Changes

*(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

*(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The uniquely compatible and complimentary union of the male and female, with the latter being distinctly made for the former, after others creations failed (Gn. 2:18-20),  and which joining of opposite genders Jesus affirmed as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together",  has historically been understood by Christians as being that which God sanctified by marriage. In contrast, in no place is marriage seen being established for homosexuals, rather it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with.  Liberal Christianity typically responds to this problem by relegating this exclusivity to being caused by the need for procreation, and by reading sex into relations between heterosexuals (or by denying it when it is in a bad light). In countering this, it is shown that the union of opposite genders was for more than procreation, (Song; Prv. 5:18,19; 1Cor. 7:2-5; 11:1-11) and that the radically new marriage pro homosexual writers seek lacks the necessary Biblical warrant, which even their best efforts cannot find. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women, also Eunuchs and Exegesis]</ref>

The uniquely compatible and complimentary union of the male and female, with the latter being distinctly made for the former, after others creations failed (Gn. 2:18-20),  and which joining of opposite genders Jesus affirmed as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together",  has historically been understood by Christians as being that which God sanctified by marriage. In contrast, in no place is marriage seen being established for homosexuals, rather it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with.  Liberal Christianity typically responds to this problem by relegating this exclusivity to being caused by the need for procreation, and by reading sex into relations between heterosexuals (or by denying it when it is in a bad light). In countering this, it is shown that the union of opposite genders was for more than procreation, (Song; Prv. 5:18,19; 1Cor. 7:2-5; 11:1-11) and that the radically new marriage pro homosexual writers seek lacks the necessary Biblical warrant, which even their best efforts cannot find.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women, also Eunuchs and Exegesis]</ref>

*(Gen 19:5-8)  "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

*(Gen 19:5-8)  "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

This text has generally being understood by Christians and certain first century Jews as manifesting attempted homosexual rape, with the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adding, in the words of Gordon Wenham, "a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected."<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html, Gordon Wenham, In addition, from it the term "sodomy" was derived. The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363]</ref> Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality)<ref>(Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)</ref> Most pro homosexuals in liberal Christianity seek to disallow a sexual meaning in Gn. 19 based upon the relative rare use of the Hebrew word "know" for sex,  though the offer of Lot's virgin daughters as well as the parallel story in Judges 19 best indicates a sexual meaning, while Jude 1:7 states fornication was an ongoing regional iniquity, including that of a perverse kind, culminating in catastrophic judgment.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html #19 Homosex versus the Bible, Genesis 19; Jude 1:7]</ref>   

This text has generally being understood by Christians and certain first century Jews as manifesting attempted homosexual rape, with the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adding, in the words of Gordon Wenham, "a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected."<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html, Gordon Wenham, In addition, from it the term "sodomy" was derived. The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363]</ref> Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality)<ref>(Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)</ref> Most pro homosexuals in liberal Christianity seek to disallow a sexual meaning in Gn. 19 based upon the relative rare use of the Hebrew word "know" for sex,  though the offer of Lot's virgin daughters as well as the parallel story in Judges 19 best indicates a sexual meaning, while Jude 1:7 states fornication was an ongoing regional iniquity, including that of a perverse kind, culminating in catastrophic judgment.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html #19 Homosex versus the Bible, Genesis 19; Jude 1:7]</ref>   

*(Lev 18:22)  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

*(Lev 18:22)  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

*(Lev 20:13)  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

*(Lev 20:13)  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Historically these texts have been held as universal condemnations of homosexual relations,  in distinction to being restricted to a religious context (Dt. 23:17,18) or as part of ceremonial law, while certain revisionists in liberal Christianity seek to relegate them to one of the latter two contexts, with traditionalists refuting such attempts.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref> <ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick]</ref><ref>(“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref> See [[Leviticus 18]]  

Historically these texts have been held as universal condemnations of homosexual relations,  in distinction to being restricted to a religious context (Dt. 23:17,18) or as part of ceremonial law, while certain revisionists in liberal Christianity seek to relegate them to one of the latter two contexts, with traditionalists refuting such attempts.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick]</ref><ref>(“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref> See [[Leviticus 18]]  

*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the apostle Paul appeals to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered them up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged their natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with them.  The various theories which pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>   

[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the apostle Paul appeals to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered them up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged their natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with them.  The various theories which pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>   

Traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best pertains to creation, not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations. In addition,  Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, and [[Greek Homosexuality|Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation."  The [[history of homosexuality]] also manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh

Traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best pertains to creation, not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations. In addition,  Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, and [[Greek Homosexuality|Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation."  The [[history of homosexuality]] also manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church]</ref><ref>Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture</ref><ref>[ http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement, Vincent McCann, Spotlight Ministries]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php Guenther Haas, Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>

Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church]</ref><ref>Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture</ref><ref>[ http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement, Vincent McCann, Spotlight Ministries]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php Guenther Haas, Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice]</ref> <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>

*(1 Cor 6:9)  "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

*(1 Cor 6:9)  "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

(1 Tim 1:9-10)  "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, {10} For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

(1 Tim 1:9-10)  "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, {10} For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

As this is the obscure term in the Greek, homosexual writers labor much on this in order in the hope of disallowing it from universally applying to  homosexuals, and and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses which counter them.<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11]</ref><ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith]</ref><ref>[http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals”] De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref><ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>.

