South Carolina principal quits over Gay-Straight Alliance Club. Good for him. by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Friday, May 23, 2008
See that guy up there? That's Eddie Walker, principal of Irmo High School in Irmo, South Carolina. He's in the middle of a blow up - and has now offered his resignation - over the Equal Access Act.
The Equal Access Act was passed in 1984 and signed into law by Ronald Reagan:
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.
So, essentially, it was an equal rights bill, aimed at providing equal access to all groups, regardless of their message. If a school didn't want to have a Christian Alliance, for example, their only recourse would be to not allow any extra-carricular groups at all.
The Equal Access Act was used to protect the rights of students at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1990, a group of students, led by Bridget Mergens tried to start a Bible study club at their school.
The school didn't know what to do, because every club had to have a sponsor, and a sponsored bible study club would imply a state endorsement of Christianity. The obvious dilemma was that to protect some students from a First Amendment violation that would be a de facto endorsement of one religion, they had to violate the First Amendment rights of the other students by denying them the right to practice theirs.
Thus began Westside School District v. Mergens. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the student's right to assemble and protected their equal access to school facilities. They based this on the Lemon Test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which means that government action must not violate one of three stipulations:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of those stipulations are not met, the proposed action is considered to be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court found that it did not violate those, reasoning in the decision that "Because the Act on its face grants equal access to both secular and religious speech, we think it clear that the Act's purpose was not to `endorse or disapprove of religion.'''
Now, our boy Eddie Walker is a devout Christian, so one would think that this story would be about starting a Christian group. In this case, though, it is actually a group called the Gay-Straight Alliance, who promote tolerance and dialogue between gay and straight students.
Mr Walker found the formation of the club something he couldn't stomach, and he sent a letter, announcing his resignation as principal of Irmo High School:
On May 14, 2008, I was instructed by email to allow the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High School. On May 15, 2008 I told Ms. Ann Pilat to allow the formation of this club for the 2008-2009 school year.
Allowing the formation of this club on our campus conflicts with my professional beliefs and religious convictions. I considered resigning this year but reconsidered because to not fulfill my written contract for the 2008-2009 school year would also conflict with my professional beliefs and religious convictions. In my opinion failure to fulfill my contract would constitute a breach of trust with School District Five of Lexington and Richland County, my student heroes, returning Irmo High School employees, and new employees who have chosen to work at Irmo High school for the 2008-2009 school year.
The formation of this club conflicts with my professional beliefs in that we do not have other clubs at Irmo High school based on sexual orientation, sexual preference, or sexual activity. In fact our sex education curriculum is abstinence based. I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes...
...My decision to resign is a personal choice based on my professional beliefs and religious convictions. I have prayed about the decision for a period of time and I have a peace about it. I would ask that you respect my choice as I respect your choice to disagree with me on this issue. I bear no malice towards anyone involved. If the people involved at the district level had chosen not to allow the club to form I am sure the district would have been sued and the current legal opinions and precedents indicate that in all likelihood the district would have lost.
The first thing that strikes me about this letter is that Mr Walker falls into the same trap that many people fall into when discussing homosexuality - it's not about the sex. Well, it's a little about sex, but just like heterosexuality, it is more simply about finding some companionship, finding one's own path to happiness and fufillment.
And a Gay-Straight Alliance isn't about either of those things - it is about love and tolerance and respecting differences. In that end, it is no different than a Christian-Muslim Alliance.
That said, I really have no problem with what Mr Walker is doing. He isn't trying to ram his beliefs down anyone's throat, or using government to force people into his value system. He's just walking away.
I've had arguments with people about other issues - can a pharmacist refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions, even against the will of his employer? Can a worker in the San Diego clerk's office refuse to marry two men?
My answer to these questions has always been, "If you don't like the job description, get another effin job."
Now that someone is following that advice - no matter how misguided and myopic his opinions - I must respect his choice. After all, isn't that what tolerance is all about?
Thanks to JohnTodd for the tip.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 41
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of RS Davis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
RS Davis is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-05 09:04:30
Cearly R.S.Davis does not believe that Mr Eddie Walker should be allowed to just walk away from his post quietly. He wants him to go under a cloud. To begin with he disrespectfully calls Mr Walker, who is probably a zillion times more of a man than he will ever be, "Our boy" then he calls him "myopic." Why doesn't Mr Davis have the courage to call him straight out a "narrow-minded homophobic bigot?" In truth it rattles him that Mr Walker will not have it rammed down his throat that homosexuality isn't just about innocuous friendships but is all about sex. The one who is suffering not just from myopia but total self- induced blindness is Mr Davis, for he wilfully chooses not to see that slap bang in the middle of the word homosexuality is the teeny tiny word, "sex". For him to think that people are really going to believe that homosexuality doesn't inevitably need physical expression, with behaviour such as sodomy, rimming, scats, coprophilia, felching and all the rest of the disgusting and bestial acts ,clearly shows delusion bordering on insanity.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-06 01:37:27
The strategy of the Marxist / homosexual lobby is to claim that they are fighting for justice, equality, inclusion, and an end to prejudice and discrimination (I wonder if Mr Eddie Walker feels justice has been done?).They falsely claim that the homosexual is bullied, marginalized and murdered disproportionately to their numbers in society ( approx 1-2% nationally with maybe 10% in Metro land, New York). This is a piece of clever propaganda that many in the western world have swallowed without it even touching the sides.
Secondly they have linked it to race and the emancipation of slaves.( another piece of sleight of hand) Wilberforce and Lincoln did not make black people human; they were that already. They freed the slave from oppression, slavery and bondage. Bondage! Bondage, Sado -masochism, whipping, sodomy, fisting, rimming, water sports, felching, scats, coprophilia, giving the gift, are the hall marks of homosexual behaviour and I would anyone who is still capable of thinking to read Gavin Newson’s (mayor of San Francisco) congratulatory speech on the opening of last year’s Folsom Street Fair. This event dehumanises homosexuals and lesbians by reducing them to lumps of meat. Indeed they are lead to slavery and addictions that sooner or later lead to an early death.
Discretion, parental concern, love and common sense can in no way be misinterpreted as bigotry or homophobic hatred. Indeed there is growing evidence that the Gay scene is not only contemptuous of the dangers of HIV and AIDs but plays “Russian Roulette” with “Bare Backing.”
“Madam do you want your child to grow up as a homosexual?” “Yes, I want” is hardly the answer she will give.
This principal is clueless as to what the Gay/Straight Alliance is. It's an anti-violence/tolerance club. Saying you're gay no more implies a choice to engage in sexual activity than saying you're straight. Clearly, as demonstrated by several of those who have commented here, some people just read or hear the word "gay" and flip out. A sex club? Good lord. Paranoid much?
Oh, and to the waaaay too familiar with fetishes person who wrote this: "Bondage, Sado -masochism, whipping, sodomy, fisting, rimming, water sports, felching, scats, coprophilia, giving the gift, are the hall marks of homosexual behaviour"
Geez, how do you know all those terms? I had to look up what several of those things were, and I'm far from a prude. Methinks the previous commenter doth protest too much. Meanwhile, those are all "hallmarks" of heterosexual behavior as well. Fetishes are not defined by gay or straight; that only defines gender. Guess we'd better start condemning heterosexuality as well, based on your "logic."
Your views arae obviously skewed because of the bigotry forced into your life by the cult you regularly attend on Sunday mornings. A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be hetrosexual. And a club like the gay-strait alliance is a club to foster understanding and friendship between two groups.
As for Mr. Walker, his views may be equally skewed. But at least he is taking the high road and just walking away than trying to change something he has no understanding of.
Do you honestly believe that the straight kids will become homosexual kids if they are exposed to or join this Gay-Straight Alliance?
What is the harm in learning that other people are different, and that there is nothing wrong with that difference?
Some of the behaviors you described strike me as disgusting practices. Some of the behaviors you described are indeed dangerous practices. My solution is simple: I do not engage in those behaviors. What I think is disgusting, someone else might enjoy. So long as I am not forced to participate, I say live and let live. What people do behind closed doors is none of my business. The dangerous behaviors should be discouraged through education.
Do you know any homosexuals or bisexuals, David? I do. While I'm sure they engage in sexual behaviors that I would not (they have to work with the anatomy available, after all), none of the homosexuals or bisexuals that I have met engage in the dangerous activities that you mentioned. They're just like most heterosexuals I have met. They're decent people, faithful to their partners, and so on. They are computer experts, nurses, doctors, lawyers...I know, it's weird. It's like they're...human beings. Wait a second - this isn't invasion of the body snatchers...they're not alien infiltrators...they're human beings.
From what I have read, that is what the Gay-Straight alliance is about: helping people to recognize that this isn't some bad science fiction movie we live in. Homosexuals and Bisexuals are not dangerous alien beings trying to take over our planet. They are human beings, who want the same things we want. They just want to share it with someone of their own gender rather than with the opposite sex.
Allowing them to have the same things we have does not threaten me. I may be disappointed to find out that a hot chick is attracted to another hot chick instead of me, but I'll live.
What are you so afraid of? Perhaps if this Gay-Straight Alliance existed when you grew up, you would know that you have nothing to fear. Instead, they are the unknown...and people fear the unknown.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-06 12:28:33
Mr Davis, Thank you for the compliment. In passing, do you think these kinds of households would really be the best environments in which to bring up your grandchildren?
(Transgender man pregnant and the implications of the embryology bill)
Altongal You are absolutely right, the heterosexuals inspired by Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner blazed the trail for much of this over the last fifty years; for this they must in large part bear the responsibility. It was they who gave the green light for homosexuals to take sexual behaviour towards levels hitherto unachieved, such as bare backing and giving the gift. But Altongal I have nowhere suggested condemning any one. That was your suggestion.
Chef Matt, You seem to know remarkably a great deal about me.
The reasons given for becoming homosexual are as long as a piece of string, but one thing is for sure and that is the younger one is exposed to it the more difficult it is to change. Many homosexuals can trace their condition back to the way they related to their parents. With men it is often due to a father who never affirmed their masculinity rather than an overpowering mother. It may also simply be because as a young person they were seduced by an older person. Though not directly related to sexuality, but in order to demonstrate the nurture rather than nature theory, may I present the tragic case of Isabel Quaresma : http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=isabelq
When you talk of a gay -straight club that fosters understanding, I have a suspicion that the understanding being demanded will all be on one side. But if you are truly inclusive, why not welcome those whose orientation is towards incest, polyamory, paedophilia and bestiality .
Your comment : “A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be heterosexual.” seems to be advocating celibacy which is exactly what Eddie Walker was encouraging. He, however, if I may say, has a greater grasp of reality than you, for anticipating that sex will become an almost overpowering drive for the majority of kids, he reminds them that the only appropriate and safe place for this is within a heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage with children being the natural outcome of such a union. And so it has been for thousands of years.
For you to suggest that a homosexual will not eventually have a sex drive flies in the face of reality.
GK . What you say all sounds very reasonable, but the governments of both our nations are encouraging children, through sex education programmes to experiment with sexual practices so that they can found out what they feel most comfortable with. Would that homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals kept their behaviour to themselves but they don’t. Laws are being drawn up that will force society to accept such practices through threats of public humiliation, loss of job ( Eddie Walker) fines and even prison.
Allow me to present the public acceptance of this kind of behaviour:
I didn't read your links, but the best environment for children to be raised is that of love and support. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals have the market cornered on that.
Unlike Rick, I did go to the links that you provided (in response to my comments). The PDF from the Terrence Higgins Trust is...well...hmm. I skimmed through it. It's not my cup of tea, but then I'm not interested in engaging in the sexual acts described, either.
Sex education is, and probably always will be, controversial. My impression of sex education in the USA is quite different from your characterization of it, though. Since Bush has been in office, it seems that sex education has swung to the abstainance end of the spectrum. People are complaining that our young people are not being educated about "safer" sex, but are instead simply being told that they shouldn't do it. While it is true that no form of birth control is 100% effective, lack of birth control is 100% ineffective, if one is engaging in sex despite being taught not to. Human beings being who they are, are having sex, even when it is unwise to do so. Human beings are sexual creatures and hormones whose purpose is, in part, to encourage reproduction. "Don't do it" is not sufficient to override this biological imperative. Your response to Chef Matt indicates that you understand this (though I think you misunderstood his point). Unfortunately, a lot of people - influential people - are afraid to provide birth control information, because they are afraid they will be encouraging the behavior they want to discourage.
Biology encourages us to engage in sexual activity. Biology determines which gender we feel encouraged to engage in sexual activity with. We do not learn to be heterosexuals. We do not learn to be homosexuals. We do not learn to be bisexuals. We simply are these things. Education may convince us that we should delay gratification rather than risk raising a kid when we are not ready for one. Education may convince us that using a condom is safer than not using a condom. Education may convince us that we need to be careful about who we choose to engage sexually, because there are nasty diseases (HIV simply being the worst) that we do not want to get. Education will not, however, convince anyone to be something that they are not (ie: homosexual, when they are a heterosexual).
What I got from the PDF and the video you linked to was not that the UK is encouraging people to experiment with homosexual activity. What I got from it is that the UK wants to discourage bigotry and unsafe sex practices, and encourage safer sexual practices. Rather than taking the American approach ("Just tell them not to have sex"), they're taking another approach, which recognizes that people are going to do it anyway, so they might as well know the risks and how to mitigate those risks, so that the UK doesn't have 140,000 people with HIV instead of 73,000. That seems to be a much more pragmatic, even realistic approach to the issue.
"But Altongal I have nowhere suggested condemning any one. That was your suggestion."
Lol. Get real, skinner. Your posts were a clear condemnation of homosexuality. Don't try to backpedal now that your faulty logic got called out. Either stick to your guns or admit your mistake. You'll fool no one with the wimpy-ass tack you've chosen.
If and when you formulate your next response, you may wish to keep in mind that the people who visit this site are literate.
Claiming "the reasons given for becoming homosexual are as long as a piece of string" does not make it so. There are just as many case studies of children raised by homosexual couples ending up hetrosexual. How young a person is when the concept is introduced has nothing to do with the outcome.
As for the gay-strait clubs fostering understanding, it is imposible for understanding to occur unless both sides are taken into account. Equally claiming only one side will be understood and the other will not is pointless without proof. And since these clubs flurish and have been very helpful to all sides awareness, we know where that proof lies. However, I find your lumping homosexuality in with "incest, polyamory, paedophilia and bestiality" quite disturbing. Next you'll be claiming that terrorism, the homeless rate, and earthquakes are also caused by homosexuals.
Now, I never claimed anything about celibacy, and I have no idea where you got that odd idea. My comment: "A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be heterosexual" refers to the fact that sexual orientation does not start after the first sexual act. Or the last. Or any for that matter. Father Mychal Judge, a homosexual catholic priest who was killed in the 9/11 attack was completely celebate.
And your comment "if I may say, has a greater grasp of reality than you, for anticipating that sex will become an almost overpowering drive for the majority of kids" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Kids who are apart of a gay/strait club have no more or less chance to have sex than kids who are in any other type of club.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-06 16:34:31
Dear Mr Davis , In any argument one needs to listen and to either accept or reject the evidence; but to dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant seems to me to indicate a prejudiced and closed mind.
However, my point was precisely that which you have raised, by stipulating that children need to be raised in a “loving” and “supportive” environment. Others state it differently; David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party in Britain stipulates that such environments or relationships should be “committed”, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Health says that they should be “involved”.
So what you are saying is that it does not matter what gender parents are, how many there are, how long the relationships last, what age they are -and soon what species they are - just so long as the group is loving and supportive. So, if families can come in all shapes and sizes, it is OK to have four mothers; a man and three lesbians; five sisters and a brother; a mother and daughter; a mother and son; a football team, a donkey and an old man as parents. It’s amazing what technology can do!
You don’t actually define what you mean by “loving” and “supportive“. Who is to be the judge in such matters?
But why should anyone recognise even these stipulations?
