US Presbyterian Church Holds The Line Against Homosexual Clergy

By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiApril 27, 2009 ( - The US Presbyterian Church’s (PCUSA) constitutional requirement that its ministers and elders practice “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness” has again withstood an…

Full article…

My neighbor is a member of the Presbyterian Church. Every year that they vote on this issue, he sweats this vote and says that if they ever approve of homosexuality, he will no longer be a member. However, the vote was 89 to 69. Are the pro-homosexual votes gaining momentum with each vote?


Commenting on the relentless attack of homosexualists on the Presbyterian Church’s stand on moral orthodoxy, Wisdom stated, “This is fourth time in 12 years that PCUSA presbyteries have voted on sexuality standards. Each time they have upheld ‘fidelity and chastity.’ If ever there were a case when the church had made up its mind on an issue, this is it. Faithful Presbyterians ask the proponents of non-marital relationships to stop forcing this divisive issue and instead endeavor to live within the church’s constitution.”

What a niave statement. To see what the goals are for the forces that oppose him, Wisdom only need look at the TEC and Anglican Communion. They will not stop until they have destroyed Bibical Orthodoxy in the PCUSA. They will work to erode the work of Christ and drown out the Holy Spirit and gain more votes next time. Unless the Orthodox are on their knees praying and actively thwarting their efforts It is not over by a long shot.

Yes, apparently. In 2001, the vote was against gay clergy was by a 3:1 margin.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that: "gay rights groups cheered what they called a “historic shift” in the number of Presbyterians who supported the measure."

Thank you. It looks like it will pass next time then, unless God intervenes. They only need a simple majority, which means just “one” vote more than the opposing side, in order to pass legislation.


I think I saw numbers for at least three votes, but I can’t remember over how many years it encompassed. I do recall that the vote is getting closer each time. No doubt it will pass within a few years at best.

First what is a homosexualist? I have never heard that term. I’d hardly call 4 times in 12 years relentless. As far as I can see, no one is forcing anyone to vote against their will. Apparently more and more people are coming to the conclusion that this is the right vote.

No doubt there is an attempt to vision Christ and the message of the Gospel in a different and just perhaps more correct way. Many many experts don’t agree that rightly understood the, bible really makes much of a stance against homosexuality. But that is another issue.

Of Course it does when “rightly understood”. Problem being the many you write of do not correctly understand. You are right of course that this is another issue and should be left fo another thread.


  1. homosexualist

Gay or queer. As popularized by Daffyd from Little Britain
Daffyd is a homosexualist and a gayer.

  1. homosexualist

The cool way of saying homosexual.
"Your mom must be a homosexualist"
3. homosexualist

The term homosexualist, as popularised by Matt Lucas’s character Daffyd Thomas, is a useful one to mean those active homosexuals who are trying to make it compulsory for all. The term could extend to those try to force their own ideas on supposed equality for those of peculiar sexuality. It definitely includes those types who consider their same sex proclivities to be far superior to heterosexuals.
As an active homosexualist I am supporting the rights of men to marry each other and their absolute right for these relationships to produce children just as heterosexual marriage does. Governments should pay for all necessary medical expenditure to achieve this outcome.

Many many experts don’t agree

If you are going to try to bolster your arguments by claiming experts agree with you, at least document your source.

Thank you for the definition. I had not heard that before.

Why should government pay for all “necessary” medical expenditures to help men bear children? I fail to see this as a function for government’s use of taxpayer money. (This could be another thread: “USA Government’s misuse of taxpayers’ money” since the Federal government should be extremely limited in its power to mandate “programs” other than for defense, national security, roads, bridges, etc.)

Since Scripture states that those who practice homosexuality (uncleanness, lewdness) will not inherit eternal life, I think that should be reason enough to believe that it is not pleasing to God. No sexual activity is allowed except for sex between married spouses (one man and one woman exclusively until death do they part).

Mark 10:6-9 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

What does God think of sexual acts between “unmarried” persons?

Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Marriage is defined by God Himself as being between a man and a woman who join together to become one flesh with His blessing until death; homosexual unions do not fit this definition. Marriage is biological and sacramental.

Call “unions” between men with men or women with women by some other name since it does not fit God’s definition of “marriage.” God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (Hebrews 13:8); so He won’t be changing His definition of marriage and since He is the ultimate judge, I think it best to listen to Him!

For a glimpse of God’s opinion of homosexual acts:

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

Romans 1:18, 24-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them…24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

SHW is a useful guide to slang, but I think their definition is not what MarkBrown had in mind. Perhaps we should allow him to speak for himself, but I will give you an idea why I think UrbanDictionary’s definitions aren’t relevant in this case.

Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, in 1995, published an odd book called The Pink Swastika. In it they claim that Hitler was a gay prostitute and essentially they say that Nazism was a homosexual movement. They used the term “homosexualist” to refer to anyone who helps to advance what the modern day Religious Right refers to as “the homosexual agenda.” So in Lively and Abrams views, gays are homosexuals. But homosexualists could be gay or straight.

The word “homosexualist” apparently has been bouncing around the anti-gay movement since the publication of that book and has gradually become more wide spread as Lively’s star has risen. Its not unusual to see the word used on such sites as LifeSite News or World Net Daily.

At any rate, that is my guess of what MarkBrown meant when he used the word “homosexualist.” But I guess we will have to wait for him to return and clarify it for us.

Yes we all have our opinions of what is “rightly understood” don’t we? It’s best we keep reminding ourselves that in that end, that’s all they are–opinions.

So it’s a made up word from a fictional account? how quaint.

I’m sure you don’t actually believe that homosexuals are “trying to make it compulsory for all.” That would be absurd on its face wouldn’t you agree?

I have never met a gay person who thought their orientation was superior. Frankly I can’t imagine a straight person making such a claim either. We are what we are.

I’m not trying to bolster anything, I was merely taken a bit aback at the rather direct assault when that was not the issue brought forth by the OP. Documentation is quite easy, but is another issue and has talked to death on this forum.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit