes". Sociological causes just have little to no foundation in fact. You cannot blame parents, television, teachers... absent mothers or overbearing fathers.... none of it works.

Why am I gay? 

Why are you not?

First of all ,ichthys, I  am happy to see you post and I agree with you.

" I support gay marriage."

Then we jump to marriage and  unions where we disagree. I also disagree with the stance of the United Church. There is a law in the land ; there is a General Council ruling and to my knowledge all Conferences agree with the  ruling BUT individual churches can say "NO". I don't understand this. I don't understand why all UCCAN  are not affirming churches.

Alex I understand the points you make - however as has been pointed out there is a difference with being an affirming church and a church that affrims. The first is a process and several ottawa churches are in the midst of that.  I have served several churches in Ottawa, some which had policies that the minister could marry within the church and some only outside.  It is the later that will begin to move toward an inside position and it comes when a member of the community has a family or is a member and wish to marry with the church.  Yes it is a slow process.

Many churches have some accessibility projects - some better than others.  The one I serve has a lift but the bathroom is  not accessible.  Yes it is not on the radar for some.  The irony is that the lift is not used - as I watch those with canes go down the stairs I wonder why? The church I retired from had one that all used and the bathrooms accessible - it was because ti was a newer church. 

By the way we have moved off the topic - and I think we can claim some high water with our 88 decision.  It helped move culture in a more inclusive way - as pointed out this issue has been slow in changing but attitudes have - it is always frustrating to have social change move in small steps but that is how it happens historically.

Stevie makes a good point so to say one orientation is good and the other bad ( or less than god's will) is off the mark - Actually God loves diversity of experience - so the issue ethical is action not what we are in orientation.  The end result is being gay or lesbian is ethical fine just as hetrosexuality is - so it is what we do and how loving we are.