Some would say “What right do you have to impose your old fashioned morality of love, commitment and parental involvement on us? We can bypass your middle class morality simply on the basis that what you are demanding of us goes against our own natures; we were born the way we are; it is not in our natures to be in long term relationships or to possess maternal or paternal instincts. (Since civil partnerships and gay adoption has been made legal, there is not exactly a stampede for either the registry office or the adoption agency).
You are absolutely right about the heterosexuals not having the market cornered on producing stable and secure environments for children, but bearing in mind that they make up 99% of the globe’s families, one would expect them to achieve the higher statistics for both the best and worst characteristics. Suffice to say however that the 1-2% who are homosexual are responsible for at least 30% of paedophilia. And, as I have already said, marriage and the family have been under tremendous assault from the law, the mass media, education and the consummer society, in which we live, for the last four or five decades. What else do you expect?
GK, We have, in Britatin, so-called sex education being delivered by outfits like the Family Planning Association who not only get huge hand- outs from the government but also from contraceptive manufacturers. Their efforts have in fact fuelled a huge rise in Sexually Transmitted diseases , teenage abortions ( girls as young as twelve) and unwanted pregnancies. I don’t know if you watched the video clip of Gordon Brown hosting a tea party for the Terrance Higgins Trust right to the end but, if you had, you would have seen Danni Minogue championing their work and the use of safe sex. Her advice is no more than that of telling a fox how to safely catch chickens without being caught by the farmer.
Teenagers have no idea of responsibility and thinking in the long term. For them life is now, this moment. If they did have the level of maturity to understand the overpowering power of sex and their inability to cope with it, the responsible thing would be to go no where sexual detonators and high explosive.
GK I am very grateful for your pointing out that: ‘Human beings are sexual creatures and hormones whose purpose is, in part, to encourage reproduction. "Don't do it" is not sufficient to override this biological imperative.
Chef Matt on the other hand claimed ‘A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be heterosexual. And a club like the gay-strait alliance is a club to foster understanding and friendship between two groups. He seems to be denying that our sexual orientation, of whatever colour, will not inevitably need an outward expression. Well, I live on planet Earth and ever since the sixties, when sex became detached from the boundaries of marriage and family and from the morality and truth of the Judeo/Christian faith, it has become merely a recreational activity that can be practised in whatever form one wishes; but, like high explosive that is no longer confined by its steel casing, or a nuclear core that is withdrawn from its protective surrounds, it becomes a force for destruction when it is no longer bounded by the protective laws that used to surround marriage. It has resulted in the misery of unwanted pregnancies, abortion on an industrial scale, an explosion of Sexually Transmitted Diseases HIV, AIDs and of course the continuing break up of the family.
I agree totally with you about our not being taught to be heterosexual or homosexual, any more than Isabel Quaresma was taught to think that she was a chicken ( see above , end of first paragraph to Chef Matt). If you read the article, the specialists are finding it extremely difficult to re-habilitate her; one day we hope and pray that she will recover her humanity .But the truth is: she is not a chicken. We are male or female period but with the ability to have a predisposition towards the opposite sex, the same sex, objects like pavements and bicycles is a consequence of many factors, which in about 30% of cases can be successfully treated.
The fact that people have broken free from homosexuality is deliberately silenced by the homosexual lobby. “Coming out” might be no bid deal but to “ Go back in” is classed almost as a crime.
Allow me to let you into a secret I have an orientation towards lust, promiscuity and adultery. This is not biological but the consequence of many factors, including my own fallen nature. I can either say “That’s me and I will be true to my nature” or can fight and struggle to overcome this part of my nature in the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. - just as many others have successfully done.
Incidently when you suggest that in America there are 140,000 people with HIV , this in a population that is ten times that of the UK , therefore we should only have 14,000 cases instead of as you quote 73,000.
Altongal, I feel I am in one of those tag wrestling bouts, except there is no one out there to relieve the pressure. Wimpy -ass tack indeed.
Full marks for spotting that I categorically, absolutely, 100%, condemn and hate with all my fibre homosexuality - but, having said that I also hate and condemn a lot stuff in my own nature , such a lying, stealing, gossiping, wishing people were dead etc. My own son is guilty of all these things and so is my neighbour and so are my friends and in fact I don’t know anyone who isn’t ,but I don’t condemn them; I am not a Muslim ; I am a Christian and I shall leave God to judge people when their time comes.
Chef Matt, it is 32 minutes past midnight and my wife says come to bed. Hope to return sometime
However, my point was precisely that which you have raised, by stipulating that children need to be raised in a “loving” and “supportive” environment. Others state it differently; David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party in Britain stipulates that such environments or relationships should be “committed”, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Health says that they should be “involved”.
So what you are saying is that it does not matter what gender parents are, how many there are, how long the relationships last, what age they are -and soon what species they are - just so long as the group is loving and supportive. So, if families can come in all shapes and sizes, it is OK to have four mothers; a man and three lesbians; five sisters and a brother; a mother and daughter; a mother and son; a football team, a donkey and an old man as parents. It’s amazing what technology can do!
I would say being a human being would be a stipulation, since animals cannot give their informed consent to being a caregiver to a human child.
You are absolutely right about the heterosexuals not having the market cornered on producing stable and secure environments for children, but bearing in mind that they make up 99% of the globe’s families, one would expect them to achieve the higher statistics for both the best and worst characteristics. Suffice to say however that the 1-2% who are homosexual are responsible for at least 30% of paedophilia. And, as I have already said, marriage and the family have been under tremendous assault from the law, the mass media, education and the consummer society, in which we live, for the last four or five decades. What else do you expect?
Homosexuality and paedophelia are two different things. Pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation and can therefore not be classified as gay or straight.
Fortunately, we have this system where you do not have the right to impose your particular brand of morality on others, and vice versa, barring a direct victim. What this means is that, unless you can show how homosexuality directly victimizes you, you don't have the right to tell other consenting equal adults what they can and can't do. Just as I don't have the right to take your children away from you, no matter how harmful I think it would be to any child to grow up with someone who spouts ignorance as knowledge, cites false statistics as facts, and who is alamingly well-versed in bizarre fetishes.
"lying, stealing, gossiping, wishing people were dead etc"
1. Lying - Nope. Not something I do. I would lie in the right circumstances: ie, a life or death situation. Or to cover for a surprise party.
2. Gossiping - Yep, I'll do that. I don't consider this a problem in my ethical system, unless it's mean gossip. That's called backstabbing in my book, which is akin to lying. Which I don't do.
3. Wishing people were dead - Hmmm. Can't think of a time when I've honestly wished someone dead. I suppose if Hitler were still alive, I'd wish him dead. Generally, when I don't like someone, I wish they'd stfu and go away. Or I wish they'd be locked up in jail or an institution. But dead? Never really been an instinct of mine.
I think if the above are common instincts of you and the people you hang out with, then you've got more immediate problems to solve than other people's sexuality. Perhaps some exploration into why you would wish death on others instictually? Perhaps it's even connected to your need to bash homosexuality, which clearly has nothing to do with you and is the business of the equal consenting adults involved only.
"Altongal, I feel I am in one of those tag wrestling bouts, except there is no one out there to relieve the pressure. Wimpy -ass tack indeed."
Yeah, yeah, cry me a river. You come on spouting nastiness, don't expect flowers and balloons as your response.
"I am not a Muslim ; I am a Christian and I shall leave God to judge people when their time comes."
Ooooh, a Muslim comment. I guess just bashing gay people wasn't quite "Christian" enough for you. What part of your posts, in your mind, leaves God to judge people? You seem to be judging just fine on your own.
Since I could not get a quote tag to work (dangit), I put Mr. Skinner's quotations in italics for easier reading.
Chef Matt on the other hand claimed ‘A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be heterosexual. And a club like the gay-strait alliance is a club to foster understanding and friendship between two groups. He seems to be denying that our sexual orientation, of whatever colour, will not inevitably need an outward expression.
I don't think that is what he is trying to say. Perhaps I can clarify. You pointed out that the word "sex" is in the word "homosexual". It is in the word "heterosexual" as well. You are obviously a married (heterosexual) man. What puts you in the category of "heterosexual"? Is it because you (I assume) have had sex with a woman? Clearly not. You were a heterosexual when you were a virgin, right? You found women sexually appealing. These are assumptions, but I'm guessing they are safe ones. I propose that it was your desire for a sexual relationship with a woman that defined you as heterosexual, rather than the sex act itself. Thus, it is the same for homosexuals. They're not homosexual because they have sexual relationships with others of the same sex. They're homosexuals because they want a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. That is, I think, Chef Matt's point.
As for the last part, where you seem to be concerned that students in the Gay-Straight Alliance will end up having sex...I suppose that could happen...but that could happen in the chess club, the drama club, even a Christian club. When you put two people together who are attracted to each other together, that could happen. Now, if you're afraid that Bill (a straight member) will have sex with Tom (a gay member), I think your fears are unfounded. Bill, being a heterosexual, is not going to be interested in having sexual relations with Tom, no matter what club he belongs to. Could Tom and Joe, who are both homosexual members, end up being in a sexual relationship? Sure...but that could happen if the Gay-Straight Alliance didn't exist and they met through being on the football team instead. What I would be concerned with at that point would be if they were going to be engaging in sexual activity, despite being encouraged not to...is whether or not they know how to minimize the risks they are taking.
I would also be concerned that they not be victimized if someone discovered that they were involved with one another. They shouldn't have to worry about being beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation.
The fact that people have broken free from homosexuality is deliberately silenced by the homosexual lobby. “Coming out” might be no bid deal but to “ Go back in” is classed almost as a crime.
I assume you are talking about people who have undergone therapy to become heterosexual. Based on my reading about that subject, these therapies do not work. People may fool themselves into believing they are something they are not for a while, but ultimately, that's all they're doing...and in the long term, it doesn't work. If they believe that homosexual activity is sinful, then they should take the advice of the Catholic Church, unite their burden with the cross, and be celibate homosexuals. At least then, they're not lying to themselves.
Incidently when you suggest that in America there are 140,000 people with HIV , this in a population that is ten times that of the UK , therefore we should only have 14,000 cases instead of as you quote 73,000.
I didn't suggest that (intentionally, anyway). I made the 140,000 number up, to be roughly double the 73,000 figure. I got the 73,000 figure from the video that you linked to. According to Gordon Brown, that's the number of people in the UK with HIV. The point I was trying to make is that he and the foundation that you linked to do not want that number to grow. Their approach to keeping that number from growing is to educate people about birth control, since condoms have been shown to prevent the spread of HIV, when used correctly.
I will be replying to a few areas, but not all. Mainly because I am tired and I am looking forward to spending a few moments with my wife before I retire to bed. My replys are in bold print and your comments are italicized.
Dear Mr Davis , In any argument one needs to listen and to either accept or reject the evidence; but to dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant seems to me to indicate a prejudiced and closed mind.
However, Mr Skinner, this is exactly what you are doing. You are viewing the subject from a closed mind. One that stems from the conditioning given you by the religion you follow. Being open minded consists of analizing the point of view based upon both sides, not just one.
However, my point was precisely that which you have raised, by stipulating that children need to be raised in a "loving" and "supportive" environment. Others state it differently; David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party in Britain stipulates that such environments or relationships should be "committed", Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Health says that they should be "involved".
So what you are saying is that it does not matter what gender parents are, how many there are, how long the relationships last, what age they are -and soon what species they are - just so long as the group is loving and supportive. So, if families can come in all shapes and sizes, it is OK to have four mothers; a man and three lesbians; five sisters and a brother; a mother and daughter; a mother and son; a football team, a donkey and an old man as parents. It’s amazing what technology can do!
Accually, that is exactly what RS is saying. I happen to also agree with him. Neither the size of the family nor the members therein matter to weither or not the family is loving.
Chef Matt on the other hand claimed ‘A person does not have to have sex to be homosexual any more than a person has to have sex to be heterosexual. And a club like the gay-strait alliance is a club to foster understanding and friendship between two groups. He seems to be denying that our sexual orientation, of whatever colour, will not inevitably need an outward expression.
You have soooooooooooooooooooo missed the point of what I was saying. The point I was making was that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE SEXUALY ACTIVE to classify yourself as either homosexual or hetrosexual. That is ONLY based upon your feelings torward either the same sex or opposite sex. If you are male and you are attracted to a girl then you are hetrosexual. If you are male and you are attracted to other men then you are homosexual. If you are attracted to men, but you do not act on it, you are still a homosexual.
Well, I live on planet Earth and ever since the sixties, when sex became detached from the boundaries of marriage and family and from the morality and truth of the Judeo/Christian faith, it has become merely a recreational activity that can be practised in whatever form one wishes; but, like high explosive that is no longer confined by its steel casing, or a nuclear core that is withdrawn from its protective surrounds, it becomes a force for destruction when it is no longer bounded by the protective laws that used to surround marriage. It has resulted in the misery of unwanted pregnancies, abortion on an industrial scale, an explosion of Sexually Transmitted Diseases HIV, AIDs and of course the continuing break up of the family.
Again, this paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. When did we start discussing the 60's? Or HIV? Again, you are soooooooo missing the point.
I agree totally with you about our not being taught to be heterosexual or homosexual, any more than Isabel Quaresma was taught to think that she was a chicken ( see above , end of first paragraph to Chef Matt). If you read the article, the specialists are finding it extremely difficult to re-habilitate her; one day we hope and pray that she will recover her humanity .But the truth is: she is not a chicken. We are male or female period but with the ability to have a predisposition towards the opposite sex, the same sex, objects like pavements and bicycles is a consequence of many factors, which in about 30% of cases can be successfully treated.
And once again, you are aluding to hetrosexuality or homosexuality as a learned behavior. It is not. In fact, most recent studys (that is, studies after 2000) show homosexuality as genetic.
The fact that people have broken free from homosexuality is deliberately silenced by the homosexual lobby. "Coming out" might be no bid deal but to " Go back in" is classed almost as a crime.
As GK stated, most of those people who have been "councled strait" enevitably revert back to "being gay". Trying to reverse ones nature is impossible. Sure, some succsessfully hide their. Some may even deny their nature. Eventually, however, it always comes out in the end.
Allow me to let you into a secret I have an orientation towards lust, promiscuity and adultery. Big suprise. Everyone does.
This is not biological but the consequence of many factors, including my own fallen nature. Another big suprise.
I can either say "That’s me and I will be true to my nature" or can fight and struggle to overcome this part of my nature in the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. - just as many others have successfully done. Yes, and that is your choice to do so. And no one is condemning your choice to do so. However, you have worked very hard tonight to condemn others for their choices. However, all you have successfully done tonight is show your own hatred and bigotry, your own intolerance torward others, and your ability to spew out propaganda fed to you by the church (a term I use loosely, cult being the more accurate defination) you are apart of.
You have been taught to hate and fear a group of people different than yourself. You justify yourselves by a handful of obscure verses and defend yourself based on those verses when those same verses condemn the very hatred you hold in your heart.
Full marks for spotting that I categorically, absolutely, 100%, condemn and hate with all my fibre homosexuality - but, having said that I also hate and condemn a lot stuff in my own nature , such a lying, stealing, gossiping, wishing people were dead etc.
And here is the ironic thing. That hatred, that you yourself admit, is just as evil in the Bible as homosexuality is. More so, in fact, as hatred is known as one of the seven deadly sins. I refer you to several verses: Matthew 7:1-5, Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10;27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:19-20 James 2:8.
Now, that does not say you have to love homosexuals. But Biblically, your hatred of them is just as much a sin as homosexuality itself. See Matthew 5:28. This refers to all sins being equal in the sight of God.
I am a Christian and I shall leave God to judge people when their time comes.
And based on your hatred, it appears you will also be judged. See Matthew 7:1-5. Pay special attention to Matthew 7:5
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-06 23:52:16
Altongal, a strong claim indeed that you have a system where you do not have the right to impose a particular brand of morality on others and vice versa. The very fact that you make a law that says there is no morality is a law: The moral absolute that “ there are no moral absolutes” is being imposed on those who believe there are moral laws. The following evidence clearly demonstrates this.
You obviously do not recognise there are victims and casualties of homosexualy. Apart from the homosexual being a victim of his own addiction
…no one dares to report the abuse of children by homosexuals for fear of being branded a homophobe which in Britain nearly resulted in a prison sentence of seven years.
