Topic: Gay Rights
Eddie Walker Walks 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! 15 thumbs so far
2008 RS Davis, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, May 23, 2008
Last modified: Friday, May 23, 2008
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 Dorse
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 
2008 RS Davis, all rights reserved.