As this is the obscure term in the Greek, homosexual writers labor much on this in order in the hope of disallowing it from universally applying to  homosexuals, and and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses which counter them.<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick]</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11]</ref><ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith]</ref><ref>[http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals”] De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref><ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>

==Historical teaching==

==Historical teaching==

While making a distinction for ceremonial laws, (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10ff; cf. Rm. 14; Gal. 4:10) consistent with its [[Jewish]] foundation, the New Testament church was instructed to uphold the moral laws of the [[Old Testament]], with abundant reinforcement of injunctions against illicit sexual partners. (Rm. 1:29; 2:22; 13:9, 1Co. 5:1; 6:13, 8; 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Jam. 2:11; Rev. 2:22 21:25; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2)  

While making a distinction for ceremonial laws, (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10ff; cf. Rm. 14; Gal. 4:10) consistent with its [[Jewish]] foundation, the New Testament church was instructed to uphold the moral laws of the [[Old Testament]], with abundant reinforcement of injunctions against illicit sexual partners. (Rm. 1:29; 2:22; 13:9, 1Co. 5:1; 6:13, 8; 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Jam. 2:11; Rev. 2:22 21:25; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2)  

As Gagnon notes, not only in Scripture but every extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.<ref>The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref> And that rather than lessening moral restrictions, Jesus  instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment.<ref> http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm</ref> And in so doing, the man and the women are specified as the "what" that God uniquely joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.htm The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7: Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref> <ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf Gagnon, why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>

As Gagnon notes, not only in Scripture but every extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.<ref>The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref> And that rather than lessening moral restrictions, Jesus  instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm</ref> And in so doing, the man and the women are specified as the "what" that God uniquely joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.htm The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7: Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf Gagnon, why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>

That Judaism held homosexual relations to be sinful is seen by Jewish commentary.   

That Judaism held homosexual relations to be sinful is seen by Jewish commentary.   

*181 AD Theophilus of Antioch: Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.. [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things.. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire. (To Autolycus 1:14).

*181 AD Theophilus of Antioch: Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.. [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things.. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire. (To Autolycus 1:14).

*190 AD Clement of Alexandria: All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" … [According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Elusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight--pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records" … "It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these--so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2).

*190 AD Clement of Alexandria: All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" … [According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Elusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight—pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records" … "It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these--so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2).

*220AD Tertullian: [A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4).

*220AD Tertullian: [A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4).

*250 AD Novatian: [God forbid the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the Law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3).

*250 AD Novatian: [God forbid the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the Law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3).

*253 AD Cyprian of Carthage: [T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon--oh shame!--and looked upon with pleasure. . . . nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion. (Letters 1:8).

*253 AD Cyprian of Carthage: [T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!--and looked upon with pleasure. . . . nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion. (Letters 1:8).

*Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312); Commentary on the sin of Sodom: But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.

*Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312); Commentary on the sin of Sodom: But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.

It has become apparent that many churches which were once committed to Scripture and overall held to biblical positions on homosexuality have increasingly yielded to the influence of liberalism on this issues. The Dr. A. L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod states that two reasons for these changes in some churches is that 'First, homosexual groups within these churches often engage in "lobbying" efforts and gain considerable influence. Second and more important, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed as a result of changing attitudes toward the authority and reliability of the Holy Scriptures."<ref>[http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_homosexuality.pdf What about homosexuality]</ref>

It has become apparent that many churches which were once committed to Scripture and overall held to biblical positions on homosexuality have increasingly yielded to the influence of liberalism on this issues. The Dr. A. L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod states that two reasons for these changes in some churches is that 'First, homosexual groups within these churches often engage in "lobbying" efforts and gain considerable influence. Second and more important, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed as a result of changing attitudes toward the authority and reliability of the Holy Scriptures."<ref>[http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_homosexuality.pdf What about homosexuality]</ref>

