The United Presbyterian Church has proposed a new “sex code.” Parade magazine says it is “so liberal that it practically eliminates sin as a major factor in sexual relations.” Among the changes advocated is the “removal of all restrictions against unmarried adults who wish to live together [in fornication].”⁷⁸

Time magazine adds: “The report finds ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which adultery might be justified: . . . It also says the church should explore the possibility of communal and other sex styles for the unmarried.”⁷⁹

The United Methodist Church’s Committee on Family Life has issued a resolution condoning sexual intercourse for single persons.⁸⁰ The Lutheran Church has on hand an 85-page booklet written by twenty-one churchmen stating that premarital intercourse is wrong only if engaged in for selfish reasons.⁸¹

A clergyman in Denmark wrote in his parish magazine Vedbæk-Gl. Holte Kirkehilsen:

“Nothing is gained by limiting all sex to marriage. . . . It can be correct from an ethical and Christian viewpoint for young people to have sex relations before marriage, and it can be just as correct for married persons . . . to have sexual relations outside of marriage.”⁸²

Then there was W. L. Gustin, as minister of the Morton Methodist Church in Illinois, who said in a sermon before hundreds of people: “I say loudly and I say clearly, there are advantages of adultery.”⁸³

A group of Quakers issued an essay entitled “Towards a Quaker View of Sex.” It had this to say: “One should no more deplore ‘homosexuality’ than left-handedness. . . . An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful.”⁸⁵

The Living Church, a weekly magazine of the Episcopal Church, carried an article by San Francisco minister R. W. Cromey, who said: “There is no sex act which in itself is sinful. . . . I also believe that two people of the same sex can express love and deepen that love by sexual intercourse.”⁸⁷

Time reported that the United Methodist Church’s Committee on Family Life favored “implicitly condoning sex for single persons, homosexuals, and those living in unspecified ‘other styles of interpersonal relationship.’”⁸⁸ The United Presbyterian Church’s proposed new sex code recommended, as Parade noted, the “removal of any stigma that makes homosexuals feel they are in irresolvable conflict with the Christian fellowship.”⁸⁹

There are now churches that cater almost exclusively to homosexuals. The assistant minister of one said: “We are a Christian church first, and homosexual second.” Christianity Today related: “The denomination’s mother church in Los Angeles has a United Presbyterian-ordained youth director, and holds monthly dances for 13 to 20-year-old homosexuals.” The year’s “social high” for the church “was a May Festival that crowned a king and queen. A lesbian in formal male attire was chosen king; the queen was a boy” who resembled a girl.⁹⁰

The essay submitted by the Quaker group declares: “It is to him [the apostle Paul], principally, that those wishing to attack homosexuals turn, for there can be no doubt as to his recorded views (I Cor. 6:9, v. 9). His opinions may have been personal ones, however, . . . so that St. Paul’s views are not, in themselves, final.”⁹⁵