Christians 'torch' SORs

A torchlit procession took place in opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, although it is perhaps worth stating that they were only electric torches. My last blog on this has attracted a remarkable 423 comments so I thought it time to put up a new posting after Lord Morrow's attempt to annul the Northern Ireland regulations was unsuccessful . Some Christian groups are now to seek a judicial review. Others, such as Faithworks, have welcomed the defeat of the attempt to annul them in the Lords, with the statement that this is an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate compassion and love.

The whole SOR debate concerns me for a number of reasons.Tell anyone outside the Church that you're a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.

From Section 28 onwards, the various Church-led campaigns around this issue have stamped on the mind of the public the image of the contemporary Christian as a gay-hating bigot. The protests against gay clergy such as the Dean of St Albans, Jeffrey John and the US bishop Gene Robinson have not helped. On this issue, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being yet another conservative agreeing with Polly Toynbee.

This year we are celebrating the bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade, a campaign led by evangelicals such as Clapham's William Wilberforce. Would Wilberforce today be campaigning against the gays who go cruising for custom on Clapham Common? I suspect not. He would be campaigning still on behalf of the persecuted and oppressed - such as women forced into prostitution, or women stoned to death for adultery.

I went down to Parliament to cover the protest. A story got in the paper and I also did this videolog. Just look at how angry Bishop Michael Reid and Alan Wardle of Stonewall get with each other. The passions aroused by this are enormous. Another first-hand account of the demo is also up on the Anglican Mainstream site.

Thinking Anglicans has done two reports with many useful links, including to the full Hansard text. Juliet Pain in her blog has noted that Bishop Reid does not represent a mainstream church and his Peniel congregation has not always been subject to positive publicity. Bishop Reid would take the line that in Christian doctrine, the practice of homosexuality is sinful. So is adultery by a heterosexual, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth. But there aren't many Christians demanding that Christian restaurant owners be entitled to exemption from the principle that fat people be allowed to consume as many chips as they want with their dinner. Or that City workers who benefit from the annual bonus bonanza be forced to tithe. Further, not all Christians support traditional Christian doctrine on this matter, just as not all Catholics follow their Church's teaching on birth control.

Faith groups are rightly campaigning against the advance of secularism. In many important respects they are winning this campaign. The churches are winning control of more schools and academies, many religious charities receive local authority funding, all the indications are that churchgoing was up for the second year running at Christmas.

But in claiming that the regulations will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights and that they will lead to the persecution of Christians who stand up for moral values, they are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. There is no evidence that the regulations will do either of these things.  It is reminiscent of extremist Muslims who responded with violence when Pope Benedict XVI quoted an ancient text describing Islam as a religion of violence. In this way, religious leaders are playing into the hands of the secularists who seek their undoing. Although I do not by any means agree with all or even most of his argument, preferable by far in its approach to the whole question of homosexuality in Christian doctrine is Professor Oliver O'Donovan's intelligent and pastoral analysis, on the Fulcrum website. (Cartoon from Dave Walker)

Anglican Mainstream's response must not be dismissed however. There are legitimate concerns to do with religious liberty. The Church of England fears its clergy might be forced to bless civil partnerships, as they stated in response to the original consultation. George Cassidy, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, gave an indication of the Church's current stance when he spoke in the debate in the Lords. And yes, it is certainly the case that the regulations, when introduced to Britain as expected in April, should be framed in a way that they do not conflict with religious liberty. There is no harm in the churches campaigning on these grounds. But the regulations should not be opposed outright. I am not the only person who normally could be expected to take a conservative stance who is concerned by what is happening. Alistair McBay notes Ekklesia's statement on this, below. And Inayat Bunglawala, on this occasion not speaking for the Muslim Council of Britain and writing with Abdurahman Jafar, also backs the regulations in a blog shortly to be posted on Comment is Free. He says: "The new regulations are a direct outcome of the passing of the Equalities Act 2006 which pushed the equalities agenda forward by - for the first time
- prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services on grounds of religion or belief and sexuality. So, just as the followers of different faiths should be protected against unfair discrimination in the provision of goods and services, so too should people on account of their sexual orientation. It seems to be an unanswerable argument.And it is one that British Muslims should be supporting especially if the news on the grapevine that the Department for Communities and Local Government and its head, Ruth Kelly, are trying to block the statutory duty on public bodies to promote equality from being extended, is true.The DCLG apparently want to keep the statutory duty on public bodies strand specific, thereby limiting it to race, gender and disability. A comprehensive approach will mean that it is also equalised for religious belief and sexual orientation.Now that is a goal worth working for."
This is not the first time Inayat has backed gay rights. It is interesting that it is a Muslim who understands how the religious should be speaking out for the oppressed, not against them.

Similarly, the Board of Deputies of British Jews has denied that they are backing the protests and has issued a statement clearly indicating support for the SORs: "The Sexual Orientation Regulations will provide a further platform to combat discrimination in this country. It must be possible for people to live their lives in the manner in which they choose as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction. These regulations are currently being debated and will be afforded due scrutiny before passing into law. The Board of Deputies opposes discrimination on any grounds and recognises that the rights of those within our community and in wider society should not be infringed on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious conviction or for any other similar reason."

The regulations are in line with EU requirements. They are part of our western society's welcome and civilised move towards equality of opportunity for all. They outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They will not force schools to teach that homosexuality is equal to marriage. But they might help mitigate the bullying in schools of gay children, a distressing proportion of which go on to attempt suicide. And if they stop a Christian hospital turning away a gay patient for Aids treatment, that will also be a good thing.

There are so many things wrong with our world on which our Christian leaders should be campaigning. Christian leaders have voiced many concerns about our actions in Iraq, but there have been no torchlit processions for the innocent on all sides who have lost their lives, nor against the guilty Saddam, nor against the disgraceful conduct of his killing in which he attained an extraordinary new dignity. And it took the US to lead us to war against this dictator when the appalling stories of the atrocities inflicted on his enemies - the "shredding" of opponents in paper shredders to name but one - began to filter out of Iraq. Where were the torchlit processions for these victims of unspeakable persecutions? Yet Christians come out onto the streets of Westminster to fight regulations designed to protect a minority, some of whom, through their sexual orientation alone, will have undergone significant sufferings already.

The regulations specifically outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Church has repeatedly stated that orientation is not the problem. It is the practice that is opposed. So why the fuss? The Christian protesters obviously fear that in practice, they will be forced to facilitate homosexual acts. A bed and breakfast owner will not be able to put a sign outside their establishment stating: "No gays."

It is all so reminiscent of the anti-slavery campaign. Many Christians opposed abolition of slavery. The Church of England made a small fortune from its plantations in the West Indies. The right to state: "No blacks" was seen as part of God's created order.

The proofs that this was right were also found in the Bible. The main text was in Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

It was believed that Canaan had settled in Africa, and that this text justified the enslavement of his descendants by the West.

In future generations, I think, we will look back on this anti-gay hysteria with the same astonishment that we now regard the racism of slavery.

Comments

[Tim Cooper]

Nice specific, balanced, informed post there then Simon! So apart from promoting a secularist agenda and being liberal what else has Tony Blair done right....?

Actually, in what way has he displayed a liberal attitude whilst controlling society? I can see what you mean about him not being a Christian though. It became apparent the second his government began to champion human rights dealing with the way in which some people discriminate against others for no reason. New Labour cronies in the Upper House? Hell's teeth. You wouldn't have caught the Conservatives dishing our peerages for money I'm sure. Thank goodness for the bishops. Multiculturalism? Now I know that this was a Labour government invention I can see why recognising that there are numerous different cultures in Britain has lead to religious ghettos - makes absolute sense. And Christian 'values' have indeed been undersold when they should clearly have been massively favoured by all and sundry. Traditional family values have also been conclusively proved to have worked since time immemorial. You only have to look back to the 18thC to see how highly women were regarded and as recently as the 1950s to see how they enjoyed being kept firmly in their place. And what about all those happy Catholic families, living for years, with few rights and no contraceptives, the women producing endless children, with divorce and abortion seen as unacceptable? How we all long for a return to those halcyon days. It was at least one way of measuring moral forbearance.... when the undisputed power of the church meant something...or other.

Even though this thread is actually about Christian opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, I do agree that Blair has played a significant and visble part in assisting with promoting disgusting and bloody conflict, in an area of the world and among cultures that, arguably, were nothing to do with us. His government has allowed a raft of young British men to meet their untimely deaths for no good reason whatsoever. I watched with incredulity as he sat at the last Rememberance Day service with all the other appalling hypocrites, muttering prayers for the dead. The ridiculous three cheers for the privileged anachronism that is the Royal Family, together with the military pomp, had me shouting at the television and reminded me that we make the same mistakes from generation to generation, gods or no gods.

[Simon Icke]

If Tony Blair is a Christian then I am the Pope!

He has led a Government that has shown no respect whatsoever for Christian values, not once in 9 yrs of government!

When it comes to any moral issues like reducing or reviewing outdated abortion laws he sits on the fence or even worse votes with the secularist/ atheist view.

His Government has used political correctness to try and control society..

His Government introduced multiculturalism that has divided a nation and created religious and cultural ghettos.

his Government have destroyed the union and divided the nation

His Government have led us into several wars that had nothing to do with us and led to the slaughter of 100,000s of innocent civilians

His Government have introduced at least 8 new gay rights laws and repeatedly bowed down to the gay militant gay rights lobby, even if it means riding roughshod over the beliefs and values of faith communities and the silent majority to appease them....

His Government have done nothing to protect Asian British women from violent abuse forced marriages and honour killings and the like, they have consistently turned a blind eye to this known problem. Just look at The Scotsman website for the horrific facts on Equal Rights for Asian women.....
His Government have been the most arrogant government in history completely ingoring public opinion and the majority view...

This Government have put new labour cronies in the House of Lords, not on merit but how much they donated to the party!

His Government have controlled the nation with sleaze and spin, shamelessly telling one untruth after another!

His Government will go down in history as the most atheistic/ secularist liberal Government ever..

His Government did absolutely nothing to support traditional family values, in fact they did everything they could to undermine the family. especially the ones with shock horror a mother and father, married and living together.....

Blair might claim to be religious but he is certainly not a Christian on the evidence I can see.

He will be judged by his actions not his glib claims.

He and his Government have consistently behaved like trendy secularist/ atheistic fascist the kind quite a number of you should identify with...

In my opinion BLAIR IS CERTAINLY NOT A CHRISTIAN! One day when he meets his maker..... God will say 'I don't know you'!

My view on Tony Blair is good riddance to bad rubbish your legacy is that you brought far more harm than good to the British Nation and its society......

If I ever meet Tony Blair... I would say to him... I have no respect for you, as respect must be earned......may God forgive you for what you and your Government have done to our once great nation......

[Jill]

Christopher, thank you!

[Christopher]

Jill

I am very glad to hear it and I withdraw the allegation implied by the question.

[Jill]

Well, you would be wrong, Christopher. I don't support the death penalty.

[Christopher]

"Christopher was asking me to contribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust."

More than that Jill. I was asking you if you would work with them. It's not just about money. Never mind, you've told us all we need to know.

And Jill, for all your respect for human life - "Human life is not for us to take away", what are the odds on your supporting the death penalty?

[Kate]

Jill: 'Don't be silly Tim'.

A serious question: Is it possible that you suffer delusions of autocratic majesty? If so, it earns you few plaudits.

The fantastical, self-referential world of grannies, black babies, confiding "young" homosexuals, neo-fascist psychiatrists, the 'deserving' sick, a country overrun with paedophiles, sexually predatory male persons, biblical absolutes, scandal-mongering etc etc is, just a little, OTT.

[Jill]

Don't be silly, Tim. Christopher was asking me to contribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust. You are twisting what I am saying. You are letting your Christophobia run away with you.

Having enjoyed robust health all my life, I have stood in very little need of NHS treatment, but think the government would be going down a very dangerous road if it started charging people for 'lifestyle' illnesses.

You really take the biscuit, Tim. You should try not to be so bad-tempered; you will end up with chronic dyspepsia. I have never said, or even hinted, that I don't wish to contribute to the NHS.

I have quite a bit to do with elderly folks, and feel acutely sorry for the way they have to wait for months on end for treatment of conditions caused simply because they are getting old.

[Tim Cooper]

Jill? Unbelievable! So that's the next possibility on the list of campaigns for our happy band of special, privileged Christians is it - either to opt out of NHS contributions or to have a say in who receives treatment paid for with their money! No treatment for sinners if Jill was running the show! No fundraising for AIDS victims infected through sodomy? What else? No hospital care for victims of domestic violence because they are clearly NOT working hard enough at their marriages, divorce not being an option of course? What about withholding contributions towards general hospital care for heterosexuals LIVING IN SIN! Or specifying that no young, immature single mothers receive any help whatsoever for their obvious acts of wickedness! That should save some good Christian money. Why stop there - the biblical permutations are endless! Commandment criminals; thieves, adulterers, murderers, people with an unhealthy interest in their neighbour's ass; or drug addicts, alcoholics, people who knew what they were getting themselves into when they DISOBEYED - why should Jill's contributions pay for treating or rehabilitating any of these classes of person? Surely this is just another flagrant example of the state apparatus riding roughshod over the spiritual beliefs of a section of the community. Or was it just the bizarre pre-occupation with sodomites?

There are of course plenty of rich old Christians who can easily afford to replace their own hips and cataracts.....

I suppose the money might be put to good crypto-fascist usage by funding David Smith in his strange and optimistic campaign to transform the world's inverted into 'normal' heterosexual bible-Christians?

[Jill]

J Pearce, it has probably escaped your notice, but it is not just Christians who are opposed to the SORs. Many people think that homosexual practice is wrong, based not on homophobia but on knowledge of the harm it can, and does, cause to the individual and to society. There is no getting away from that. Read a couple of gay websites.