As concerns the second aspect, evidence is seen which indicates that the degree of fidelity to the historic teaching on homosexual relations among denominations and believers usually corresponds to their view of the Bible. Fundamental, [[evangelical]] type churches hold to the historic position of plenary Divine inspiration, along with a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives are disallowed. This position basically understands that God, as the author of Holy Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, and that His basic doctrines and laws on attitude and behavior, including as regards sexual partners, transcend time and culture. They affirm as critical such doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His  literal vicarious death and resurrection, and second coming. In contrast, the revisionism of [[liberal Christianity]] typically denies the full Divine inspiration of the Bible, and also can easily allow denial of the immutability and universality of basic moral commands, such as regards sexual partners. This movement of [[liberalism]] began during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which was helped by the rise of [[evolution]], as both share a common motivation. (cf. Is. 30:9-11; Rm. 8:7; 1Cor. 2:14) <ref>Julian Huxley And The Idolatry Of Evolution, The American Thinker, September 16, 2007</ref>  Louis Cassels, the religion editor for many years for United Press International, <ref>Informational, and overall fair analysis, though the missionary effects are an effect of the evangelical gospel, not the cause of its growth</ref> states that such,   

As concerns the second aspect, evidence is seen which indicates that the degree of fidelity to the historic teaching on homosexual relations among denominations and believers usually corresponds to their view of the Bible. Fundamental, [[evangelical]] type churches hold to the historic position of plenary Divine inspiration, along with a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives are disallowed. This position basically understands that God, as the author of Holy Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, and that His basic doctrines and laws on attitude and behavior, including as regards sexual partners, transcend time and culture. They affirm as critical such doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His  literal vicarious death and resurrection, and second coming. In contrast, the revisionism of [[liberal Christianity]] typically denies the full Divine inspiration of the Bible, and also can easily allow denial of the immutability and universality of basic moral commands, such as regards sexual partners. This movement of [[liberalism]] began during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which was helped by the rise of [[evolution]], as both share a common motivation. (cf. Is. 30:9-11; Rm. 8:7; 1Cor. 2:14) <ref>Julian Huxley And The Idolatry Of Evolution, The American Thinker, September 16, 2007</ref>  Louis Cassels, the religion editor for many years for United Press International,<ref>Informational, and overall fair analysis, though the missionary effects are an effect of the evangelical gospel, not the cause of its growth</ref> states that such,   

refused to accord any special authority to the Scriptures. They increasingly came to look upon the Bible simply as an ancient book which might, if subjected to proper critical study, yield some reliable data about the life of Jesus and the history of Israel. This attitude was reflected in the vogue of "higher criticism" which swept through German theological schools in the nineteenth century....   

refused to accord any special authority to the Scriptures. They increasingly came to look upon the Bible simply as an ancient book which might, if subjected to proper critical study, yield some reliable data about the life of Jesus and the history of Israel. This attitude was reflected in the vogue of "higher criticism" which swept through German theological schools in the nineteenth century....   

This god the product of human reason, and is consistent with what Paul describes in [[Romans 1]]:25, which is idolatry, and those who worship at that altar typically sanction homosexual relations.  

This god the product of human reason, and is consistent with what Paul describes in [[Romans 1]]:25, which is idolatry, and those who worship at that altar typically sanction homosexual relations.  

Less extreme liberals, who may be termed Modern Orthodox, continue to uphold the Deity of Christ and other primary doctrines, and some officially hold the Bible to be wholly inspired, but render many historical miraculous accounts to be fables, designed to teach a lesson, but not historical fact, and also  overall do not emphasis the authority of the Bible in practical application. These tend to subscribe to the "historical-critical method," which tends to disallow the miraculous in favor of natural explanations.<ref>[http://www.brfwitness.org/?p=603 The Bible’s Deadly Enemy, BRF Witness]</ref>, contrary to conservatives, <ref>[http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/HistCrit.htm The historical-critical method, by Barry D. Smith</ref> Such also hold to the liberal revisionist "Documentary Source Hypothesis", which renders the Bible to be the work of  editors who edited it over long periods of time, rather than what the text states.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref> Many in this camp, in contrast to New Testament Christianity, are likely to doctrinally compromise on popular moral issues, or allow such in their denomination, and their doctrinal statements  regarding the Bible tend to lack doctrinal depth and firmness.   

Less extreme liberals, who may be termed Modern Orthodox, continue to uphold the Deity of Christ and other primary doctrines, and some officially hold the Bible to be wholly inspired, but render many historical miraculous accounts to be fables, designed to teach a lesson, but not historical fact, and also  overall do not emphasis the authority of the Bible in practical application. These tend to subscribe to the "historical-critical method," which tends to disallow the miraculous in favor of natural explanations.,<ref>[http://www.brfwitness.org/?p=603 The Bible’s Deadly Enemy, BRF Witness]</ref> contrary to conservatives,<ref>[http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/HistCrit.htm The historical-critical method, by Barry D. Smith]</ref> Such also hold to the liberal revisionist "Documentary Source Hypothesis", which renders the Bible to be the work of  editors who edited it over long periods of time, rather than what the text states.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref> Many in this camp, in contrast to New Testament Christianity, are likely to doctrinally compromise on popular moral issues, or allow such in their denomination, and their doctrinal statements  regarding the Bible tend to lack doctrinal depth and firmness.   

Evangelical Christianity (which, as defined by Barna research, makes up approx. 6-7 percent of the United States <ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/111-survey-explores-who-qualifies-as-an-evangelical Survey Explores Who Qualifies As an Evangelical, The Barna Group, Ltd.]</ref><ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/173-godless-hollywood-bible-belt-new-research-exploring-faith-in-americas-largest-markets-produces-surprises]</ref>  is more distinctive in that it holds to [[sola scriptura]], that the Bible is the final, but not the only, authority, wholly inspired by God and inerrant, although most hold that this refers to the original  manuscripts. Their scholars hold to the historical contextual and grammatical method, which understands Scripture in the light of its immediate and larger contexts, as well as linguistically aspects  , and affirms its statements as accurate and true, within their respective literary  genres, in contrast to revisionist theories designed to negate its authority.<ref>[http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugHC.pdf  Why the Historical-Critical Method of Interpreting Scripture is Incompatible with Confessional Lutheranism. by John F. Brug]</ref> Such also hold to [[salvation]] by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ and His sinless shed blood, by which the contrite and repentant soul is justified before God, not on the basis of merit gained by their own works. <ref>Ibid. Barna.org </ref>

Evangelical Christianity (which, as defined by Barna research, makes up approx. 6-7 percent of the United States <ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/111-survey-explores-who-qualifies-as-an-evangelical Survey Explores Who Qualifies As an Evangelical, The Barna Group, Ltd.]</ref><ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/173-godless-hollywood-bible-belt-new-research-exploring-faith-in-americas-largest-markets-produces-surprises]</ref>  is more distinctive in that it holds to [[sola scriptura]], that the Bible is the final, but not the only, authority, wholly inspired by God and inerrant, although most hold that this refers to the original  manuscripts. Their scholars hold to the historical contextual and grammatical method, which understands Scripture in the light of its immediate and larger contexts, as well as linguistically aspects  , and affirms its statements as accurate and true, within their respective literary  genres, in contrast to revisionist theories designed to negate its authority.<ref>[http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugHC.pdf  Why the Historical-Critical Method of Interpreting Scripture is Incompatible with Confessional Lutheranism. by John F. Brug]</ref> Such also hold to [[salvation]] by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ and His sinless shed blood, by which the contrite and repentant soul is justified before God, not on the basis of merit gained by their own works.<ref>Ibid. Barna.org</ref>

==Positions on homosexuality by religious type==

==Positions on homosexuality by religious type==

===Alliance of Baptists===

===Alliance of Baptists===

The Alliance of Baptists--representing a small minority of Baptists--expresses that the Bible is an inadequate basis of authority, with human experience and science being able to sanction homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, as wells as to sanction "committed" sexual relationships outside marriage.<ref>1999 "Report on the Task Force on Human Sexuality"</ref><ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-04-28 The Alliance of Baptists Affirms Same-Sex Marriage]</ref><ref>[ http://www.baptist2baptist.org/b2barticle.asp?ID=266 For the Bible tells me so. by Russell D. Moore November 2000]</ref>  

The Alliance of Baptists—representing a small minority of Baptists—expresses that the Bible is an inadequate basis of authority, with human experience and science being able to sanction homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, as wells as to sanction "committed" sexual relationships outside marriage.<ref>1999 "Report on the Task Force on Human Sexuality"</ref><ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-04-28 The Alliance of Baptists Affirms Same-Sex Marriage]</ref><ref>[ http://www.baptist2baptist.org/b2barticle.asp?ID=266 For the Bible tells me so. by Russell D. Moore November 2000]</ref>  

===Anglican/Episcopal===  

===Anglican/Episcopal===  

The Anglican Communion's North American provinces allow a more subjective basis for interpreting the Bible, provoking vigorous opposition from the majority of the Communion's provinces elsewhere. Anglican authorities such as Archbishop Alan Harper, Anglican Primate of Ireland, and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have argued against the Biblical injunctions on homosexuality. These are refuted by Robert A. J. Gagnon and other conservatives.<ref>[http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2008/20080707gagnon.pdf The Faulty Orientation Argument of Anglican Archbishop Harper of Ireland, by Robert A J Gagnon]</ref> <ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RowanWilliams%27WrongReading.htm Rowan Williams’ Wrong Reading of Romans, Gagnon] </ref>  A theology committee for the House of Bishops for the Episcopal Church rejected same-sex rites after 18 months of study. In 1998, the world's Anglican prelates voted that sex between homosexuals is ‘incompatible with Scripture’ at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in Canterbury, England.” <ref>Saunders and Duin, "Church Elects Its First Gay Bishop", The Washington Times</ref>  