There are children in care who are powerless to defend themselves from abuse:
(Conductor Robert King faces four years in prison )
Sir Elton John hides behind artistic expression when putting on a performance at the Royal Albert Hall that is blatantly paedophile in its implications.
Then there is enforced education of children, whereby parents ( natural fathers and mothers) are not permitted to object or withdraw their children from lessons that promote homosexuality . Many parents have no idea what their children are being taught.
As for your estimate of yourself as someone who has never in their life lied, never stolen, never lusted after someone, never coveted what someone else had, or hated someone,….this must qualify you for being the most perfect person who has ever lived. Or is this a lie?
As for the question of Muslims, I have never understood why those like yourself, who are so fundamentally and militantly either homosexual or homophiles are so eager to embrace a religion that stones homosexuals to death?
Finally, making judgments about the wisdom or lack of wisdom concerning a thought, intention , decision or action is something we have to do every second of the day. In a world where we are never allowed to exercise discretion and free will, as with all tyrannical and fascist states people become apathetic and paralysed to act at all - they simply have to go with the flow and conform to the prevailing morality.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-07 00:37:04
Dear GK, It is Saturday morning now and soon I shall have to attend to family life . So before I sign off, let me say that I was not born a heterosexual , I was born masculine. There many celibate men who express their masculinity without sex. Jesus Christ was one. Having said that the overwhelming evidence, apart from a few anomalies, drawn from the natural order, is that masculinity and femininity complement one another:
http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2008/Head2HeadonGayMarriage.htm#Married_Biological_Parents_Are_Better_for_Children ( evidence for the need for the traditional family).
But I would not want to get bogged down talking about nature . It is not a good yardstick for human behaviour for people to leap from saying that if homosexuality is natural, it's morally and ethically desirable, . Rape, sodomy, necrophilia , promiscuity and homosexuality are all observable in about 10% of the species; Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly; should we be using that as a platform for closing down nursing homes. What the animal studies do show is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. And species do become extinct . The Christian must not forget that the Bible says that the fall of man effected all of nature and in Romans it describes how creation waits in eager expectation:……“ creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The whole natural realm will one day be resurrected from death and decay, not through evolution but through an act of God.
Chef Matt I would love to continue debating but I really must go and make cup of tea for my wife. However, may I just say that it is great that we can discuss like this but if you look at the link below, you will see why a gay, heterosexual forum at the Irmo School will not be open and fair. Discussion, such as we enjoy here, will be shut down. The militants will take over. I have every reason, judging - if I am allowed still to do that - from looking at recent events that we in the West are headed for a time of unprecedented oppression and tyranny from the Marxist/ secularist/ materialists, before Islam takes over the lot. We all lose , especially our children.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-07 03:57:59
I just wish to finish by responding to Chef matt,
You offer no explanation of how people become homosexual; it cannot be genetic because as you so rightly point our lesbian and homosexual couples who have children through IVF and surrogacy do not necessarily end up as homosexuals, not only this, but twins would be either heterosexual or homosexual, not mixed . We have high profile twin MPs in government , Maria and Angela Eagle, one a lesbian and the other heterosexual.
You claim that there are clubs flourishing where understanding is occurring and yet you give no evidence as to where, when, who , what ect. Am I supposed to take your word as proof.
I never said that homosexuality was responsible for terrorism, earthquakes , the homeless or even self- induced stupidity. What I am saying is that paedophiles, those who engage in incest are using precisely the same arguments that they were born as such, in order to press for legislation that would legitimise not only their activity but legal union. If you cannot see that sex is the common factor amongst these orientations you need to go and talk to someone.
As for Father Mychal Judge, I have not a clue what you are suggesting here apart from the fact that he did the right thing which was to remain celibate. As I have said I have all manner of negative characteristics of my own and I neither openly flaunt them or celebrate them . The fact that Sir Ian McKellan was involved in trying get him elevated to sainthood by the making of film, immediately should set the alarm bells ringing.
Your accusation that I have a closed mind and am guided only by blind prejudice would suggest that I have neither argument or nor evidence with which to qualify it, when in fact this is patently obvious not true. It is you who simply come out with unsubstantiated assumptions which I hate to say you have repeated to yourself so often that you believe them.
Finally because I have neither the time or patience to respond to sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much bufffffooooooonery your missuse of the Bible puts you in a very perilous state for which Jesus Christ had some pretty harsh words . Did not say that it would be better have a mill stone placed around of the neck and thrown into the sea of those who led children astray, than to face God’s judgement?
I challenge you or anyone on this thread to demonstrate that I hate the homosexual as opposed to his orientation and behaviour. As an aside there is no power on earth that can stop me feeling hatred towards anyone or anything . To attempt to control people’s emotions and thoughts is an attempt to become God himself. I do in fact have kind, gentle homosexual friend of many years standing, I respect him as a fellow human being, worthy of respect and dignity which is why I would not encourage him to practise behaviour that debases and dehumanises him.
Please do not missuse the Bible to support your own perverted thinking . The Bible certainly does tell us to hate those things that God hates.
Revelations2 : 6 But you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, (who practised unrestrained sexual perversions) which I also hate.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,( homosexuals)
Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
Romans 12 : Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
"Altongal, a strong claim indeed that you have a system where you do not have the right to impose a particular brand of morality on others and vice versa. The very fact that you make a law that says there is no morality is a law: The moral absolute that “ there are no moral absolutes” is being imposed on those who believe there are moral laws."
First off, no one made a law saying that there is no morality. Do you have some sort of reading comprehension issues? The law is that you cannot force others to live by your personal brand of "morality." Whether or not morality exists or one brand of religion is better than another in terms of truth is not relevant in a secular system of government. You must learn to seperate the two, or you must move to a theocracy and give up many of your freedoms. I, however, and many others are simply unwilling to do that, and theocracies tend to end up with lots of abuse and distruction and killing and things of that nature.
And your ability to control the lives of others being stymied does not equate to other's morality being thrust upon you. It merely stops you from tyrannizing others. I realize that makes you feel put upon, as you feel that you are "right" and therefore should have the right to control others. But you feeling offended by two chicks kissing is simply not enough to justify moving away from freedom and toward tyranny. And if you're never offended, then you aren't living in a free society.
"You obviously do not recognise there are victims and casualties of homosexualy. Apart from the homosexual being a victim of his own addiction"
There are no direct victims, and it's none of your business whether equal consenting adults are doing something that is or is not good for themselves. That's their personal choice and is none of your business. You can always make yourself or another out to be a victim of ANYTHING if you're mentally determined to do so and lack integrity. And by lack of integrity, I mean bringing in things like child abuse - which happens under both homosexuals and heterosexuals. In fact, statistically, a straight adult male is the most likely child abuser. That means you, bud. Child abuse and homosexuality are not equal entities, no more so than heterosexuality and child abuse.
Once again, since you seem to having problems with this point, the law is secular. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Remember that bit? You are ignoring God and twisting the Bible to your own ends just as much as you are twisting statistics. Geez, dude, you're from England. Surely you know the history of religious upheavals in your own country, due to people like you thinking their way was right and should be imposed on everyone? If not, read up and learn from your history before you become so determined to repeat it.
But even before you do that, I suggest the first thing you do is explore why you feel the need to twist the Bible in order to condemn/control the lives of others via the law. Preferably in the company of a skilled therapist. Pehaps discuss the reason behind your knowledge of fetishes and things like "tranference of guilt" at the same time. Good luck, and I hope you find healing.
Thank you, David, for the laugh you provided me this morning.
I woke up about an hour ago, after working a fifteen hour shift at my restaurant, so a good laugh is exactly what I needed this morning.
Why am I laughing, you may ask?
My humor derives from your comment: "Please do not missuse the Bible to support your own perverted thinking."
You fail, however, to define what you find perverse about my thinking. I will attempt to clarify that for you. You find my belief that all people, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation deserve to have the same natural human rights. You believe that my defence of homosexuals to be disturbing because it goes against what you have been taught to believe.
However, you yourself abuse your own beliefs by clinging to certain aspects while completely neglecting others.
You obviously hate homosexuals. You yourself claimed to in one of your above comments. What I find funny is that you then contradict yourself by posting the verse: Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Your own self admited hatred is what is evil.
Now, lets discuss your hatred of homosexuality.
You have been taught to hate homosexuals by your church. More than likely starting with the verses: Leviticus 18:22 which states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Laws, which also:
permits polygamy (Leviticus 18:8 and 18:18), prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19) , bans tattoos (19:28), prohibits eating rare meat, bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles, prohibits cross-breeding livestock (19:19), bans sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19), prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood (11:6 - 10), and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath ( 23:3)
Churches have abandoned most of these; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends.
Now, you may argue that these passages no longer pertain to present society. Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete." and Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil, ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and this is ceremonial..."?
Which means what? You are free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow and not follow? Or will you follow all of them together?
David, you are very free with your hatred and bigotry. You ask for an explination of how people become homosexuals. I cannot give one because there is no proof of any cause. Many studies have been done, but all contradict one another. Maybe there is no cause, just a state of being.
As for evidence of clubs working, feel free to research them yourself. I have neither time nor interest to find out the statistical effectiveness rate of them.
My point about Father Mychal Judge was that he was a homosexual, but remained celabate. His doing so proves that you do not have to engage in sexual relations to have a sexual orientation.
And yes, I do accuse you of having a closed mind. Until you study a subject from both points of view, you cannot have the full picture. I always do before I make a decision about a subject.
As for thinking I misuse the bible, that is both comical and sad at the same time. People always believe so when the book they cling to is used to dis-prove their ideals. You read something without studing its background or sublties. Thats perfectly fine too, if you want to live in ignorance.
As for hating what God hates, I refer you to 1 John 4:8. No truer words were ever spoken. I endever to follow this belief daily. I also refer you to Luke 10 25-37.
And yes, enough wasting time. Kitchen beckens and tenderloin needs to be trimmed. I doubt I will be back to this thread.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-07 15:46:34
Jesus said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is Gods.” We have here two domains , that of Caesar and that of God. Caesar’s power and that of all earthly institutions , including that of the family, are established and derive their authority from God. Their purpose is to administer and provide material, emotional and intellectual provision for those who are subject to them. "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows". "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous alike."
Moreover, the environment in which we have been placed is rational in that there is cause and effect which enables us to use common sense and reason in order to understand and control it. But we are not determined and we are not robots; we have free will and freedom of choice; we are responsible for our decisions.
This is where God’s domain comes in, for our conscience, that guides us in the decisions and actions we make, are to be informed by His Word and Spirit . Since God is the only one who knows the end from the beginning, who inhabits all of space and time and whose purposes, within which free will operates, are ultimately sovereign ( paradox), he alone is the one to whom we are ultimately responsible. When the state attempts leave its sphere of influence and instead assumes the role of dictating to our consciences, so that every thought, emotion , desire, intention and action are legislated for, it short circuits our common sense and reason and everyone becomes totally dependent on knowing at any given second what is legal and what is illegal. It is then that we have a theocracy ( Old Testament) or Tyranny.
Western Civilisation at this moment in history presents two tectonic plates colliding. Eddie Walker’s conscience is informed by common sense and reason ( the only safe place for sex is within marriage) and his conscience is informed by God’s Word and Spirit . Like a series of navigation lights, all have to line up.
The Lesbian,Gay, Bisexual and Transexual club who run neither on common sense and reason:
[link edited for length] (HIV is mostly about people doing stupid things in the pursuit of pleasure)
….have their consciences informed morally, ontologically and epistemologically by evolutionary humanism/ secularism/ materialism/Marxism. This is as much a faith as Christianity. More so. God is not into power sharing, neither is the secularist ideology. One has to give way. I hate to say it, Altongal, but the LGBTs are imposing their ideology on every sphere of life by enforcing their laws with fines, public humiliation, loss of job and soon prison. Unlike the preceding decades when homosexuality, fornication and adultery were tolerated (what people did in the their private lives - as long as it caused no harm to others - was considered to be of no concern to Christians), we now have a situation where Christians will not only not be tolerated but they will be expected to conform to the new ideology. This indeed is oppression. Equality, tolerance, inclusion and lack of discrimination is certainly for the homosexual but not for the Christian. We are an underclass.
As for victim, the whole of the homosexual agenda has been predicated upon the lie that they are victims- victims of a mythological era of abuse and holocaust. You tell me that their being the victim of doing stupid things is none of my business but then in the next breath you are probably going to tell me that their depression, suicidal tendencies and risky behaviour are as a consequence of homophobic bullying. Quite understandably I become a tad agitatto .
Of course statistically heterosexuals are responsible for 70% of paedophilia; they represent 98-99% of the population. A proportion of the remaining 1-2% of the homosexual population are responsible for the remaining 30% . So what does that say about the propensity for homosexuals to become paedophiles.? This is a very invaluabel dialogue . Thank you, David
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-07 16:26:42
Dear Chef matt, How are the tender loins? I hope you are sitting comfortably. I hope this does not come as too much of shock to you but I am not conversant with human rights. Are these something some one wrote, somewhere, some time ? I have heard of human responsibilities but not rights.You say that all people, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation deserve to have the same natural human rights; yet you omit “regardless of ideological or religious belief.”
You say that I admitted that I hate homosexual in one of my comments . Please point out where I might find this - that is unless your confusing their behaviour and orientation with them as people. You might not see a distinction, but I do!
As for your reading of the Bible , the next thing you will tell me is, don’t tell me , that the sin of those living in Sodom was inhospitality. Correct? Thought so.
I have forgotten all the wacky interpretations given to the proscriptions of homosexuality in the New Testament, but none of them, least of all in Romans refer to Mosaic Law. Paul relates this directly to men not acknowledging Him and his created order. Try reading Robert Gagnon [link edited for length] .
You may well ask why Christ never spoke about the subject Well he never spoke about a lot of things, including drug taking, abortion and watching too much pornography on television.
You say that you cannot give an explanation for how people become homosexual and that maybe there is no cause, just a state of being. Well, perhaps there is also no cause for those who change from homosexuality to heterosexuality , just a state of being. Don’t tell me your prejudice will not allow you to believe that some people are healed simply because this would be an inconvenience for you ; it might cause you to think a bit harder,.
You have just admitted that you couldn’t be bothered to do research on the clubs and then you accuse me of having a closed mind . I suggest you get back to those tender loins and pork sausages.
It may be that homosexuality is genetic, and that we just do not yet understand the genetics. The studies I have seen talk about gene clusters, not a simple gene. It may be quite a while before we fully understand our own genetics.
I also think you misunderstand why nature is important. Morality is about the choices we make. If we are incapable of making a choice, then talk of morality is meaningless. For example, we do not choose to be born male or female. We do not choose to be born in the USA or in the UK. We do not choose to be born wealthy, middle class, or poor. We do not choose the color of our skin. It would be foolish to say that it is immoral to be black, because there is no choice involved. It would be foolish to say that it is immoral to be male, because there is no choice involved. It is foolish to say that it is immoral to be homosexual because there is no choice involved.
As for the Bible, I prefer to focus on the core teaching of love: love God with all your heart, mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. I also think it is clear that we should be humble, that we should recognize that we are not perfect, that we are all brothers and sisters and that we are all beloved by God, who is, thankfully, a merciful God. Besides that, I don't live in a theocracy and I don't want to...so I figure a person's sexuality and what they do with it is between them and God...unless, of course, we're talking about things like rape and pedophilia, which we're not.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-08 00:27:10
Dear GK, I sense that gradually, here on this forum, we are all beginning to calm down, forget name calling and think - something that very few of us have the luxury of time or inclination to do. Altongal and Chef Matt , through all the smoke of burning tender loins, are putting up legitimate objections that need discussing. I must come clean and say that I worked on this topic, some would obsessively for two years , for two years. I am now in the process of testing my hypothesises by putting them into situations like that of Eddie Walker’s. In a sense I am detached and remote from what is going , being hidden in the depths of Dorset countryside, but I know that I am engaged in a real war with real victims. Anyway , enough of that , please read the first link by way of answering your first objection:.
Briefly, because I have to go and make a cup of tea for my wife, the real battle, humanly speaking, is with us heterosexuals who in a way will now use the homosexual issue to sweep away all restraints. I believe it is happening already, with the consequent break up the family and children becoming nihilistic and violent. Apart from that, Amen to everything you say.
Dear GK, I sense that gradually, here on this forum, we are all beginning to calm down, forget name calling and think - something that very few of us have the luxury of time or inclination to do.
I certainly hope so. In my experience, when people are on the defensive (ie: after they have been the target of name calling), people do not listen. If people don't listen to each other, there is no discussion.
Briefly, because I have to go and make a cup of tea for my wife, the real battle, humanly speaking, is with us heterosexuals who in a way will now use the homosexual issue to sweep away all restraints. I believe it is happening already, with the consequent break up the family and children becoming nihilistic and violent. Apart from that, Amen to everything you say.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that sexual orientation is determined by nature rather than by nurture, then is it reasonable to deny homosexuals rights because of the fear of what heterosexuals will do? If we set aside the more controversial issue of gay marriage, should gays be killed like Matthew Shepherd was, because we fear that other people will "sweep away all restraints" if homosexuals are allowed to live their lives the way that they want to live them? The Gay-Straight Alliance is not about turning people into homosexuals or about convincing them to have wild sex parties. The Gay-Straight Alliance wants to promote tolerance. The idea is that when people work together, they find out that they're brothers. If they grew up thinking blacks were lazy and stupid because that is what their father taught them, and they work or play with a black that is ambitious and intelligent, they have to rethink their stereotypes. "Hmm maybe not all blacks are that way..." - and the same process works with homosexuals, or any other stereotyped people. "Hey, I thought homosexuals were limp wristed hairdressers. This guy doesn't look or sound like a gay should, and he's awesome with computers..."
I have to stop here and pick up this thought later...I have to get ready for work.
"Of course statistically heterosexuals are responsible for 70% of paedophilia"
Really? Then why are a minimum of 80% of those attacks on girls, by men?
Your statistics are easily debunked with a question that simple. Which makes ythem nothing but disingenuous hatemongering.
You also appear to be disingenuously twisting the Bible yet again, by claiming that the "render unto Caesar" passage somehow justifies mixing secular and religious law when it, in fact, advocates the opposite. Am I reading that right? Cause that's goofy.
"You tell me that their being the victim of doing stupid things is none of my business but then in the next breath you are probably going to tell me that their depression, suicidal tendencies and risky behaviour are as a consequence of homophobic bullying."
Don't make up things that I'm "going to" say just because you can't disprove what I actually did say. We're not talking about bullying. We're talking about civil rights and secular governments versus theocracies. You can think whatever you want about homosexuality. When you try to impose your personal beliefs as law, that's when there's a problem. If you illegally assault or harass someone, you will be charged, just as you would be if you were physically or mentally bullying anyone. Equal treatment and protection under the law is the absolute right of every human being. And THAT is a truth that we, here in this country, hold to be self-evident: that all are created EQUAL.
And equal means that you, a mere human, do not speak for God, do not have the right to force other's of God's equal creations to do what you want or believe - and to attempt to use secular law to force your will is a perversion of pride and against God's commandments. THAT, sir, is what using the lord's name is vain really means. It's not about cursing. It's about using God in arenas that don't apply. It's about trying to dominate your fellow man in the name of God. Each person finds their own path to God. Laws and force impede that personal spiritual journey. Again, sans direct victims, you have no right to do that, and you certainly have no right to quote false or uncertain statistics as fact to facilitate your attempts to dominate other's lives via the law.
I still get the feeling that something happened in your life that has led to the current attitude you display, either something you feel guilty about or something that was done to you. Whatever it is, please seek help, and I say that in all seriousness, not as some online quip. You come across as someone who was out of control of something at one point and now seeks to take control. Or, maybe I'm wrong and you're just a schmo and I'm being too generous. Ah well. Either way, this conversation is rather non-productive at this point, and even reading your posts with an English accent isn't making them entertaining at this point, so I'm moving on.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-08 14:00:21
Dear Gk, no gene and no gene cluster has been found. Last year there was a desperate attempt to forward the nature theory by announcing that they had found gay sheep in Oregan. [link edited for length]
Just as we all have negative traits - ones that we would prefer not to have; ones that we did not choose - but which are not genetic , so I believe it is the case with homosexuality.
In some ways I believe that we are all in need from healing from the effects of a combination of events and our own temperaments that have conspired against us in early childhood. In a sense we did not choose to be like this ; but we are. King David said in Psalm 51, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” You , as a Christian would understand that.
No where have I said that gays should be stoned to death or suffer the fate of Matthew Shepherd. Without in any way wishing to detract from his ordeal, I think you ought to read this:
Last year 27 teenagers were murdered in London by other teenagers. Not one of those killings was prompted by homophobia. The militant gay lobby are peddling lies about the numbers of violent homophobic crimes. My fear is that as the gays make more and more demands on society, so the more extreme elements of society , the red necks, will visit a violent back lash on them. I believe that many homosexuals who prefer to keep a low profile understand this.
Bringing black, the left -handed, ginger haired, obese, and height challenged into this is confusing apples with pears. A black man will always be a black man, and this woman will always be a woman: [link edited for length]
I have a homosexual friend, as already mentioned and have always treated him with compassion but I have never said the cruellest thing possible which is that his orientation is immutably fixed, with never the possibility of healing.
I cannot see how these clubs are not going to do anything other than accelerate immorality and promiscuity amongst school kids. “Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-08 14:48:11
Altongal, one would expect that in a society that was at least 98% heterosexual that it would be responsible for 98% of sexual attacks by men on girls. Even using the 80% figure that you quote shows that a proportion, not the whole of the 1-2% that makes up the homosexual population, is responsible for the remaining 20% of homosexual paedophilia. Put simply a homosexual using these figures is at least 20 times more likely to commit paedophilia. I believe it is at least 30 times.
As for the “Render unto Caesar bit” , I obviously have not explained myself, but, put simply, if the Christian is not allowed to inform every area of his life by his faith, then neither should the secularist. You assume that the secularist inhabits some exalted, neutral and autonomous position , free from ideology and a world view that requires as much faith if not more than the Christian. The tenets of the secularist , regarding existence, the nature of man , morality and the method by which we come to know truth are not objective truths; they are the inventions of men, philosophers like Descartes Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Marx and so on. Why should these be imposed on society?
I have nowhere suggested that I am for theocracies. Men and women have to come to a personal faith through their free will, not as with Islam at the end of knife, rifle or bomb. No doubt in the past, the state , starting with Constantine attempted to bring about God’s Kingdom on Earth forcefully and now. The Bible always talks about it as a future event. “ Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come.” The fact of the matter is that what made Western European civilisation great was the Bible. It produced scientist, artists, composers, social reformers, institutions like Harvard, our hospitals and laws that emancipated slaves. William Wilberforce was a Christian.
You are absolutely right about something happening in my life that gives me the energy to pursue this. I had a homosexual boss who for six years attempted to silence my views. I experienced at first hand his narcissistic, arrogant and vengeful character. The man, though highly talented ( as with many homosexuals) was a peacock. Secondly I had to distribute secular and humanist sex education to children in schools and I have seen the damage it has done in society, especially with regard to the destruction of the family. Finally our government is forcing homosexuality on us with the threat that if anyone says the slightest thing negative or critical about it, it will be deemed as inciting homophobic hatred. This would , if the bill have succeeded, carried a seven year sentence. My main concerns are exactly the same as those of Eddie Walker; they for our children and the family.
No where have I said that gays should be stoned to death or suffer the fate of Matthew Shepherd.
You're right. You didn't. I also didn't accuse you of wishing such a thing on anyone. I was merely using Mr. Shepherd as an example of why tolerance is important. As I understand it, tolerance, not sex, is what the Gay-Straight Alliance wants to promote. Regardless of whether you and I think people should be having sex outside the context of marriage (I agree with you - they shouldn't), nobody deserves to be a victim of violence because of their sexual desires and sexual activity.
I think most people are happy to keep a low profile when it comes to their sex lives. Most of us do not do so out of fear. It is a shame that homosexuals have to think "Can I risk holding his hand in public?" or "Can I risk giving her a kiss in public?" They shouldn't have to. It should be as much of a non-issue as when heterosexuals do it.
I cannot see how these clubs are not going to do anything other than accelerate immorality and promiscuity amongst school kids. “Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?
I cannot see how they would. As I said, they are about promoting tolerance...and thus decrease the immorality of violence and prejudice. I do not see how doing so has to promote sexual immorality and promiscuity. I do not see why they cannot be taught about the dangers involved in (any) sexual activity, birth control, and of course, abstainance, while being taught, at the same time, that it is wrong to discriminate, hate, and violate those that are different (whether that difference is race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation). I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.
They could even be taught about morality, although I suspect that this is better handled by family and religion than by public schools, because there is disagreement on sexual morality. What you find immoral, someone else finds amoral. That's not the fault of homosexuals, either. That's just the society we live in. We have Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics...and on and on. Some things we all agree on. Murder, fraud, theft, child molestation, rape...are all bad. Some things we disagree about: abortion, fornication between consenting adults, prostitution, use of recreational drugs (including, but not limited to alcohol and marijuana), dancing, cohabitation, the need for women to wear burkas, breastfeeding in public, women being topless in public...and so on. Whose version of morality do we teach? Before you say "MINE, obviously", remember that everyone else is thinking the same thing. The Muslim father does not want his Muslim values to be undermined...nor does the Buddhist father, or the Hindu father or the Catholic father or the Atheist father...
That said, I do not think teaching tolerance undermines anyone's moral beliefs, unless those beliefs are that certain groups (homosexuals, gypsies, blacks, latinos...) deserve to be victims of violence and unjust discrimination. Since neither violence nor discrimination are loving things, it seems to me that teaching tolerance is in harmony with the Christian faith...because in the end, those homosexuals and bisexuals are our brothers and sisters in Christ...and contrary to what Fred Phelps likes to preach...God loves them too. If we aspire to be Christ-like, then we should treat our brothers and sisters with love.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-09 00:14:14
Dear GK, Tolerance is fine but it is a word which though outwardly having the same packaging as the word “tolerance” used forty or fifty years ago, contains something entirely different, today. The public have been misled by it. The original contents meant forbearing and being patient with something which was wrong. To be tolerant of someone’s ignorance did not mean that one accepted it, but patiently tried to correct it. Tolerance today means that we accept and even celebrate that ignorance, e.g., the TV programme, “Big Brother.”
For Mr Eddie Walker to be forced to have a club that specifically concentrated on being tolerant to gays would in many ways go against the equality laws, that I am sure you and the rest on this thread would uphold. If he were to go down this route, he would be forced to have a club for those who are obese, ugly, too short or too tall, ginger haired, left handed or suffer from tourettes, kleptomania , irritable bowel syndrome or were compulsive liars. When all these minority groups are regarded as victims we start an endless ladder of groups who define themselves by this or that characteristic and whose rights would override those of others. At moment in society, the group that has the least rights is the un born child of which 200, 000 are disposed of each year in Britain. Do you think that these babies should have had a voice, as well as their mothers?
Bullies generally home in on those who are different, display some weakness and who also receive preferential treatment. This initiative will not only not deter the bullies but will only incite them to find more devious ways to get at the homosexual, who will actually be put at even greater risk of violence.
All forms of bullying need to be knocked , literally, on the head. I know of no case where a cowardly bully who was confronted and dealt with rigorously did not stop his habit. Ironically, the bully has also become to be regarded as a victim . Should Mr Eddie Walker have a club for reaching out to them also ?
Your suggestion that we only teach children the consequences of pursuing promiscuous behaviour without any moral added -value has had disastrous consequences in society. If we shift morality to the outer perimeters of private preference there well may be some whose private preference is to have no morality at all. “Don’t impose universal morality on me since history began” has become “Don’t impose your morality on me.” In fact in your penultimate paragraph you describe the situation perfectly. But what you are suggesting is that no one has a preserve to the best moral values. If this were, true, there would be no progress in social reforms ; no one society would be seen to be more just and righteous than another. North Korea would be seen to be no better a place in which to live than Lexington County.
Not only that but those behaviours that you mention like murder, fraud, theft, child molestation, rape are indeed entering the ranks of private preference. Sentences in Britain for the most heinous crimes of murder are beginning to carry less severity than for speeding on the highway.
Anglican Church unity and integration, are not the same as the universalist's mantras "inclusion and diversity and tolerance " which have been seized with an almost religious fervour. The letter to the Ephesians, as a consequence, orders the church to enforce this selection and to exclude those within the church fellowship who are clearly not called, or who behave as such, until as such time as they are brought to repentance.
Although Jesus Christ is the final judge, there is a burden of responsibility laid upon us all. The universal church does have responsibilities in making sure that there is a clear distinction between the Christian and all others. Like an invading and infiltrating army we have to be in society but not of it. Above all, like troops, in Normandy, during D-Day, engaged in fierce hand to hand fighting, we need to recognise friend from foe.
Paul, in writing to the Ephesians clearly describes how the Christian must separate themselves from gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. He describes those outside the family of God as: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Further on he said;
“But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity…….because these are improper for God's holy people....have nothing to do with the fruitless seeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret...…Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.”
Jesus said in Matthew 7: 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it”
Matt 3:
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
To say that the Gospel of Christ was only about love misses the point that it was His love that saves us from the consequences, power and punishment of sin.
Matt.5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him
2 Peter 2: 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly( nothing to do with inhospitality); 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men( promiscuous and rapacious bisexuality) 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
Your suggestion that we only teach children the consequences of pursuing promiscuous behaviour without any moral added -value has had disastrous consequences in society. If we shift morality to the outer perimeters of private preference there well may be some whose private preference is to have no morality at all.
I was more thinking that the morals would be taught by parents and by the church rather than they not be taught at all, and that was only because we're talking about a public school. In a diverse society, whose morals do you teach? Last night on the radio, they were talking about the 10 commandments. Two people that grew up in evangelical (fundamentalist) churches talked about the teaching that if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have already committed adultery. While I grew up with that teaching, too (it is in the Bible after all), the emphasis wasn't the same. They described the books (they said they tried the books' advice, but the advice didn't work) out there that try to help people control their thoughts, they described the guilt they felt if they saw a pretty girl, and so forth. To my ears, it sounded like madness, as mad as forcing women to wear burkas. I'm not an evangelical - I am a Catholic. While my Bible is probably different, it is only because it includes more books than the one they grew up with, not less. Even though the passage in question is in my Bible, too - their application of it seems...extreme to me...but to each their own. I see nothing wrong with an evangelical school teaching kids sent there this version of morality. If parents disagree with this strict version, they can send their kids to a Catholic school or a Lutheran school, or even a public school. Whose morals do you teach? If we were all one homogeneous group and all believed the same things, it would be easy...but there is a diversity of beliefs.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-09 07:25:52
Dear GK, the idea that Christianity had no part to play in the American character flies in the face of all the evidence. That America is also turning its back on that which gave it the moral courage to become arguably the greatest nation on Earth is also true.
Your suggestion that teaching morality should be left to parents will, if the evolutionary humanists / secularists / homosexual lobby take control of the legislation, no longer be an option. It is not a fanciful possibility that eventually children will be taken away from parents who do not conform to secular ideology. Oppression of Christians has already started, with the enforced resignation of Mr Eddie Walker, who stands as loco parentis to nearly two thousand children in his school.
As for the passage of Matthew 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Or as the Message translations gives it :
27-28"You know the next commandment pretty well, too: 'Don't go to bed with another's spouse.' But don't think you've preserved your virtue simply by staying out of bed. Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body. Those leering looks you think nobody notices—they also corrupt.”
I would have thought that it could not be plainer. The sin does not occur in lustful thoughts suddenly coming into one’s mind whilst looking at a pretty girl - thoughts which all red -blooded men are prone to have , but dwelling on those thoughts until, all that divides one from either committing adultery or rape is lack of opportunity, one’s inhibitions or fear of being found out. The Bible says that one day every thought and action done in the darkness will be revealed for all to see. God looks into the heart, not just the way we present ourselves to the world. That he says “Blessed are the pure in heart” is neither evangelical, extreme, fanatical; it’s just the truth.
What the speakers on your radio programme failed to state is that through the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit and knowing the Truth of his Word, drunkards are made sober, lechers are made pure and murderers are reformed . God is in the business of re constructing us so that one day we will all conform to the image of his son, Jesus Christ.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-09 11:00:02
Yo Davis, Rick even, Thank you for these quotes and yes they did make them. However, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also said other things ( the internet is an amazing facility!)
John Quincy Adams
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” [June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]
“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” [letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;……………………
Rick, this is really interesting, knowing practically zilch about American presidents it certainly is worth a study.
One solution to the seemingly contradictory statements made , not only by these two, but subsequent presidents, is that what they so passionately rejected was the institutionalised church, that had been kicked off by Constantine in the 4th century. Quite rightly they were for freedom of conscience, will and choice. They did not believe in coercion and so it is with the relationship between a Christian and his heavenly Father. However when people like Washington, seem to deny any Christian faith , they make statements that clearly show that they hold Christian values. it’s the political machinations of both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Church that they reject. If you talk to people of my generation and especially older, even if they are not Christians, you will find their views informed by the Christian world view. I am pretty certain that if you were able to go back two and three thousands or more, to the land of Israel , to Old Testament Palestine , you would find the same thing with Jews, who whilst accepting the ontological and moral presuppositions of Judaism, were sceptical about God and his self revelation to men.
Likewise with the evolutionary humanist/ secular world view that dominates western civilisation. There are now millions of people who have never read one humanist, philosophical work, but they have absorbed its values and presuppositions. Even as I type there is a massive re- education programme underway in all our schools, brainwashing our children into accepting these presuppositions.
I really don't see what the importance of this tangent is. It doesn't matter a bit to me whether or not the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" as some like to say. I'm not sure that you'd like the Jefferson Bible. Its formal title is The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He edited out the supernatural aspects: no angels, no miracles...
More important, I think, is its foundation in the philosophy of the enlightenment. More important, is the idea of religious freedom. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Catholic, or a Protestant. It doesn't matter if your religion is not an Abrahamic religion. In the USA, you can worship the way you wish (although some things won't fly: plural marriages and human sacrifice, for example...) You won't be denied the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to education...for being in the "wrong" religion. Our society is much more diverse than the one our forefathers founded, and our government will reflect that. This is nothing to apologize for. This is how it should be.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-09 22:45:17
GK,
When you imply that you don’t mind how the United States ( or the United Kingdom, United Soviet Republic, or the United Arab Emirates States) was founded , are you saying that they are all equally good?
The statement :“It doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Catholic, or a Protestant. It doesn't matter if your religion is not an Abrahamic religion.” seems to imply that somehow religion is of no practical consequence; it is a private affair divorced from real life. But then you suddenly bring in a little bit of selectivity; you reject plural marriages ( Mormons and Muslims) and human sacrifice ( Aztecs) I hate to point out that these things are already happening in the USA, with polyamory and abortion.
The so-called enlightenment says that there is no absolute truth or as some one said “no true truth”– everything is relative, there being as many answers to the big questions as there are individuals. Hence the demand that we be tolerant of all and any opinions. You may give legitimacy to an argument by saying it is tolerant, inclusive, modern, enlightened, socialist, stark, progressive, courageous, scientific, technological, post modern, 21st century, but you must never, never, ever, ever - on pain of public ridicule - say that this is right or wrong, true or false.
Categories disappear; boundaries and definitions that we have lived with suddenly seem to be totally artificial, probably created by our ancestors to control society (taboos) and give some shape and form to existence. Hence the disappearance of distinctions between left and right , up and down, male and female, married and unmarried, guilty and the innocent, victim and perpetrator, good and evil etc. Everything is a matter of individual and shifting perception. All views and preferences are of equal value and what may be true for me might not be true for you; what might be true for me in the morning may well not be in the afternoon.
And if there is no ultimate, rational basis for belief in an absolute truth or beauty that exists over and above our understanding then the logical conclusion is that nothing has any value or meaning. And yet there lies a deep inconsistency here, for when a piece of engineering such as a bridge is designed ,the idea that everything is random becomes untenable . Purpose, reason and ideas of true and false have to operate. And yet in our personal relations and in our day to day lives we operate on the premise that life has no purpose ; this is according to a picture of human existence constructed by mere men who believed they could crudely apply principles for designing a bridge to the unravelling of the complexities and mysteries of personality, final cause and purpose.
But nothing is new. Their conclusions only repeat those of the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes, written 3000 years ago who, without the aid of modern thinking also came to the conclusion that life is absurd, pointless and meaningless.
You might think that you are free from the ideology and presuppositions of this age, that you engage independently in the real world without reference to any philosophical persuasion, but we are all creatures of our time; we cannot help but absorb and adopt the attitudes and pre- suppositions that happen to be in fashion- without even being aware of it. Twenty- first century, technological and post- modern society is manipulated and brainwashed on a massive scale, thanks to the power of the mass-media, by philosophies which over a period of several hundred years but particularly during the last decades have trickled and permeated down through art, literature, film and finally into every recess of life- even to the man digging a ditch. . Behind them all is this same message: stimulate yourselves now with whatever strong experience will give you a sense of being alive because this is all there is to a pointless and inconsequential existence.
The idea that children should not be taught any set of beliefs, for fear of indoctrinating and brainwashing them, but instead should be left to find out the truth for themselves, is sentimental and romantic wishful thinking. They are being indoctrinated every second by the society around them. The materialistic philosophy falls on them like black, atomic dust. Living in a state of uncertainty and indecision where one refuses to make a choice (for fear of making the wrong one, or out of a mistaken wish to remain uncommitted and free, or out of a desire not be seen to be intolerant or narrow-minded, or because it is fashionable to be sceptical, and certainly for children, for fear of being different to everyone else) is not a state of mind that can be endured for long without experiencing acute anxiety and isolation If we do not make up our minds, others will do it for us; we will subliminally adopt the values and attitudes of our peers. We will conform, no matter where this takes us.
Modern, consumerist society believes and acts the way it does simply because it is driven by an ever more demanding standard of satisfaction for its insatiable appetites and the need to experience ever stronger stimulation. It is even incapable of articulating what it does believe but instead unthinkingly conforms and marches in step to whatever is the consensus of consumer opinion, or as the communists call it, collective thought (and increasingly the demands of vociferous minority pressure groups)… yet all the while being deluded into the conceit that it is free……absolutely free. The reality is that we are under bondage to own compulsive natures and the standards around us. Without any fixed point of reference, like a ship without compass or captain, society will drift in a sea of relativity and will change its attitudes and values according to the political climate. The passengers and crew do not mind where the ship is going, just so long as everything is running smoothly and everyone has the feel- good factor.
The only moral compass is a constantly changing political correctness- the average consensus at any particular moment. What might be shocking and completely unacceptable behaviour can almost overnight become respectable and what was previously considered to be decent and responsible behaviour can become criminalised. Morality is completely turned on its head. Without any fixed, absolute point of reference, human nature has a way of accommodating and becoming comfortable over a period of time with a state of hell. It can gradually sleep walk into becoming hardened, desensitised to cruelty, barbarism and evil, until what was considered abnormal or deviant becomes the acceptable norm, as happened in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia and now- even Britain. .
Finally when you say that :“You won't be denied the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to education...for being in the "wrong" religion. Our society is much more diverse than the one our forefathers founded, and our government will reflect that.” this is absolutely tosh; Mr Walker is being denied the right to hold public office and this is just the beginning.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-10 00:06:46
In passing , if human nature was perfectly good , we would not need laws governing our behaviour, except as far as acting as football referee or traffic cop so that everything keeps flowing smoothly. However, there is another aspect of human nature which means that we have laws against murder and theft.
We also used to have laws that protected marriage and the family because human nature veers towards unfaithfulness , adultery and promiscuity - it certainly does with men . All that Mr Eddie Walker was doing was trying to protect marriage and the family, something with which , you as a Catholic I would have thought, would have had sympathy.
The idea that children should not be taught any set of beliefs, for fear of indoctrinating and brainwashing them
That is not what I was talking about. I did not say that they should not be taught any set of beliefs. I said that it is better for parents and religion to teach them, because if we rely on the public schools to do so, the question of "whose beliefs?" do we teach? Do the public schools teach the values of the evangelical Christians, the Catholic Church, the atheist, the Muslim....whose values? While there are some areas where that question may be easy to answer, because they are core values, there are are others where there is much disagreement. Sex is one of those areas. Does the public school indoctrinate our children into evangelical beliefs so that they are like the people on the radio, who felt such profound guilt because they saw a pretty girl and thought they committed adultery? Does the public school indoctrinate our children into hedonist "if it feels good, do it" beliefs, or do we indoctrinate them into something in between? Maybe the public schools should indoctrinate them into believing the girls have to wear burkas. Who decides? Ultimately, it is up to the parent to raise their child in their beliefs.
Mr Walker is being denied the right to hold public office and this is just the beginning.
No, he is not. He is not being fired. He is leaving, of his own free will. He may even run for a position on the school board. If he does so, and if he garners enough support, the school district can tell the federal government to keep its money. If they do so, they would be in a stronger position to deny the Gay-Straight Alliance permission to exist at the school, since the Equal Access Act starts with "It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance".
We also used to have laws that protected marriage and the family because human nature veers towards unfaithfulness , adultery and promiscuity - it certainly does with men . All that Mr Eddie Walker was doing was trying to protect marriage and the family, something with which , you as a Catholic I would have thought, would have had sympathy.
The Gay-Straight Alliance is about promoting tolerance...not sex. It does not follow that if one is tolerant of homosexuals, that marriage and the family will disintegrate. The issues of unfaithfulness, adultery and promiscuity are distractions from the issue. One can be homosexual without being unfaithful and without being promiscuous, just as one can be a heterosexual without being unfaithful and promiscuous. I know this because I have met people of both orientations that are faithful to the people they love, and have monogamous relationships with the people they love. The only difference is whether the one they love is of the same or opposite sex.
I don't think your quotes really refute my point. I didn't say they weren't primarily Christians - what my point was that they were very careful to separate church and state. For example, there is no reference to God at all in the US Constitution.
I cut my reply short earlier because I was in a hurry to get ready for work. It turns out that today is my day off (oops), so I have more time than I thought I did.
Before I address your other points, I will finish where I left off in my last post:
As for the Catholic position on homosexuality you can click here to read what the Catechism says about it. I am sure that you will like what it says, and that homosexuals will not. I won't quote the entire paragraphs, because I trust that you can click on a link as well as I can. Most of the text concerns what homosexuals are called to do (namely: live a chaste life). There are a couple of sentences in paragraph 2358, however, that talk about how we should act toward homosexuals:
"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
When you imply that you don’t mind how the United States ( or the United Kingdom, United Soviet Republic, or the United Arab Emirates States) was founded , are you saying that they are all equally good?
What I meant was that I don't see the relevance of the religious beliefs of our founding fathers. I think their political and legal beliefs are far more important. I do not even share their religious beliefs. As I said, I am a Catholic. They were not. They were Christians, but even then, that may be using the term loosely. Jefferson, for example, rewrote the Bible. He liked Christ's ethics. He did not like the supernatural aspects of the Christ story. The Jefferson Bible does not talk about Christ performing miracles, it does not talk about an angel appearing to Mary, and so forth. Is Christianity without the divine really Christianity?
Many of the founding fathers were deists rather than theists. They believed that God existed, created the world...and then, like a divine clockmaker, decided to step back and let the world run itself. This is not the faith I grew up with. It would make no sense to pray for divine intercession for the healing of a loved one, if you believe that God is just going to let the illness run its course, regardless of your pleas, for example.
Since I do not share the faith of the founders, I find their beliefs on freedom to be much more important. Many of them fled England because of religious persecution. They wanted to live and worship the way they felt was right to do so. They could not do so in England, so they left. Early on, when people talked about religious freedom, they only meant religious freedom for them. They wanted a colony where they could be Puritans, but if Baptists showed up, they had no respect for their right to worship as Baptists, for example. Gradually, though, people figured out that religious freedom should be extended to everyone. This is more important than whether the founding fathers were Christians or not.
If you are going to construct an argument against a practice, a religious argument is of limited use. Telling me that fornication is wrong because it displeases God, and showing me where it says so in scripture could work, because I am a Catholic. I believe in God. I believe the Bible is the Word of God (though we may disagree on interpretation). Using that argument with an atheist or a Hindu would be downright silly. They might say "Okay, I understand now why you believe it's wrong...but that book is no more authoritative to me as is Lord of the Rings. I still think nothing is wrong with it - she's an adult, she's consenting, we're using protection...". This may horrify you, but imagine someone demanding that your wife wear a burka because Islam (or rather, his sect of Islam) says that she should. Would you not object, saying something along the lines of "Now wait a minute...that's Islam, not Christianity. Your wife and sister can wear the burka if you guys believe that's what God is asking of you...but God isn't asking us to do that."?
Homosexuals find themselves in a similar situation. Regardless of whether they actually are right or wrong, they do not believe they are doing anything wrong. The homosexals that I know: the ones who are in monogomous relationships just like a married couple, are not hurting anyone. They're not trying to turn anyone into a homosexual (as if anyone could do that). They're not ruining peoples marriages (again, as if they were capable of that...). They're not molesting kids (that's the pedophiles). They're not having sex with automobiles, bicycles, sheep, or dogs. They're normal folks, living normal lives...and the fact that the love of their life and sexual partner (often referred to as "hubby", even though legal marriage is not yet an option) is the same sex that they are...is the least interesting thing about them. You can try to preach to them and convince them to repent, if you wish, and they have every right to disagree with you. I suppose in the end, God will sort it out, and thankfully, God is merciful. I am willing to leave it in His capable hands.
I really doubt that anyone would choose to be a homosexual. From what I have seen, it's something they struggle with. They want to be "normal", they want to fit in. They don't want to be hated. They don't want to be beaten or murdered. They don't want to be rejected by their own families. Some of them resolve that struggle successfully. Some end their own lives because they cannot resolve it. In order to endure the rejection of one's own family and peers takes great strength. Some have it. Some don't. For some, the pain amounts to a living hell. If sexuality was as simple as making a choice, I am sure that they would choose heterosexuality to fit in, to make their mom and dad happy. Some try...and find they are living a lie. They can go through the motions, they can put on an act...but at the end of the day, they know it is false...that they are not being true to themselves. Who wants to live a life where you are lying to yourself, much less lying to everyone?
Groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance are not about advancing immorality, turning people gay, and ruining families. They want people to be able to live their lives true to themselves, without having to be afraid that their parents will disown them, that their peers will mock them, and maybe even hate and attack them. Is that really so much to ask for?
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-10 15:15:22
I am afraid it is very late, after having just returned from seeing my son in Nottingham. I hope to return to the joust tomorrow - if anyone is still there. So, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry" until then.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-11 11:31:10
Dear RS , I do not disagree that faith and the state should be separate, but that also should exclude the faith of humanism and secularism that have assumed the same role as the old theocracies, just as in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” the boars supplanted the farmer and communist tyrants supplanted kings. For instance the UK government dictates what we think, feel and do in a way that is way more oppressive and intrusive than at any time in my life- time. No one can claim to occupy an objective and neutral position. Man is not a sufficient integration point in himself. God gave us free wills and the dignity of being able to make choices. We are neither animals or machines; we are free and responsible agents, but we are not omni potent, omniscient or omnipresent. We are finite.
As for former presidents and even Albert Einstein saying inconsistent and contradictory statements about religion, what does one expect? We are after all only human; we change our minds and we cannot help but select those things when they suit us and deny them when they don’t . Look at the way Peter, when questioned by a slip of girl, denied three times that he knew Christ. The word that is consistently the same -and I know that this could potentially get me into huge debate about the Bible and its apparent contradictions- is the word of God.
Finally when the secularist says the transcendental, the mystical and the spiritual should have no part to play in daily life, this ignores the fact no one has been able to explain why anything exists as opposed to nothing existing. The evolutionist says that everything evolved from primordial slime, but where did the matter and energy come from in the first place? We as Christians worship the great I Am , who was, is and is to come.. All of life is a miracle and often it is the scientist, many whom are Christians who are most aware of this.
Dear GK , in answer to your question as to which set of Morals do we teach. The answer must surely be the core values with which the major religions, apart from evolutionary humanism agree with: we teach modesty. Humanism takes the view that what is , is reality; we have to move with the times. I visited Thailand many some years ago and was struck how the school girls wore modest, elegant and feminine uniform, whereas the girls in my own school in the UK looked like a load of street walkers. To assume that children will be promiscuous and tell them that all will be well if they practice safe sex, is like teaching them to play with detonators, whilst vainly hoping that the bomb will not go off.
To suggest that Mr Eddies Walker is being forced to leave before he is shoved, is in my humble opinion to underestimate the militancy of the homosexual lobby. Once they get into that school that will close down any kind of course that teaches purity and celibacy before marriage. You only have to see what has happened in the UK to see how the lower eats up and destroy the higher.
In Scotland, both Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt Christian Unions have faced opposition from their respective student associations. In Edinburgh University, the Christian Union had sought to teach the "Pure" Course on University facilities. This course promotes biblical teaching on sex and specifically that Christians should exercise sexual restraint until marriage. The Christian Union was criticised for teaching that the bible states that homosexuals must remain celibate. The course was criticised for being homophobic. Accordingly, the Christian Union was banned by the University authorities from teaching this course on University facilities. At Heriot-Watt University, the Christian Union is not being permitted to affiliate with the Student Association because it requires all members to sign a statement of faith.
As far as homosexual relationships being more or less stable there is plenty of evidence to show that they break up much faster than that of heterosexuals. I am not talking about the elderly or middle aged couple who have lived down the road together for years. They keep to themselves and are not atypical of what we are talking about
GK I would agree with much of what you say about our need to respect all of human life, including that of the unborn child. I would also agree that arguing about this to non Christians, using Biblical arguments is an absolute waste of time. But we do have a duty to point out the mental, emotional, physical and social negative aspects of homosexuality. There are real material consequences to their behaviour that are more extreme than that of heterosexuals .HIV and AIDs are considerably more prevalent amongst gays than straights.
If however we are sharing the gospel we have to tell people the whole picture. That includes talking about a possible lost eternity, an eternal separation from God after the first death. It does not matter how loving a homosexual or heterosexual relationship has been, if it does not conform to what Christ said in the Bible about marriage . We are not judged according to how loving, committed and caring we have been; we are judged according the sufficiency of Christ’s saving blood and whether we have been obedient to his word. When Christ said “It is finished” he meant that it was his perfect and sacrificial death that saved us and anything we might do to assist in this sacrifice by way of good deeds is but filthy rags.
This does not mean that we can live our lives as we please. Proof that we have accepted Christ’s death would be changing us from being selfish to thinking of others. A changed life is the fruit of the holy spirit living within us, enabling us to start living out our faith. Without this Spirit within us it is impossible .
I do not disagree that faith and the state should be separate, but that also should exclude the faith of humanism and secularism that have assumed the same role as the old theocracies, just as in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” the boars supplanted the farmer and communist tyrants supplanted kings. For instance the UK government dictates what we think, feel and do in a way that is way more oppressive and intrusive than at any time in my life- time. No one can claim to occupy an objective and neutral position. Man is not a sufficient integration point in himself. God gave us free wills and the dignity of being able to make choices. We are neither animals or machines; we are free and responsible agents, but we are not omni potent, omniscient or omnipresent. We are finite.
As for former presidents and even Albert Einstein saying inconsistent and contradictory statements about religion, what does one expect? We are after all only human; we change our minds and we cannot help but select those things when they suit us and deny them when they don’t . Look at the way Peter, when questioned by a slip of girl, denied three times that he knew Christ. The word that is consistently the same -and I know that this could potentially get me into huge debate about the Bible and its apparent contradictions- is the word of God.
Right. The government should not push any moral philosophy or way of thinking. They should merely protect our right to develop our own belief system and prevent us from doing direct harm to others.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-11 13:15:08
Dear RS, Obviously we have to have some form of social organisation, institution, governments and authority - unless that is , we want anarchy. Legislation is democratically discussed and voted upon so that health , justice and security is accessible to everyone. So you wouldn’t disagree with the following six Mosaic commandment?
16 Respect your father and mother. 17 No murder. 18 No adultery. 19 No stealing. 20 No lies about your neighbour. 21 No coveting your neighbor's wife. And no lusting for his house, field, servant, maid, ox, or donkey either—nothing that belongs to your neighbour!
Imagine how society would be if we lived by these negative commandments.
The Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transueal lobby in Britain doesn’t mind who it harms just so long as it gets what it wants. Stonewall wanted to bring in a law that would make the slighted criticism of homosexuality a crime that would carry a prison sentence of seven years .This piece of proposed legislation was called the incitement to homophobic hatred crime. Carried to its logical conclusion it would have meant that someone, even by keeping quiet, sitting on their hands and not standing with everyone else at a public meeting in open acclamation of homosexuality could have been caught by the law.
It is resulting in the closure of great swathes of voluntary work , and good public service, just as it is in America with the closure of Catholic Adoption Agencies and many others.
Even extreme homosexual activists, like Peter Tatchell understand and fear where this is going . To his credit he voiced strong opposition to the hatred law because he saw that freedom of speech and freedom of expression were vital to a democratic society. May I say that those who have fought for freedom of speech have been Christians who have paid for it with their lives.( Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer) And I am not talking about the established church , both RC and Anglican been guilty of persecuting those who wanted religious freedom.
As far as homosexual relationships being more or less stable there is plenty of evidence to show that they break up much faster than that of heterosexuals. I am not talking about the elderly or middle aged couple who have lived down the road together for years. They keep to themselves and are not atypical of what we are talking about
Relationships are funny things. There are no guarantees. Some of them work, some of them do not. I have three brothers, and two of them are on their second wives. The third brother is still in his first marriage. Myself, the longest relationship can be measured in months, not years. My parents, on the other hand, have been married since the 1950s. My sister is also in her first marriage. Where one succeeds, another fails. There are no guarantees. Still, we all have the same need for love. It is not good that man should be alone.
One thing I have learned about this subject is that it is very easy for me to think about it in the abstract. I have to remind myself that we are talking not about numbers and percentages, but people...people who want to be accepted, people who want to be loved, people who want to live their lives without fear. Regardless of whether we think homosexual acts are sinful or not, who are we to stand in the way of their pursuit of happiness? They may or may not achieve happiness...they may never find that man or woman they can grow old with. Why should we make an already difficult thing - even more difficult?
But we do have a duty to point out the mental, emotional, physical and social negative aspects of homosexuality.
Why not revise that statement? "But we do have a duty to point out the mental, emotional, physical and social negative aspects of homosexuality." How many of the negatives are a result of people outside the relationship? They do not exist in isolation. If your family rejects you, if your peers hate you, if you have to hide who you are because you fear for your life, would that not cause mental, emotional, social...and even physical "negative aspects"? As for HIV, that would appear to be something that the homosexual community has to deal with. From the links you have provided, it appears that people are trying to do something about it by promoting safer sex (ie: use of condoms). It is not a perfect solution, obviously, but expecting homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) to stop having sex because someone tells them to is unrealistic. Whether they use condoms or not, they are going to have sex. I would hope that they would also listen when people tell them that having multiple sex partners is very risky, but there are always going to be people that take the risk anyway. What are you going to do? Regardless of sexual orientation, we are a stiff necked people.
As for the religious arguments: all I can say is that as sure as you are that God doesn't want people engaging in homosexual acts, there are homosexuals that are just as sure that God doesn't care...that God was really talking about homosexual activity in the context of worship of other gods, and so forth. I would support your right to preach to them to call them to repentance. I believe it can be done without being hateful - that it can be done in a spirit of love. If they disagree with you, however, I would suggest shaking the dust from your sandals and moving on. I do not like what Fred Phelps (I refuse to call him "Reverend") of the Westboro Baptist Church does: picketing funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs and so forth. The Bible should not be used as a hammer. That behavior tends to turn people away from God.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-12 00:32:14
Dear GK, the words “ relationship” and “partners” have come to supplant the words “marriage” and “husband and wife.” We can replace vital components of an engine with things that look like a spark plug or distributor but if they are not the real thing, the engine is, pardon the expression, buggared .
The family as defined by the Bible is probably the last physical manifestation of Christianity in society .Dietrich Bonhoeffer , sitting in a Nazi prison cell, once wrote a wedding sermon for a niece who was about to be married . In it he said, “ Marriage is more than your love for each other. It has a higher dignity and power, for it is God’s holy ordinance , through which he wills to perpetuate the human race till the end of time . In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of generations , which God causes to come and to pass away to his glory, and calls into his kingdom. In your love you see only the heaven of your happiness , but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind . Your love is your own private possession , but marriage is more than something personal - it is a status an office.”
It is not love that maintains a marriage but marriage that maintains love.
No matter what religion one goes to, one finds that marriage is an expression of that religion. It is the judeo-christian model of the family upon which our once great civilisation was based not the evolutionary humanist , sexually orientated and oppressively regulated one now proposed by a morally bankrupt government. When people say that religion should play no part in public life, that it should be confined to the outer fringes of society but then demand the right to be married in a church they are being both dishonest and inconsistent.
In Britain, ever since Tony Blair came into power, the impact on our children and families has been catastrophic. Poverty amongst children, homelessness, along with illiteracy, mental illness, drug and alcohol related diseases, teenage abortions, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps, most disturbing of all the huge rise in nihilistic murders committed against themselves and adults has rocketed. Children are being charged with crimes which at one time were rare in adult courts.
In response the government talks about the need for more education, sports facilities, after school activities, child care, income support, tax credits and the throwing of even more billions of pounds at the problem. This is not a material problem , but a spiritual one. Kids are starved of identity, security, affirmation, stability and other unquantifiable, spiritual needs. The best place for supplying these has always been, with a marriage, made up of mother and father.
Christians do not pursue happiness but holiness. Joy comes when we are not pursuing it for ourselves and often comes inspite of the terrible outward circumstances a person may be in. When people pursue personal happiness it invariably turns to dust.
Even if personal fulfillment and happiness were a legitimate aim, should it override all other concerns. For the sake of 1-2% of the population feeling happy should we sacrifice a whole raft of charitable and voluntary work, the forced resignations and dismissal of people from their occupations, the arrest and imprisonment of honest citizens and I have said the huge rise in HIV and AIDs. I like an occasional glass of wine with a meal but if I am at the table with people with drink problems I will forego my rights to imbibe. All the high profile homosexuals I know of were never happy and fulfilled. They either died early, had drink problems or were tormented souls( read Michael Angelo’s biography). This had nothing to do with social rejection.
There is nothing they are denied for which the homosexual lobby have demanded: the benefits, rights and status of marriage are extended to them; children are handed over into their tender keeping; television, the media, airlines and banks are falling over themselves to celebrate their sexual activities and the Stonewall awards ceremonies are bestrewn with celebrities.
As for California and the folsom Street Fair, the less said the better.
Today every leading political party not only has gay MPs, those “outted” politicians are on every frontbench; but at the heart of power in Downing St. are non - elected advisers like Spencer Livermore who enjoys political power that most MPs could only dream of. He has worked with Gordon Brown for nearly ten years, and after strategy roles in the 2001 election and at the Treasury, in June, last year, he became one of the most powerful people in Britain as Director of Political Strategy at 10 Downing St.
It was also the lesbian Angela Mason, working in the Women’s Equality Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry, who I believe was the main author of the SORs. It comes as no surprise that the European Commissioner for Trade and Industry is none other than Peter Mandelson, who is now onto his second or toyboy.
Ever since the sixties, when sex became detached from the boundaries of marriage and family and from the morality and truth of the Judeo/Christian faith, it has become merely a recreational activity that can be practised in whatever form one wishes; but, like high explosive that is no longer confined by its steel casing, or a nuclear core that is withdrawn from its protective surrounds, it becomes a force for destruction when it is no longer bounded by the laws that used to surround and protect marriage from our own self- destructive natures.
Finally warning Bishop Gene Robinson, who apparently has become - or is becoming a June Bride- of the approaching flames of hell, is not done out hatred but genuine concern for him. Would someone rushing about the deck of Titanic shouting “Iceberg, iceberg” be accused of trying to incite hatred towards those who wanted to break the transatlantic crossing record? It is precisely because God loves every human person equally, no less and no more than the worst criminal who has lived, including Hitler and Stalin, that he came to die in our place so that we would not have to face what he had to face. To practice anything for which he paid the penalty is throwing it back in his face. God is not mocked.
By the way GK, do you notice how quiet it has gone; I think that everyone has left the room apart from you and me. That is invariably what happens when you get down to talking about eternal issues. People find it too painful and just want distractions, elsewhere.
My days off are over, so again I have to keep things short. I suspect that when discussions "get down to talking about eternal issues", people realize there is no way to "win". I can tell you what I believe, and you can tell me what you believe, but the chances of anyone being proven right or wrong are nil...at least, on this side of eternity.
Correlation does not imply causation. The rate of violent crimes and ice cream sales both increase at the same time. It would be incorrect to conclude that people become violent because they buy ice cream. A third factor causes both: heat. When people get hot, they get "hot headed" - and are more prone to react violently. They also are more prone to buy a cold treat: ice cream. I wonder if what you describe is merely correlation rather than causation.
As for families...I have read positive news about same-sex families. A couple months ago, I read about two European gay men who adopted kids that nobody else would adopt. These were kids with severe medical problems. The government gave them these problem kids out of spite. If they had to give the gay men kids, they weren't going to make it easy. The gay couple surprised everyone and did an exceptional job...and eventually cared for hundreds of kids as foster parents as well.
No matter what religion one goes to, one finds that marriage is an expression of that religion.
What if someone belongs to no religion? What if they are atheist or agnostic? What is marriage then? Is marriage only reserved for those who belong to a religion?
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-12 05:40:42
GK , in no way can the following evidence point to an increase in the consumption of ice cream or jellied eels. A simple, controlled experiment would show whether giving a 1000 kids ice cream or jellied eels increased their likelihood to violence or not.
What does effect people is their philosophy, world view and religion. The enlightenment produced the Terror in Paris and the goddess Reason :
The Sexual Orientation Regulations flow from an evolutionary humanist philosophy based on the belief that all of life operates within a sealed box within which only the laws of chance and mathematical probability operate. Personality, free will and love are only illusions. We are all programmed. We are merely highly evolved bio/socio/economical systems of chemicals- lumps of meat. Categories and definitions that we have lived with suddenly seem to be totally artificial. The distinctions between male and female, mother and father, human and animal, man and machine- all -disappear:
(Teachers to stop teaching children right from wrong)
So, if it is the preference of one person to help an old woman walk across a busy street, whilst it is the preference of another person to push that woman in front of an oncoming truck, both are equally valid responses.:
We see this not only in the mindless cruelty being displayed by teenage gangs, but in a mindset that seems to be becoming normal for most of our young people. Though the following link, written by Johann Harri, a normally very liberal and unshockable homosexual, was written in 2002, it is goes a long way to explaining why we have much to fear from (and for) our younger generation.
[link edited for length] (The world of real party animals: The internet gatecrashers who drug dogs, have group sex and trash homes)
Statistics obtained by the Evening Standard at the end of 2007 revealed that on average five children are being injured in gun and knife attacks in London every day. The figures, obtained under Freedom of Information rules, reveal a frightening snapshot of teenage crime in an eight-month period last year. From 1 April to 30 November, a total of 1,273 victims under the age of 20 suffered injuries in gun and knife attacks. Many were victims of gang violence. The figures came amid mounting concern over the number of teenagers murdered in London. 27 were killed in the capital alone, last year, the highest total ever. I am not aware that any of these crimes was motivated by so- called homophobia. They are symptomatic of a generation children raised on evolutionary humanistic nihilism and into which homosexuality is being poured like acid in order to break down all bonds within society.
So many young people carry weapons for their own defence, parents are beginning to buy body armour for their little children: [link edited for length]
One in ten children suffer from significant mental disorders. [link edited for length] ( children use anti- depressants)
We find the number of school-age children needing medical treatment after binge drinking has soared by nearly 40 per cent in just six years. Children being admitted to hospital in England with alcohol-related conditions has risen by about 20% over the last
It comes as no surprise that according to UNICEF Britain comes bottom of a league table for child well -being across 21 industrialised countries.
Even though the entire labour party claim that British society under Tony Blair has achieved “success,” and “significant progress.” Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary came out with this truly astonishing piece
Islam is just waiting for our society to collapse before stepping in to take over ; and believe me that will not suit homosexuals one bit.
[link edited for length] (Councillor Allan Craig :Families and schools hold key to teenage violence. He himself is no stranger to threats on his own life and that of his wife and family: [link edited for length]
To find two homosexuals who had adopted children successfully is hardly a bases for saying that the roughly million homosexuals in Britain or five million in the USA would make good parents. Not only that but if the heterosexual population have become loose in its sexual morals, why should we expect the homosexual population to do any better when conventionality is hardly its style. The metro homosexual sees himself as being at the cutting edge of sexual behaviour , where the moral boundaries are continually being pushed further and further back. Since conventional heterosexual- like marriage is not what they aspire to, the word adultery does not apply.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that marriage was not for atheists and agnostics. It certainly is. The making and sharing of vows in front of witnesses is a serious thing and much to be encouraged and it doesn’t have to be in a church. I believe God honours these vows . The Biblical definition of marriage, however, cannot be bettered; it is God’s blue print for families.
My word, you cover a lot of ground. Do you blame homosexuality or the tolerance of homosexuality for all of that?! What is the role of parents in this? What is their responsibility?
Homosexuals are certainly not to blame for this, any more than I am with my faults. We have all in our way contributed, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, to the society in which we live.
I don’t know if you have read any of Francis Schaeffer ( died 1984), a theologian/philosopher who wrote prophetically back in the sixties and seventies. This is from his book, The God Who Is There :
“Some forms of homosexuality today, are of similar nature, in that they are not just homosexuality but a philosophic expression . One must have understanding ( compassion) for the real homophile’s problem. But much modern homosexuality is an expression of the current denial of antithesis . It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and female as complementary partners are finished. ……….In much of modern thinking, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creation is to be fought against - including the male - female distinctions ……..It is part of the world-spirit ( evolutionary humanism) of the generation which surrounds us .It is imperative that Christians realize the conclusions which are being drawn as a result of the death of absolutes.”
Last night, my wife and I watched a TV programme on Incest. If the purpose of the programme was to produce huge compassion for the partners then it succeeded. Perhaps, the most poignant and tragic story was one about a young German couple who had produced four children:
[link edited for length]; ( Since this article was written the young man has gone back into prison for the third time and his sister has re-married .)
Another was that of a father and daughter in Western Australia:
Yet another case to hit the headlines was the one of Mr F, 73, an electrical engineer who confessed that he had held his daughter Elisabeth, 42, captive in three windowless underground rooms for 22 years! He also admitted that he had fathered seven children by her, though he insisted that no force was involved. He confessed also that he had tossed the body of one of those seven children into the building’s furnace after the baby died at birth.
The police said that three of the children "never saw sunlight" until they were freed over the weekend.
I all cases children were born either with defects or died at birth.
GK , the present generation, mistakenly thinks that it behaves autonomously, that it is not guided by anything outside of the individual’s own ideas. I would suggest , that the works of Charles Darwin are just as powerful in directing its thoughts and actions as the Bible of Jesus Christ is to me. I think I am justified therefore in quoting from it here:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.
1 Corinthians 6 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 6:4Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
Revelations: 21:6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death."
Jude3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Romans 1: 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
1 Corinthians 6:18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
As you must surely see that homosexuality which in many ways is worse than incest (unless of course we have a case of two brothers or two sisters, or twins forming loving partnerships) is the catalyst or Trojan horse that will unravel all sexual relationships and in the process unravel the very fabric of society.
2 Peter 2 just about sums up where we are headed . You will notice that there is no reference to the homosexual’s claim that it was just temple prostitution, inhospitality, or even going against their own genetic make up - a dead give away of Darwinian brain washing - that was being condemned and that loving homosexual relationships were OK. They twist the Bible to make it say what they want:
2 Peter 2 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeon to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful natureand despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
You will note GK, that I could go on and on arguing my case and that those who up till now have opposed me have long since flaked out. - simply because they have no case. They can only fling out evolutionary humanist mantras, like “It’s genetic” that short circuit the brain.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-13 01:15:53
GK, Perhaps we need to finish here, that is unless you have anymore questions?
May I finally return to Eddie Walker who, as a Christian, guided by the Bible and not the American dream of the “the right to happiness” (which let’s face is a pretty dumb declaration , written by Jefferson or one of the other founding fathers - they were not the only ones who arrived on the American shore) believes in this passage from Hebrews 13:
4 "Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."
No where in the bible is there any encouragement towards homosexual marriage and Gen Robinson is defying and mocking God.
Interesting. Homosexuality is like a gateway drug to other sins? I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe it like that before. To be clear, you're not saying that if someone is a homosexual, then they will engage in incest as well - but that if society tolerates homosexuality, it will tolerate incest as well? I have heard arguments of that type before - typically regarding gay marriage: that it will lead to marriage between men and boys, men and animals, and so on. That kind of argument has a name: slippery slope. It is a logical fallacy.
I will ask a question that I asked before: what about parents? You seem to be upset that society is not raising children with the right values, but what is the role of parents? Aren't they the ones that are supposed to be teaching their children right from wrong? Christianity has always been counter-culture. Our society teaches us that we should do things for money, and use that money to buy luxuries for ourselves: from an XBOX 360 to a BMW. Christianity scoffs at this, asking what good it will do us if we die today. What is wrong with parents teaching their kids the Catholic position, for example...which still says that this activity is wrong, but that you should treat homosexuals with compassion rather than unjust discrimination? It's not the perfect message from the homosexual point of view, but it's a lot better than what the "God hates fags" crowd spews, and a lot better than what some people do to homosexuals because they disapprove of their choices.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-13 06:54:19
GK,
As I have tried to explain, there is a correlation between our world view and the way we act. The Nazis demonstrated this only too well when sincerely believing that Jews were subhuman, they performed the most appalling medical experiments on men, women and children.
Logical fallacy or not, Paul said in his letter to the Corinthians, “Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old “yeast” by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are.” Maybe Paul had not read the slippery slope or camel’s nose in the tent fallacies.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations are correlated to an evolutionary humanist philosophy based on the belief that we are all programmed. We are merely highly evolved bio/socio/economical systems of chemicals- lumps of meat. Categories and definitions that we have lived with suddenly seem to be totally artificial. The distinctions between male and female, mother and father, human and animal, man and machine- all -disappear. There is also no absolute morality against which to judge whether an action is good or evil. This is a matter of individual and shifting judgement.: As Francis Schaeffer put it above:
“modern homosexuality is an expression of the current denial of antithesis . It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and female as complementary partners are finished. ……….In much of modern thinking, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creation is to be fought against - including the male - female distinctions …
(largest Teachers' Union interfering with very young children)
Lady Hale (who ,for many years ,was the key person driving the Law Commission’s anti-marriage agenda ) said back in 1980: “‘Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.” And yet apparently denying that she said this she was only too ready to extend the rights of civil partnerships to homosexuals.
(Teachers to stop teaching children right from wrong).
But perhaps your slippery slope logical fallacy does not allow for cause and effect ; you intimated this with the ice creams and increase in violence amongst children, which incidentally is correlated with the break down of families and absence of fathers; this is what I meant by homosexuality loosening the bonds that secure marriage.
Paedophiles, like the homosexuals are already claiming that they were born as such and are pressing for the age of legal consent to engage in sex to be lowered. Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations from 16 to 12 and for the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals. The Charity, Freedom and Diversity party said that it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether. "A ban just makes children curious," one of the party's founders, said ."We want to make paedophilia the subject of discussion," “The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening!”
( Peter Tatchell’s promotion of paedophilia; scroll down to page 44)
[link edited for length] ( Click on “Age of Consent” and then “I’m 14, I’m Gay & I Want a Boyfried)
The first port of call for all these multi- coloured orientations ( I prefer to call them grey ) for entry into our classrooms and living rooms is the appeal to genetics. Wave the genetic card and you are in- in spite of the fact that no science whatsoever has come up with any genetic evidence. The truth is that many homosexual lobby groups are no longer even using this argument. They ask why should they justify what they do? Their lives are their own - or so they claim. They have a right to happiness and if they choose to identify as a homosexual, transsexual, bisexual, wardrobe, chest of drawers or tea pot, then that is their choice.
So in answer to your question: No, homosexuality is not the gate way to incest etc. but the evolutionary humanist philosophy that promotes and justifies it is.
What about parents indeed? I don’t know about the USA but I would imagine that the situation is similar to that in the UK. Tony Blair, our illustrious prime Minster who has gone AWOL before things really get bad, has systematically undermined both the power and authority of Christian parents for the last ten years. This is spite of the fact that he has recently been converted and accepted into the Roman Catholic Faith.
The vast majority of parents have no idea of what their children are being taught with regards to sex education in school, in spite of the claim by the Department of Children Schools and Families that parents, governors and all interested parties are carefully kept in informed as to what material is being used . As a supply teacher, a few years back, I was asked to distribute glossy booklets published by the outfit that calls itself the Family Planning Association, that is funded by the government, to a group of thirteen year olds, in a large Church of England School. Even the lady responsible for running the Personal Social and Health Education throughout the school, had not even checked out the booklets for herself. And what parent is going to be brave enough to go along to their school to ask pointed questions about sex education?
Christ never hated the sinner or outcast but he didn’t tell them to continue down the route they had been travelling. The woman caught in adultery and who was about to be stoned was told by him to “go and sin no more.” The woman at the well was exposed as having had five husbands. My main concern is that children in schools are being led into a life of sin and death.
If I have to choose between homosexuals having the right to happiness, to the means to companionship, the means to intimacy, the means to pleasure, to taxation privileges, medical aid benefits, adoption rights but more importantly and strategically the pathway to social standing and seal of approval that it carries - to respectability….if I have to choose between this and the right of children to be taught the truth and to live an AIDs and HIV free life, there is no contest. To say that I am motivated by hatred of homosexuals, it seems to me that you have swallowed their homophobic hatred propaganda. Beside which, a symptom of homosexual disorder is not just narcissism but often a persecution or victim complex.
GK , it has been interesting discussing this issue but I really must move on now . Best regards D avid
As I have tried to explain, there is a correlation between our world view and the way we act. The Nazis demonstrated this only too well when sincerely believing that Jews were subhuman, they performed the most appalling medical experiments on men, women and children.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-13 10:37:37
Neither should we wish to ignore the fact that Ernst Roehm, a vicious homosexual was one of the architects of the Third Reich, or deny the involvement of homosexuals paedophile abuse in the concentration camps.
It sounds like the UK has bigger problems than homosexuality, then. It sounds like the parents should be talking to their kids about what they are learning in school, they should look at the materials being used to teach them, and if something is amiss, summon the courage to get involved and start questioning the use of those materials. It sounds like they should also get more involved with teaching their children their values, even (or especially) when those values come into conflict with those of the teachers.
If I have to choose between homosexuals having the right to happiness, to the means to companionship, the means to intimacy, the means to pleasure, to taxation privileges, medical aid benefits, adoption rights but more importantly and strategically the pathway to social standing and seal of approval that it carries - to respectability….if I have to choose between this and the right of children to be taught the truth and to live an AIDs and HIV free life, there is no contest. To say that I am motivated by hatred of homosexuals, it seems to me that you have swallowed their homophobic hatred propaganda. Beside which, a symptom of homosexual disorder is not just narcissism but often a persecution or victim complex.
This would be another logical fallacy: a false dilemma. I do not believe that you have to choose between the two. I do not think that promoting monogamy among homosexuals (marriage) will lead to more people contracting HIV. Logically, one would expect the opposite to occur. As you have noted before, it's promiscuity that's the problem. If a HIV-free couple (gay or straight) is in a sexual relationship, and they are faithful to one another, they will not contract HIV from that sexual activity. When they start sleeping around, that's where you get the risk of infection. If you want to decrease the spread of HIV, promoting safer behavior makes more sense to me than worrying about whether gay marriage is "respectable". Abstainance is the safest of these behaviors, but if people are not going to listen to that message (and a lot of people will not), then promoting the use of condoms (which have been shown to protect against HIV) and promoting monogamy (regardless of sexual orientation) by promoting marriage would seem to be "lesser evils". As for your motivation - I have never made any claims as to your motivation. As to "homosexual disorder" - there is no such thing.
I will agree that the UK seems to have gone mad. Children judges? Madness. The article about rewarding bad behavior looks like it's trying to use behavior modification to encourage good behavior...but is poorly designed. Rewarding good behavior makes sense, but if it's tied to a ratio of Rewards vs. Sanctions, it is absurd. If they have any sense at all, at some point they will look at the results and see if they are the results they wanted...and either modify or abandon the practice accordingly. I don't know what madness has come over the UK, but I doubt that homosexuals are to blame. Since the UK is a republic, they should hold their leaders accountable with their votes.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-13 22:26:43
Dear GK , I really must depart now for other battle fronts.
Safe sex is a terrible lie .The only safe sex is within a heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage.
5. HOMOSEXUALITY - CAUSE FOR CONCERN?
Is it only because of Christian bigotry, standing in the way of progress, tolerance, equality, diversity and lack of discrimination, that homosexuality should not be accepted as an equal and viable sexual orientation?
When a mother is asked,
“Madam would you like your little boy or girl to grow up and become a homosexual or lesbian?”
Is it likely that she will respond with,
“ Oh yes, I just want!”
HEALTH RISKS - FACT NOT FICTION
The National Blood Service (hardly an extremist organisation) refuses to accept blood from practising homosexuals as nearly half of HIV and STIs are attributed to homosexuals who represent only 1-2% of the population:
Discretion, parental concern, love and common sense can in no way be misinterpreted as bigotry or homophobic hatred. Indeed there is growing evidence that the Gay scene is not only contemptuous of the dangers of HIV and AIDs but plays “Russian Roulette” with “Bare Backing.” It is often Christian organisations, like Care, who attempt to pick up the pieces of such reckless behaviour. This goes beyond a concern for freedom of speech to a matter of life and death.
Ben Summerskill, who is the chief executive of the gay rights lobby group, Stonewall, would make the reading of “intemperate” (whatever that means) passages of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice, to be classed as a criminal offence. For a Christian to warn a proud and practicing homosexual of the dangers of hell fire is not motivated by a desire to whip up hatred against that person but out of a genuine concern for their safety. Who in their right mind would wish for their child to be led into a world of drug addiction, bi-polar depression, HIV, AIDs, Gift giving , suicide and ultimately a lost eternity ? Only someone who was already set on that road to destruction themselves and wanted to take others with them.
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behaviour choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
Safe sex is a terrible lie .The only safe sex is within a heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage.
I agree 100%. That's why I prefer the term safer sex rather than safe sex. If people are going to have sex outside of marriage, despite the health and moral reasons to avoid it, then they should at least know how to reduce the risks. Sex with a condom may not be as safe as abstainance, but it's safer than unprotected sex is.
I am not sure what the point of the "would you like your child to be a homosexual" question is. You might as well ask someone if they prefer that their child be born a male or a female. It's not something we can choose. We work with what we are given.
Discretion, parental concern, love and common sense can in no way be misinterpreted as bigotry or homophobic hatred. Indeed there is growing evidence that the Gay scene is not only contemptuous of the dangers of HIV and AIDs but plays “Russian Roulette” with “Bare Backing.” It is often Christian organisations, like Care, who attempt to pick up the pieces of such reckless behaviour. This goes beyond a concern for freedom of speech to a matter of life and death.
