[PeterPrinciple]

One proposal called homosexuals “people of sacred worth” and acknowledged differing viewpoints on the issue, while another said humans did not know enough about human sexuality to prefer one lifestyle over another.

---

Anyone buying into those ideas?

[fwdude]

Anyone buying into those ideas?

Only an idiot would. Not even the sodomites believe their fake "compromises." If passed, differing (the traditional) viewpoints would soon not be tolerated, and the homos think they know everything about sexuality already. Their guru Kinsey already told them all they need to know.

[stormhill]

“people of sacred worth” is a sufficiently ambiguous notion to fit literally anyone. SS Colonels, suicide bombers and members of Obama's cabinet could me thought of to fit that description, given sufficient abstraction.

However, the idea that "humans did not know enough about human sexuality to prefer one lifestyle over another" is shocking beyond all reason.

[oldplayer]

I'd buy into both of these propositions in an “ordinary meaning” of the words. But, liberals use ordinary words in strange ways, to-wit: gay, “is”, Nobel “Peace” Prize, religion of peace, born in the USA . . ..

I don't doubt God intends for all of us to be people of sacred worth, and who can deny that there are differing viewpoints on the issue? But enshrining such terms into the Methodist Book of Discipline is the “nose of the camel under the tent.”

Oldplayer