The Anglican Communion's North American provinces allow a more subjective basis for interpreting the Bible, provoking vigorous opposition from the majority of the Communion's provinces elsewhere. Anglican authorities such as Archbishop Alan Harper, Anglican Primate of Ireland, and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have argued against the Biblical injunctions on homosexuality. These are refuted by Robert A. J. Gagnon and other conservatives.<ref>[http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2008/20080707gagnon.pdf The Faulty Orientation Argument of Anglican Archbishop Harper of Ireland, by Robert A J Gagnon]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RowanWilliams%27WrongReading.htm Rowan Williams’ Wrong Reading of Romans, Gagnon]</ref>  A theology committee for the House of Bishops for the Episcopal Church rejected same-sex rites after 18 months of study. In 1998, the world's Anglican prelates voted that sex between homosexuals is ‘incompatible with Scripture’ at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in Canterbury, England.” <ref>Saunders and Duin, "Church Elects Its First Gay Bishop", The Washington Times</ref>  

The attitude of the Episcopal Church toward homosexuality is partly seen in its reaction to the election of an openly gay, non-celibate priest, [[Gene Robinson]], the father of two grown daughters who had lived openly with another man for 13 years, as Bishop. On June 7 2003, the [[New Hampshire]] diocese of the Episcopal Church elected Robinson as its Bishop. The national church approved this, with 62 of 107 bishops convening at the  General Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. on Aug. 5, voting to support the canon. Robinson met his current partner in 1988, and their house was blessed by Bishop Douglas Theuner. In 2008 they were legally "married" under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with Robinson claiming to be a June "bride."  Robinson later revealed that he struggled with [[alcoholism]] for years. <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2167942/posts Robinson's speech: Divisive, as expected]</ref><ref>http://lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2009/01/bishop-gene-robinson-rick-warren-barak.html</ref><ref>Gay Episcopal Bishop Prepares for June Wedding, U/Miami News Service, December 4, 2007</ref>  In April, 2005, Robinson promoted Planned Parenthood  targeting "people of faith" to promote abortion rights and comprehensive sex education. He also attacked traditional interpretations regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]], and exhorted, "The story of freedom in Exodus is our story. ... That's my story, and they can't have it."<ref>Gay bishop backs Planned Parenthood, The Washington Times, April 15, 2005</ref>  Robinson's ordination and his positions here are seen to manifest a "different Jesus" and Spirit (2Cor. 11:4; Jude 1:4,11,12).

The attitude of the Episcopal Church toward homosexuality is partly seen in its reaction to the election of an openly gay, non-celibate priest, [[Gene Robinson]], the father of two grown daughters who had lived openly with another man for 13 years, as Bishop. On June 7, 2003, the [[New Hampshire]] diocese of the Episcopal Church elected Robinson as its Bishop. The national church approved this, with 62 of 107 bishops convening at the  General Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. on Aug. 5, voting to support the canon. Robinson met his current partner in 1988, and their house was blessed by Bishop Douglas Theuner. In 2008 they were legally "married" under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with Robinson claiming to be a June "bride."  Robinson later revealed that he struggled with [[alcoholism]] for years.<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2167942/posts Robinson's speech: Divisive, as expected]</ref><ref>http://lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2009/01/bishop-gene-robinson-rick-warren-barak.html</ref><ref>Gay Episcopal Bishop Prepares for June Wedding, U/Miami News Service, December 4, 2007</ref>  In April, 2005, Robinson promoted Planned Parenthood  targeting "people of faith" to promote abortion rights and comprehensive sex education. He also attacked traditional interpretations regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]], and exhorted, "The story of freedom in Exodus is our story. ... That's my story, and they can't have it."<ref>Gay bishop backs Planned Parenthood, The Washington Times, April 15, 2005</ref>  Robinson's ordination and his positions here are seen to manifest a "different Jesus" and Spirit (2Cor. 11:4; Jude 1:4,11,12).

In 2009, the Episcopal Church's triennial national convention in Anaheim, Calif., passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of sodomite bishops. Though officials did not created liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, they approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships.<ref>Washingtonpost.com,  July 18, 2009;  "Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions"</ref>

In 2009, the Episcopal Church's triennial national convention in Anaheim, Calif., passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of sodomite bishops. Though officials did not created liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, they approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships.<ref>Washingtonpost.com,  July 18, 2009;  "Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions"</ref>

On May 15, 2010, the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of [[Los Angeles]] ordained lesbian Mary Glasspool, of Baltimore, before 3,000 people, who burst into applause at the end.<ref>Associated Press, May 15, 2010</ref> <ref>http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100514/episcopal-church-set-to-ordain-lesbian-bishop/print.html</ref> This is the first time a lesbian ha been ordained in any church calling itself Christian, it being contrary to the source of the term, the Bible, (Acts 11:26) which condemns homosexuality, and which also upholds the headship of the man.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html</ref>