Once again, I agree with you that it is not hate or homophobia. I agree with you that such reckless behavior should be strongly discouraged. I also know that not all homosexuals are active in the "gay scene" you describe. It would seem to me that encouraging safer sex and monogomy would be positive steps to combat the problems you describe.
Ben Summerskill, who is the chief executive of the gay rights lobby group, Stonewall, would make the reading of “intemperate” (whatever that means) passages of the Bible that condemn homosexual practice, to be classed as a criminal offence.
Mr. Summserskill sounds like he's an extremist, even among homosexuals. The homosexuals I have met in the USA have never even come close to that. They will interpret those passages differently (as you are already aware), but criminalizing scripture? No.
For a Christian to warn a proud and practicing homosexual of the dangers of hell fire is not motivated by a desire to whip up hatred against that person but out of a genuine concern for their safety.
I would counter that sometimes it is not what you say, but how you say it. I do not believe for a moment that Fred Phelps has any love in his heart for homosexuals or their families, for example. Picketing funerals to tell the family that their loved one is burning in Hell is not an act of love.
Who in their right mind would wish for their child to be led into a world of drug addiction, bi-polar depression, HIV, AIDs, Gift giving , suicide and ultimately a lost eternity ? Only someone who was already set on that road to destruction themselves and wanted to take others with them.
First off, the only way to avoid that is to not have children at all. Everyone potentially faces those risks. Heterosexuals can become addicted to drugs, suffer from mental illness, contract HIV and AIDS, commit suicide, and go to Hell. Homosexuals have not cornered the market on any of that. Second, those are risks, not fate. Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that he will experiment with drugs, suffer from bi-polar disorder (or any other mental illness), contract HIV, or kill himself. Their eternal fate...I leave up to God.
I would also ask what causes the suicide. Is homosexuality itself the cause of the suicide? I honestly doubt it. More likely, it is a feeling of isolation that is either caused or made worse by parents who decide they cannot love their child because they are homosexual, and the unChristlike attitudes of others toward homosexuals, which makes them feel they have to hide who they are, lest they be fired, evicted, beaten, killed...by someone who sees them not as a fellow child of God, but as an abomination to be destroyed. That's gotta be a hard life to live. It seems to me that it is not the homosexual that has the problem...it is the other guy.
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behaviour choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
I would agree with that, though I would reword some of it:
Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from engaging in inherently unhealthy and dangerous sexual acts, and for those who still wish to engage in risky sexual activity, the information they need to reduce the risk. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of risky sexual activity to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. They also have the duty to provide information needed to reduce the risks, should students choose to engage in sexual behavior anyway (and they will). Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.
I was not familiar with the term "gift givers". When I heard the term, I thought of birthdays and Christmas. Knowing that this is not what you were talking about, I clicked on the BBC link you provided.
This quote is from the article:
Dyer finds that the overwhelming majority of the talk is pure fantasy.
Men who say they are bug chasers and gift givers fail to stand by their claims on camera and one man who gave an anonymous interview subsequently appeared to be lying to the production team about his activities.
Will Nutland, head of health promotion at Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "The concepts of 'gift giving' and 'bug chasers' are definitely based more in fantasy than reality.
"Most gay men with HIV do not want to pass HIV on, and most gay men who do not have HIV do not want to get infected."
And Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust said: "There is very little evidence of people trying to get infected with HIV."
The article does show that risky sexual behavior is going on, that some charities are sending the wrong message (ie: that pulling out is effective), that some people are fatalistic about HIV (saying that they can't avoid it, and thus accept that it is going to happen...), but it shows that the "bug chasing" bit is more myth than reality.
I just read through this thread and am shaking my head in disbelief....then again, not really, because I understand Mr. Skinner's blindspot.
Mr. Skinner, I used to be an evangelical preacher. I learned all the Bible verse down pat, strung end to end, interpreted as I was told.
I was married. I preached endlessly against homosexuality. With Vigor.
Why? Because you fight yourself the hardest. One gay man described me as a drowning man clinging for anything when i was on my homophobic tyrades.
Finally, at age 45, I came out to myself and stopped trying to deny who I was.
I went through your 'reparative therapy.' I prayed the prayers and follwed the rules. And nothing changed.
I found the Biblical arguements to be academically dishonest. I found the reparative 'science' to be clueless and fraudulent. And I finally accepted myself.
I am now a happily partnered gay dad with 6 children, and I counsel with men who are in the same crisis I was in a few years ago.
Oh, one other observation: as I stated above, you fight yourself the hardest. Your passion to prove homosexuality is 'wrong,' 'dangerous' and a 'choice' that can be fixed leads me to suspect that you are desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth in your own life.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-14 14:59:58
Dear Tully, I said I was moving off this field to another where Richard Dawkins is spreading his own delusions.
I never said that everyone is healed from what is essentially a disorder. NARTH I believe have a 33% success rate , 33% who would be healed and 33% who don’t want change.
Tully, I have just googled “ healing from sexuality” and this has come up
You are right when you say that I have my own disorder, one of which must be an obsessive compulsion disorder. But like you I fight with my own demons. Though these are not to do with homosexuality they are equally distressing and therefore put me in no position of judge you or others.
As a Christian I never realised just how depraved and desperately wicked my old nature is, but neither did I realise how unlimited is the grace of God that never lets us go. With this in mind I press on and I am encouraged neither to think that I have arrived or to sink into the ditch in despair. I suppose that a part of maturing as a Christian is to have yet another layer of one’s old nature exposed . It is a process which continue as long as I breath.
However, behind all this , as I have said to GK, there is something much greater for which homosexuality is merely being used as tool to promote its materialist and atheist philosophy. I agree with GK, there must be many homosexuals who are not out to make a noise and just want to cope as best they can - with something which, though not genetic and immutable, seems to have a hold on them. Well that is not how God identifies us. My main concern is with Marxist and anarchists, like Ben Summerskill of Stonewall who are militantly and ruthlessly pushing their own agenda. You are right there are many homosexuals who do not agree with him- even Peter Tatchell.
At the end of the day, Tully, we discover the Truth and it sets us free or we continue to live a lie.
It’s late now and my wife and I must turn in . It’s a glib thing to say but I am beholden to pray for you.
This thread has gone quite far since I was last on it. Congrats to you, Tully, for finally accepting yourself. You may just figured out David quite well.
David, you are obviously someone who spends much of his time researching what churches call the 'homosexual agenda'. And if I took the time to respond to all of your numerous and mostly meaningless links I would probably be here a few days. Do you have all those links bookmarked, I wonder? You may have as many as the WBC.
I will admit the articles about pedophilia were well written (and disturbing at times) and that is something I am also very much against and regularly fight. They have nothing to do with homosexuality, though.
Overall I have learned alot about you as a person from everything you have written, all the links you post, and generally the tone of your arguments. You are very passionate in your hatred, very adamant in your disbelief, and overall very passive agressive against something you understand very little about.
You say you have a gay friend. Have you ever spoken with him about his life? Have you ever asked him about his views or why he chooses to live the way he does? Have you ever told him your own views? And if so, what was his reply?
The major issues you have with homosexuality is directly linked with what your church has taught you. You have been told to 'hate what God hates', when that directly contradicts the very basis of what Jesus was about. Specifically that 'God is love'.
If you choose to go with the retoric 'love the sinner, and hate the sin', feel free to. Privately hate them to your hearts content. But trying to force on them ideals that are contrary to what they are is no different than someone trying to force their ideals on you.
Do you argue with Jews about their beliefs too? How about Muslims? Budhists? Agnostics? Each group has its own political agenda, and many are contrary to your own. Or is it the homosexuals so bad to you that you feel necessary to wage a private war against them and only them?
I was once like you too, David. Full of hate and spite and retoric that was forced upon me. One day I realized that all I had was that hatred, and it struck me like a cord. Hatred breeds only hatred. I realized that so many little verses in the Bible went back and forth, contradicting and re-contradicting ideals. But one ideal stood out among it all. Jesus' love.
The love Jesus showed the prostitute about to be stoned. He told the crowd 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone.' Then he told the girl to get up and sin no more.
She was never mentioned again, and it never says if she did or didn't sin again. Which should teach you something too. Jesus told the girl to stop sinning and then went on his way, leaving the girl to decide herself.
If your that against homosexuals, feel free to tell them your views. And then leave them alone. God can sort it out himself in the end, he doesn't need your help. And instead of showing others how wrong they are, try instead focusing on your own life and correcting the evils plagueing your own soul.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-15 00:21:27
Chef Matt , must go and make a cup of tea for my wife. Yes, thankfully this thread has gone quite far and maybe I wont be able to leave it without having answered some of your questions. The good thing is that we are freely talking and there is nothing wrong with passion; it's a mark of being human!
*chuckle* We keep pulling you back in, don't we, David?
I wish people would refrain from telling people how they feel, what their sexual orientation really is, and so forth. For one, it makes no sense to me. How can we know any more than what the person tells us? We cannot look into someone's soul the way that God can. For another, it's a tactical mistake. How well do you listen to someone when they have the nerve to tell you what your feelings are? Such arrogance only breeds defensiveness, which is not helpful in a discussion.
Religion and Politics are a dangerous combination. This is not to say that they cannot be combined. I like what Mr. Danforth had to say on the subject. He is a minister and a former Senator. I am paraphrasing here, but the key is humility. Faith can inform your conscience, but it is all too easy for someone to fall into the trap of arrogance. The person who decides that his politics are God's politics sees no room for compromise. If your politics = God's politics, then those who disagree with your politics - those who are against your politics - are against God's politics - and are against God. In such a thought process the spirit of compromise is lost.
By definition, a compromise is something that nobody is happy with - but everybody can live with. Compromise is the reason that change is possible without blood being shed. It is rather important to our system of government, and has been important even since the founding of our nation.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-15 10:11:04
GK,
With regard to religion and politics, I hope you are not assuming any political party can claim that God is on its side. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who prayed that it was the other way around : that the party would be on the side of God. I have tried finding the quote here. Maybe you can find it ?
The fact is that parents must no longer take it for granted that they can leave their children in the tender care of the local school, that has become a principle instrument in brainwashing children with evolutionary humanistic values and amorality. I have previously mentioned the Church’s leading role in the spiritual decline of the nation. I place myself foremost amongst those who have contributed to this decay, which in some way disqualifies me from opening my mouth; But I am not in public place of responsibility. In a previous debate in Britain, in the House of Lords, on the issue of gay adoption rights, ( [link edited for length] Scroll down to Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 Time:7.30 pm )
In which the Honourable Baroness Howarth of Breckland said:
‘My Lords, I speak without a prepared speech but with a heavy heart. As a Christian woman, I find this an extraordinarily difficult and distressing debate. It is distressing because we are not really prepared to face the fundamental issue. I have listened to speeches in which noble Lords have said, “We respect gay people, but...”. The issue is not about rights; if it were, we would not be having this debate. It is about whether noble Lords accept gay people as equal human beings. Two hundred years ago, William Wilberforce made a speech in Parliament that freed black people to be equal human beings. I hope that this evening your Lordships will vote for these regulations. I have some quarrel with the way in which the regulations have been brought forward, but I hope that noble Lords will vote to underline that gay people are equal human beings with others. I say this as a Christian woman. I have listened to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, and I listened to the Catholic archbishop on the radio this morning, a very dear and wonderful man……..’
I have no idea whether the Honourable Baroness Howarth of Breckland is a Christian or not; only God can be the judge of that, but it seems to me that the whole of this statement is founded on a lie.
“William Wilberforce made a speech in Parliament that freed black people to be equal human beings.” is deceptively linked with “but I hope that noble Lords will vote to underline that gay people are equal human beings with others.”
Wilberforce did not work to make black people human; it was precisely because they were already fully human, made in the image of God - not determined by evolution to behave mechanistically but free to behave with dignity and responsibility - that he worked to free them from oppression, slavery and bondage. To suggest that the fundamentalist Christian is in some way denying the homosexual the freedom to become fully human is a disgraceful travesty of the beliefs and work of William Wilberforce, made worse because she is attempting to lead Christians astray. Probably I have misunderstood her comment about being burnt at the stake, but Jesus Christ said It would be better for someone to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than for them to cause children to be led astray, as is happening on an industrial scale with sex education programmes being promoted by this present government and which she no doubt would endorse.
Sodomy, buggery, fisting, rimming, water sports, felching, scats, coprophilia, sado- masochism, whipping, giving the gift and bondage are dehumanising homosexuals and lesbians. Such bestial acts reduce them to lumps of meat.. Such acts do indeed lead to slavery, bondage and addictions that sooner or later lead to an early death and are totally inconsistent with the aims of Jesus Christ and William Wilberforce.
This law would make criminal those who attempted to change their orientation to the heterosexual default mode as homophobic; it would keep them in slavery.
With regard to religion and politics, I hope you are not assuming any political party can claim that God is on its side.
I am not assuming any such thing. I am simply stating that people have thought that way, and that this is an unhealthy way for political leaders to think. When you are convinced that your way is God's way, it can easily turn into a "my way or the highway" frame of mind, which is not helpful.
As to your list of sexual activities that "lead to slavery, bondage and addictions that sooner or later lead to an early death": I would prefer that such issues be handled withe persuasion rather than coersion. If consenting adults, who are fully informed of the risks, wish to engage in those activities, why is it anyone else's business? There are many activities that people engage in that carry significant risks. Skydiving, base jumping, hang gliding, and mountain climbing all come to mind, and that's just a short list. Even things we do every day, such as ride a bicycle, drive a car, even crossing the street...these all carry risks.
Even our choice of location carries risks. The people in California know about the risks of wild fires and earthquakes. The people of New Orleans and South Carolina know about the threat of hurricanes. The people in the MidWest are aware of the threat of floods and tornados. The people of Italy know about Mount Vesuvius, which has been quiet since 1944, but is still active...yet they are willing to live at the base of the volcano. We like to think of life as being safe, but there are risks all around us. We make decisions about how comfortable we are with those risks. People have decided that it is worth the risk to live in New Orleans, so rather than abandoning it to the Gulf of Mexico (which I would consider a wise move), they go back, repair or replace the pumps, rebuild the levees, and rebuild their homes. I don't know when the next hurricane will strike, and I do not know if they will survive the next one. They don't either. Still, they are willing to accept the risk.
If people are willing to accept the risks, and they are fully informed about the risks, then who are we to say that they cannot take those risks? Isn't it their life to risk?
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-06-15 13:11:39
GK! It's time to weigh anchor. I leave you with the privilege of having had the last word except to say, "God Bless to you, Matt with his tender loins and the others who have joined the discussion.."
LOL I thought you said you were going to let me have the last word! Humph. Don't worry, I'm kidding. Thanks for the link.
When I was learning about phobias, I was taught that whether it was a phobia or not depended on whether or not it adversely effected your life. The teacher, for example, said he was afraid of flying. However, he can easily drive, take a train, take a ship etc to get where he needs to go. It's not a big deal. It's not a phobia. If he was a pilot, and suddenly had an irrational fear of flying...then it would be a problem.
Another teacher, a behaviorist, criticized the tendency of some people to label someone as "crazy" even after the "crazy" behavior has stopped. Instead, it was better to focus on the behavior rather than on the label.
When it comes to the question of whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, I tend to think in the same way. What effect does it have on their life? Does it have an adverse effect? Now, before someone points to the discrimination and the hate one has to endure, I'd like to point out that the question isn't about the effect of the attitudes and actions of other people. It's about the effect of the homosexuality itself. It is an important distinction.
If it is not clear why it is an important distinction, look at other areas of life. Blacks have endured hate, discrimination, even lynchings. The cause is not the color of their skin, so much as it is the attitudes of other people toward the color of their skin.
In England and Ireland, there was a time when Catholics were repressed. They could not vote, they could not hold office, they could not go to universities, and so on. This was not caused by their Catholicism, but by the attitudes of others towards Catholicism.
No rational person would ask a black to become white, or a Catholic to become Anglican because other people are pricks. Why would a rational person ask a homosexual to become a heterosexual because other people are pricks?
Now, our boy Eddie Walker is a devout Christian, so one would think that this story would be about starting a Christian group. In this case, though, it is actually a group called the