Speaking of conservative Christian theology, here's a short note to explain my most significant disagreement with Jeremy Marks' theological opinion in "A Time for Change."
Jeremy Marks says this much that is applaudable: "This is not an ‘anything goes’ approach-anyone seeking to be Christ-centred will naturally yearn to find a basic moral framework and ethos for gay and lesbian relationships." However, he also espouses the following basic theological underpinning: "When Courage began in 1988, I shared the view commonly held amongst conservative evangelical Christians that, according to the Bible, we are all made male and female and that the union of a man and a woman fulfils God’s purposes for mankind with godly marriage and family life forming the essential building blocks for a stable society. I still hold firmly to that view."
To put my own panentheistic integral spiritual perspective into Christian and theistic language, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God, and that the dignity of homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals derives from this fact. The union of male and female does reflect the fundamental structure of reality in the Kosmos, but masculine (or yang/agentic) and feminine (or yin/communion) principles are inner universal qualities of all things when viewed at the level of their deep structures. We are not simply male or female; we are embodied beings (actually, following Ken Wilber, we can use the term "holon" or "whole/part") with a spectrum and diversity of gender and sexual expressions.
All this talk about the union of masculine and feminine reflecting the Divine is only half the story. That's where Marks begins to go astray. It's not enough to say that God made human beings male and female and all men and all women are intended to interact heterosexually (that's naive biological literalism), or even that all human beings are manifestations of universal principles of masculinity and femininity (that's true enough). We must also note that the very essence of Reality is a divine Love that flows in two primal directions reflecting a universal duality of Sameness and Otherness: from God embracing and unfolding unto all of Creation, and from Creation reaching out towards transcendence unto God.
Ken Wilber made this point in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by persuasively arguing that agency, communion, self-immanence, and self-transcendence are the four primal drives of all holons. In terms of Christian theology, the directions of self-immanence and self-transcendence are Agape and Eros respectively (and their negations are Phobos and Thanatos respectively); agency and communion are recognized as masculine and feminine principles (Marks says "we are all made male and female"). I first articulated my view that homophilia and heterophilia are the universal qualities of holons identical to self-immanence and self-transcendence on The Soulful Blogger by controversially arguing that "God is Gay" and in "Homosexuality and Agape" right here on this blog. Today I wouldn't express myself in quite the same way as I did in "Homosexuality and Agape," but my basic position remains unchanged.
My view, consistent with Christian theology properly understood (that is, at an integral level of consciousness beyond mythic literalism) and the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber, is that Love flows from God to humankind as same-directed Love or Agape (which I call homophilia or gayness), and from humankind to God as other-directed Love or Eros (which I call heterophilia or other-directed love). We are created with diverse gender and sexual expressions with heterosexual men and women being by far the most common variety; furthermore, the union of our inner masculine and feminine drives does indeed reflect God's intentions for humanity. Both straight and gay relationships equally reflect those core human drives and mirror the Divine intention, because through our drive to realize Love our inner masculine and feminine may connect with another human being in complementary, healing, nurturing, and beautiful ways. When two gays in a loving relationship interact, the gay person's inner feminine (or "bottom" or "femme" or "passive") sexual essence is united with the inner masculine (or "top" or "butch" or "insertive") sexual essence of his/her partner; and the person's inner masculine is united to his/her partner's inner feminine; and vice versa.
But most importantly, and this is where Marks misses the mark, God's purpose for humankind is revealed not only in our masculine and feminine qualities, but also in our same-directed (homophilic) drive as well. Homophilia is as much a Divine way of Loving as heterophilia. Yin is not only drawn to yang and vice versa, but yin to yin and yang to yang. That drive for union is the drive of self-immanence rather than self-transcendence; it is the impulse of integration, empathy, and compassion. As Wilber's argument regarding the primal drives of all holons convincingly demonstrates, self-immanence is built into the very structure of the universe as involution, an essential part of the Spirit of evolution.
Every person, straight or gay, manifests homophilic and heterophilic drives the expression of which may truly be a locus for connecting to Spirit. When any two persons in a loving relationship interact, the person's drive of homophilia (or "same-directed Love") draws his/her inner masculine sexual essences to unite with the masculine sexual essences of his/her partner as an embrace of Sameness, and the feminine essences are united with the feminine essences of his/her partner; the person's drive of heterophilia (or "other-directed Love") draws his/her inner masculine to unite with the inner feminine of his/her partner as an embrace of Otherness, and the inner feminine is drawn to unite with the inner masculine. Christian theology goes astray when it focuses exclusively on Eros and neglects Agape; gay ways of Loving are the Divine ways of loving. The Divine plan for humankind is radically misunderstood when the true nature of homophilia is not taken into account.