On May 15, 2010, the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of [[Los Angeles]] ordained lesbian Mary Glasspool, of Baltimore, before 3,000 people, who burst into applause at the end.<ref>Associated Press, May 15, 2010</ref><ref>http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100514/episcopal-church-set-to-ordain-lesbian-bishop/print.html</ref> This is the first time a lesbian ha been ordained in any church calling itself Christian, it being contrary to the source of the term, the Bible, (Acts 11:26) which condemns homosexuality, and which also upholds the headship of the man.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html</ref>

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. affiliate of the Anglican Communion, is divided over homosexuality and same-sex '''marriages.''' This is expressed in the ''Report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church''. This also states that "The Church vigorously denounces  discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation, [4.5]  An example of this was seen in 2005, when six priests faced being defrocked by the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut because of their refusal to abide by the ECUSA's practice of ordaining homosexuals and conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies.  One of the six, Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Darien, confirmed there was a deep chasm between conservative priests and leaders of the diocese over biblical authority. "The Bible's very clear," he stated, "that the only acceptable expression of intimacy, in human beings, is between a man and a woman for life, and we call it holy wedlock. And the recent decisions of the Episcopal Church fly in the face of the scriptures and of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and world Christianity."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/52005c.asp</ref>

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. affiliate of the Anglican Communion, is divided over homosexuality and same-sex '''marriages.''' This is expressed in the ''Report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church''. This also states that "The Church vigorously denounces  discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation, [4.5]  An example of this was seen in 2005, when six priests faced being defrocked by the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut because of their refusal to abide by the ECUSA's practice of ordaining homosexuals and conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies.  One of the six, Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Darien, confirmed there was a deep chasm between conservative priests and leaders of the diocese over biblical authority. "The Bible's very clear," he stated, "that the only acceptable expression of intimacy, in human beings, is between a man and a woman for life, and we call it holy wedlock. And the recent decisions of the Episcopal Church fly in the face of the scriptures and of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and world Christianity."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/52005c.asp</ref>

The Assemblies of God is clear and detailed in stating that it holds the Bible to be wholly inspired and inerrant (in the original).<ref>[http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm#1 Our 16 Fundamental Truths The Scriptures Inspired]</ref><ref>[http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4175_inerrancy.pdf The inerrancy of Scripture]</ref> Its position on homosexuality states, in part,  

The Assemblies of God is clear and detailed in stating that it holds the Bible to be wholly inspired and inerrant (in the original).<ref>[http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm#1 Our 16 Fundamental Truths The Scriptures Inspired]</ref><ref>[http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4175_inerrancy.pdf The inerrancy of Scripture]</ref> Its position on homosexuality states, in part,  

{{cquote|Homosexual behavior is sin because it is disobedient to scriptural teachings. Writers sympathetic to the homosexual community have advanced revisionist interpretations of relevant biblical texts that are based upon biased exegesis and mistranslation. In effect, they seek to set aside almost 2,000 years of Christian Biblical interpretation and ethical teachings. We believe these efforts are reflective of the conditions described in 2Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual activity found anywhere in Scripture. <ref>[http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf Homosexuality]</ref>}}

{{cquote|Homosexual behavior is sin because it is disobedient to scriptural teachings. Writers sympathetic to the homosexual community have advanced revisionist interpretations of relevant biblical texts that are based upon biased exegesis and mistranslation. In effect, they seek to set aside almost 2,000 years of Christian Biblical interpretation and ethical teachings. We believe these efforts are reflective of the conditions described in 2Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual activity found anywhere in Scripture.<ref>[http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf Homosexuality]</ref>}}

===The Christian and Missionary Alliance===

===The Christian and Missionary Alliance===

===Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod===  

===Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod===  

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) holds that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and only the source of doctrine. It "Rule of faith" is judged by it.   

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) holds that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and only the source of doctrine. It "Rule of faith" is judged by it.   

The "Holy Scriptures are the Word of God...they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.<ref>[http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=563  Of the Holy Scriptures]</ref>     

The "Holy Scriptures are the Word of God...they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.<ref>[http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=563  Of the Holy Scriptures]</ref>     

Similar to the United Methodists, its position on homosexuality appears to be in a state of flux. In Jun. 28 2008, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s highest governing body voted Friday in favor of a proposal that would allow for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. In addition it was proposed that the requirement in the Book of Order, section G-6.0106bbe, be deleted which required clergy to live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness".  Question 87 of the catechism states, "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?" "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'" <ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1178 A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy]</ref> More recently (March 2009) the Charlotte Presbytery also recommenced ending their denomination's longstanding ban on gays and lesbians becoming pastors and elders.<ref>http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/03/the-pcusa-inches-closer-to-ord.php</ref> However, on April 27, 2009, a slim majority of the presbyteries voted against the proposed amendment, 89 to 69. Terry Schlossberg, of the conservative Presbyterian Coalition, said ``those who wish to change the biblically rooted standard have continually pressed the matter and required repeated votes that have had the same impact each time." This is the fourth time in the past twelve years that the proposal to amend the Presbyterian Church's constitution has been defeated in official presbyterial voting.<ref>http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/04/presbyterians-defeat-move-to-a.php</ref>

Similar to the United Methodists, its position on homosexuality appears to be in a state of flux. In Jun. 28 2008, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s highest governing body voted Friday in favor of a proposal that would allow for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. In addition it was proposed that the requirement in the Book of Order, section G-6.0106bbe, be deleted which required clergy to live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness".  Question 87 of the catechism states, "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?" "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'" <ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1178 A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy]</ref> More recently (March 2009) the Charlotte Presbytery also recommenced ending their denomination's longstanding ban on gays and lesbians becoming pastors and elders.<ref>http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/03/the-pcusa-inches-closer-to-ord.php</ref> However, on April 27, 2009, a slim majority of the presbyteries voted against the proposed amendment, 89 to 69. Terry Schlossberg, of the conservative Presbyterian Coalition, said ``those who wish to change the biblically rooted standard have continually pressed the matter and required repeated votes that have had the same impact each time." This is the fourth time in the past twelve years that the proposal to amend the Presbyterian Church's constitution has been defeated in official presbyterial voting.<ref>http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/04/presbyterians-defeat-move-to-a.php</ref>

Nevertheless, in certain doctrinal matters, many conservatives see a manifest discrepancy between officially taught and is often allowed. States Dr. D. Dean Weaver, senior pastor of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh and co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches (a network of dissident Presbyterians), "We think there is an unfortunate but clear distinction between what is on paper and what is the working theology of the denomination."<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070626/conservative-presbyterians-pc-usa-not-walking-the-talk/index.html</ref> Adds Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, "The written standards of the denomination are precisely correct, but they are largely ignored."  "And so, quoting the standard is pointless."<ref> Rev. Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, according to Presbyweb</ref>  

Nevertheless, in certain doctrinal matters, many conservatives see a manifest discrepancy between officially taught and is often allowed. States Dr. D. Dean Weaver, senior pastor of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh and co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches (a network of dissident Presbyterians), "We think there is an unfortunate but clear distinction between what is on paper and what is the working theology of the denomination."<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070626/conservative-presbyterians-pc-usa-not-walking-the-talk/index.html</ref> Adds Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, "The written standards of the denomination are precisely correct, but they are largely ignored."  "And so, quoting the standard is pointless."<ref>Rev. Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, according to Presbyweb</ref>  

===Roman Catholic Church===  

===Roman Catholic Church===  

In the Catholic Encyclopedia (Broderick) it states, based upon the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1990)  

In the Catholic Encyclopedia (Broderick) it states, based upon the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1990)  

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society....no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For, according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the consequence of rejecting God."<ref> Robert Broderick, Ed., "Catholic Encyclopedia: Revised and updated edition," Nelson, (1987), Page 272a</ref>

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society....no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For, according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the consequence of rejecting God."<ref>Robert Broderick, Ed., "Catholic Encyclopedia: Revised and updated edition," Nelson, (1987), Page 272a</ref>

In "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" (2006),  American bishops stated, in part,  

In "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" (2006),  American bishops stated, in part,  

The largest Protestant denomination within the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, clearly and concisely states that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, that  

The largest Protestant denomination within the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, clearly and concisely states that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, that  

It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."<ref>[http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp The Baptist Faith and Message]</ref>  "Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word."<ref<[http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pscreeds.asp  Position Statements<ref>Creeds and Confessions]</ref>  Baptists have accepted the Bible as the sole authority for matters of faith and practice.<ref> Resolution On The Bible June 1978</ref>   

It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."<ref>[http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp The Baptist Faith and Message]</ref>  "Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word."<ref>[http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pscreeds.asp  Position Statements<ref>Creeds and Confessions]</ref>  Baptists have accepted the Bible as the sole authority for matters of faith and practice.<ref>Resolution On The Bible June 1978</ref>   

Regarding homosexuality:

Regarding homosexuality:

The United Church of Christ provides little in the way of official position on the Bible. The Constitution and Bylaws of the United Church of Christ mentions the scriptures/Bible once, stating  that "It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world."  

The United Church of Christ provides little in the way of official position on the Bible. The Constitution and Bylaws of the United Church of Christ mentions the scriptures/Bible once, stating  that "It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world."  

