Thank you for a challenging post; it's always good to know when I've not been clear.

1) 'Ordinary church... Insinuating that United Church of Christ... [is] not ordinary'
Whoops - not what I was getting at. The reference to an 'ordinary church' was to separate it from one with a specific mission to, say, the gay community or another group. Or indeed a monastery. Not an attempt to define it denominationally. Thank you for pointing out the confusion.

2) 'anyone who disagrees must "legitimate" it'.
Given that the rejection of gay sexual activity had been a feature of every church everywhere from the beginning (with minimal exceptions), its rejection is indeed the default. If you want to change that, you need to put up a VERY strong case.

3) 'As if there even is a theology of gay relationships (there isn't)'
Of course there is; there must be. Theology is what we believe about God. If God is the judge and ruler of this universe to whom we are accountable, and who warns: 'Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God', then the question is whether gay sex's presence on that list (yes, I've cut it out) refers to all gay sex or just a subset. Some things stop you getting to heaven. Our 'theology' tells us what they are by rightly interpreting the commands of God.

I'm disappointed you engage in sniping rather than engaging with the meat of Shaw's challenges, which I find very powerful. May I encourage you to actually read the book and engage with what is in it?