I grew up ELCA Lutheran. Since this debate has been going on for many many years I recall hearing about in at least 3 congregations. I suppose that is a good thing, because if somebody put a gun to my head and told me I must be a member of any organized Christian denomination it is probably the one I would join. It is probably the most accepting of any Christian religious denomination I have ever had the pleasure of learning about, and dissent/free thought is usually tolerated. I even recall having arguments in college with people as to whether it was possible to be a cultural Lutheran only, and but not believe in all the religious stuff.

Looking back years later I think one specific moment planted the seeds of my agnosticism years later. One year it was time for that that horribly exciting talk were they rope people into staying after the service with extra cookies and coffee and we all sit around while an unholy duo of some guy who probably smoked waaaaay too much grass growing up which lead him to think he was Tom Fogerty or something and Church Lady stood up front and told everybody to write down how much they were going to give next year. And plan on increasing it at least 15% from the last quarter. Our 4Q numbers weren't that solid and we can't be expected to hold our AAA+ bond rating for much longer, people! Get your money changed, right here in the temple! Of course, much of this is hyperbole, but I remember at that moment having a moment of exceptional clarity and saying "This is everything that is wrong with church today." Ain't that the truth?

Later in high school I ran (reluctantly) for Church Council and was a member for ~2 years. I don't really remember much about it except praying the meetings would end quickly because leadership roles in most churches are made up of two kinds of people 1) The folks who got scammed into being there and taking a job (me and about half the council) and 2) Folks who really really REALLY enjoy that type of thing. It's the second type that make the meetings go way too long. I'll stop there.

I ended up going off to college and finding the local Lutheran Church (on campus, nonetheless!) At the time I was in school it was going through the process of becoming a Reconciling in Christ congregation. I didn't much understand the controversy over it at the time. Anyway, why did I have to reconcile myself? I never did anything bad to a homosexual person. Later I figured out that since this the closest Lutheran church to the campus many people who were members of the much more conservative LCMS went there. (As a rule, some of them had a major problem with homosexuals. ELCA and LCMS Lutherans treat the members of the other denominations like Red Headed Stepchildren, and I was generally unaware of this until I got to college. The first time I became friends with some members of that group I found the differences in theology and views on social positions to be.... eye opening.) Which was probably why the Pastor there pushed so hard for this to go through. Looking back at it, their position seems somewhat hypocritical. If you are a staunch conservative (so theoretically for property rights, personal responsibility and individual freedoms) how could someone logically be against homosexual relationships between people who are gay? Now I saw the violence inherent in the system. Heh.

After college I moved out west and found an ELCA church. Ironically, I found this to be the most welcoming and accepting church I had ever been a member of. It also had a basement. So I got to meet my first basement Lutherans. Despite the fact that there was clearly a siege mentality going on (the area was populated, at least on paper, by 70% Mormons) and the folks who went there were small in number and poorer, it quite different. I can't exactly explain why. For example, instead of insane cash reserves and bond funds for a "rainy day" or whatever the church had an investment fund build with member contributions that paid dividends to local charities. The building was austere and almost all the money went to genuine charity (we're not talking about 'spreading the word' but actually feeding the homeless or helping out poor folks in the region). The oddest thing about the whole thing was one of the members of the church had the same exact name as a prominent character in 2001: A Space Odyssey. So, I kept making HAL9000 jokes, but nobody got them or laughed. I thought it was because everybody had heard it repeatedly and it was old. Nope, it was abundantly clear that nobody had ever seen that movie. Odd.

So, in conclusion, I agree with the points other people probably stated while I was rambling on and on. The ELCA just punted on the issue and it probably won't get resolved in favor of gay rights until some of the older people die. Or, since there is a trend in the Lutheran church of people going inactive from age 20-35 or so perhaps for another 20 or so years when my generation checks back in to the church and gets into leadership rolls.