Its overarching goal is unity, and as such "The UCC has no rigid formulation of doctrine or attachment to creeds or structures."<ref>www.ucc.org, "What we believe"</ref>  The United Church of Christ publishes The New Century Hymnal, which is the only hymnal released by a Christian church that honors in equal measure both male and female images of God.<ref>UCC 'Firsts'</ref>

Its overarching goal is unity, and as such "The UCC has no rigid formulation of doctrine or attachment to creeds or structures."<ref>http://www.ucc.org, "What we believe"</ref>  The United Church of Christ publishes The New Century Hymnal, which is the only hymnal released by a Christian church that honors in equal measure both male and female images of God.<ref>UCC 'Firsts'</ref>

Far more is expressed in its Constitution and Bylaws as regards homosexuality, which it promotes more than any other major liberal denomination, sanctioning the ''United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns'', which

Far more is expressed in its Constitution and Bylaws as regards homosexuality, which it promotes more than any other major liberal denomination, sanctioning the ''United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns'', which

is composed of members and friends of the United Church of Christ who affirm the good news that all persons of all sexual orientations are loved and empowered by God. The Coalition actively works to combat prejudice and seeks justice for, and the full inclusion and involvement of, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Christians in all expressions of the United Church of Christ...   

is composed of members and friends of the United Church of Christ who affirm the good news that all persons of all sexual orientations are loved and empowered by God. The Coalition actively works to combat prejudice and seeks justice for, and the full inclusion and involvement of, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Christians in all expressions of the United Church of Christ...   

On July 4, 2005, the UCC General Synod overwhelming backed a [[same-sex marriage]] resolution,  "affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages." This made the UCC the first among major U.S. Christian denominations to promote same-sex marriage rights. <ref> N.Y. Times, July 5, 2005; United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage By SHAILA DEWAN</ref>

On July 4, 2005, the UCC General Synod overwhelming backed a [[same-sex marriage]] resolution,  "affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages." This made the UCC the first among major U.S. Christian denominations to promote same-sex marriage rights.<ref>N.Y. Times, July 5, 2005; United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage By SHAILA DEWAN</ref>

Some dissident groups within the UCC made moves to separate themselves from this decision, such as  The Biblical Witness Fellowship.<ref>http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/United_Church_of_Christ/id/2037154</ref>

Some dissident groups within the UCC made moves to separate themselves from this decision, such as  The Biblical Witness Fellowship.<ref>http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/United_Church_of_Christ/id/2037154</ref>

===United Methodist Church===

===United Methodist Church===

Official United Methodist statements on the Bible lack depth and detail. It holds that the Bible is inspired by God and contains all things necessary to salvation.<ref>[http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649  The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, V-VIII]</ref> It overall manifests that it allows subjective sources to alter basic moral teaching. <ref>Commentary: Do United Methodist Bishops Really Value Christian Unity? By John Lomperis</ref>   

Official United Methodist statements on the Bible lack depth and detail. It holds that the Bible is inspired by God and contains all things necessary to salvation.<ref>[http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649  The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, V-VIII]</ref> It overall manifests that it allows subjective sources to alter basic moral teaching.<ref>Commentary: Do United Methodist Bishops Really Value Christian Unity? By John Lomperis</ref>   

Homosexuals are allowed to be members, but "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as [ministerial]] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." However, it has yet to firmly resolve the issue (to stand with the Bible), and considers this a debatable subject.<ref>Leader Resources, What is the denomination’s position on homosexuality? Book of Resolutions. See also Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985</ref> It yet supports traditional marriage, though not distinctive gender roles as being normative in such,<ref>The Nurturing Community</ref> and strongly supports ordaining women as pastors over men.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are women pastors Biblical?]</ref> It opposes [[homophobia]] as well as heterosexism, such as provides "a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals" (which the Bible promotes), and supports equal civil rights for homosexuals<ref>Book of Resolutions, Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism</ref><ref>The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008</ref>  (the sexual practice of said persons the Bible criminalizes). Liberal activists within the church continue to promote acceptance of homosexuality, with conservatives opposing.<ref>The Dallas Morning News, May 3, 2008: Hundreds protest Methodist church's stance on homosexuality at Fort Worth conference</ref>

Homosexuals are allowed to be members, but "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as [[ministerial]] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." However, it has yet to firmly resolve the issue (to stand with the Bible), and considers this a debatable subject.<ref>Leader Resources, What is the denomination’s position on homosexuality? Book of Resolutions. See also Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985</ref> It yet supports traditional marriage, though not distinctive gender roles as being normative in such,<ref>The Nurturing Community</ref> and strongly supports ordaining women as pastors over men.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are women pastors Biblical?]</ref> It opposes [[homophobia]] as well as heterosexism, such as provides "a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals" (which the Bible promotes), and supports equal civil rights for homosexuals<ref>Book of Resolutions, Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism</ref><ref>The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008</ref>  (the sexual practice of said persons the Bible criminalizes). Liberal activists within the church continue to promote acceptance of homosexuality, with conservatives opposing.<ref>The Dallas Morning News, May 3, 2008: Hundreds protest Methodist church's stance on homosexuality at Fort Worth conference</ref>

== See also ==

== See also ==