It is possible for me to find both good and bad aspects of religion despite the fact that I am profoundly skeptical about all religions.  To begin with good aspects, I have known some very kind and helpful people whose benevolence seemed to be connected in some way to their religious beliefs (although I have also known kind and helpful atheists).  Most religions do support various kinds of charity (and ironically, even religious extremists who are busy killing people for daring to disagree with them, still seem to believe in charity, at least for the benefit of those whose religion is acceptable).  And even on a purely mundane level of creating a cohesive community, where people can socialize in various ways, organized religion seems to serve a legitimate function for many people.  For some people, the only kind of day-care that they can get for their children is at their local church.

But then, there is the negative aspect.  Religion is the most divisive force on Earth today (having surpassed the 20th century's major argument about communism vs. capitalism) and is a central factor in the most serious ongoing wars and insurgencies.  Religious people seem to have no basis upon which to resolve disagreements between different religions, since religion is not based upon any kind of logical reasoning to begin with, claiming instead to result from some kind of divine revelation with which we mere moral humans cannot argue (although once one accepts the supernatural basis of the religion, one can still make logical arguments about how to interpret it).

Religious rituals consume an enormous amount of human resources which might otherwise be spent on something productive.  Even the most charitable religious organization is still wasting time worshiping a non-existent  deity, when a non-religious charity could be more efficient.

And despite the fact that such luminaries as Mayor Bob remain undecided on the issue, it seems very clear that religion is, after all, merely an elaborate and formalized type of superstition, without basis in reality, whose continued popularity is an embarrassment to the human race, which should have outgrown it a long time ago.  Religious explanations about the nature of the universe in which we live are in every case pitifully weak in comparison to be much superior scientific explanations which now exist.  Furthermore, those who accept any kind of supernatural world-view become more vulnerable to all the other kinds of mystical thinking and occultism which have become so fashionable in the "New Age" culture.  If God can create and rule the world by magic, why can't we have many other kinds of magic?  Astrology, psychic power, Scientology, etc., all kinds of intellectual error is facilitated by magical thinking, and religion encourages this.  (I am occasionally told that no, God doesn't do these things by magic, but how else could He have done so?  Short of some kind of mystical explanation, I can't see how God could even have existed prior to the universe itself, much less have created the universe, and done all the other amazing things that He is said to do).

And then we get to the problem which is the topic of this discussion, homophobia.  I believe that rejection of homosexuality seemed perfectly logical to ancient religions formulated in the Bronze Age, when in the desperate struggle for survival, it seemed necessary to encourage the maximum possible rate of human reproduction, just to keep the tribe alive, and therefore it seemed necessary for everyone to do their part, and to concentrate on reproductive sex rather than the other varieties in which people can indulge for non-reproductive purposes.  In the 21st century (and even in the 20th) it became clear that human beings do not have any difficulty in maintaining a reproductive rate that is not just high enough, but which indeed is excessive for the current conditions of an overcrowded world.  But of course, we still cannot question the Word of God, written in stone by powers greater than us.  Homophobia is deeply entrenched.  The bible does not dwell upon this topic at any length (unlike many current homophobic preachers who seem to think that repression of homosexuality is the most important mission that religion has) but it does contain at least a few lines which clearly condemn homosexuality, and the bible is still the primary authority to many major religions, and thus is beyond question.  And similar problems exist even in entirely non-biblically-based religions such as Buddhism.  The Dalai Lama, asked about this topic, said that the purpose of sex is reproduction.  His view is indistinguishable from that of the Pope.

So when I hear about homosexuals who seek acceptance of some religion, I always think that it would be far more logical for them to just reject religion.  Religion is, in my view, obsolete.  It has outlived its usefulness.  We can organize other methods of child care.

Lutherans have always been highly eclectic, even with the service ceremonies which can run from very close to Roman Catholic to very modern.

Despite the headlines, they just decided to punt.  They left their definition of marriage the same, but (according to summaries at least), the report says nothing about homosexual couples being unacceptable.

This is just Lutherans doing what they're especially being good at, agreeing to disagree.