And 'sheer intellect'? What can you mean by that? That orthodox Christians are all thickies? I think you might come unstuck there.

As for your comments on euthanasia and abortion, well, again they are too big subjects for this blog, but they are part of the same package. Human life is not for us to take away. I could never condone wholesale slaughter of innocents, which is what is happening today with abortion. Once you enshrine these things in law, it gives carte blanche for the deliberate taking of human life.

Christopher, sorry, but there are plenty of rich gays in this country who can fund their own lifestyle. I already contribute towards sexually transmitted diseases through my NHS contributions, when I would really prefer the money to go to hip replacements and cataract operations for the elderly.

The third world is a different matter. My efforts are concentrated there.

[J Pearce]

Jill said:

"Please don't hold all Christians responsible for what has happened in the past."

I don't hold all Christians repsonsible for sins of the past, Jill - only those who appear determined to continue to repeat the same mistakes. I have no problem with those Christians (dare I call them "liberal"?) such as Frank and Kate, who through their experiences and sheer intellect, are able to reconcile basically "positive" Christian behaviours with the needs and demands of the society and culture we live in today. But I refuse to engage with those Christians (dare I call them "orthodox"?), who demand we live our lives according to pre-medieval moral strictures and who appear blind to henious moral crimes commited in the name of their (orthodox) religion - and, indeed, seem hell bent on perpetuating them.

"I don't regard any person as 'disordered' - I believe, as Christians are taught, that every human life is precious. That is why I am opposed to abortion and euthanasia. It is behaviour that is frequently disordered. Individual rights should never trump the common good."

I too believe life is precious, but it will come as no surprise to you that I support both euthanasia and abortion, as long as the appropriate controls are in place. Neither behaviour is "disordered". What right do the religious to force a terminally ill, rational, intelligent person, who may be experiencing extreme pain and distress through their condition, to eke out a meagre, virtual non-existence - especially when that person has requested to die? Its torture, disuguised as compassion, given a veneer of respectability by invoking the name of God.

Same with abortion. How is it to the common good to bring into the world an unwanted child, who would be unloved, neglected and rejected from birth? Our care homes are already overrun with neglected and unwanted children, yet whats the answer from the orthodox religious? Deny them the possiblity of a family home, because "gays are sinners"...

Its behaviour based on orthodox religious belief which is disordered, Jill.

[Christopher]

Sorry Jill I have just noticed your post of Monday and this at the bottom.

"Just for your information, I have fundraised for years for AIDS charities, particularly in the Third World where people become infected through no fault of their own. I think you should withdraw that comment."

I am glad you are helping Third World AIDS charities. But Jill, why do you have to tarnish your undoubtedly magnanimous efforts by indulging in this revealing little qualification "where people become infected through no fault of their own"?

So I am afraid I still stand by my comment. Do something with the THT to engage with gay men with AIDS (who obviously DID become infected through their own fault in your book) then I think you would really be doing something loving and I would admire you even more.

[Christopher]

JPearce

Christianity has 2000 years of preaching against 'immorality' including same-sex relations when it suits Jill, but, JP, it is just too unfair to point out it ALSO has 2000 years of oppression behind it, don't you know?

Cue Jill to Simon (who was at least trying to be honest) : "Please don't hold all Christians responsible for what has happened in the past. Mistakes have been made, of course they have. Atheist societies have committed some pretty grave offences, too. Chairman Mao was the world's biggest mass murderer, I believe, and Stalin did a pretty good job too."

Is this any kind of admission worth having? It washes its hands of the past and objects to people who still inherit the evil effects of that past from recollecting it. Clearly Jill is not anti-semitic but the writers of the NT were and one consequence of that was christian hatred of the Jews culminating in the nazis' holocaust, remembered tomorrow. So, Jill, let's not dismiss or excuse the past....or change the subject....too glibly.

[J Pearce]

"That is not true. Jill has not done this at all."

Err…hate to be such a pain (Again! Deary me! Such a sinner I am!), but actually, I think you might be a teensy, weensy bit wrong on this, David?

Jill has been attacking the SOR's with arguments based upon her faith, which is derived from her religious beliefs, yes? The SOR's, according to Jill, are unacceptable to her "Christian conscience" which by definition, is informed by her Christian beliefs, yes?

Therefore, she is in essence defending her vision of what orthodox Christianity is about, yes? She has been defending her "rights of (Christian) conscience", yes?

So it is perfectly acceptable and logical for me to point out the rather less salubrious, historically verifiable products of that orthodox Christian conscience, yes?

So what you have accused me of doing to Jill, you have actually tried to do to me, yes?

"..I need to put something into your mouth that I can then easily attack.."

You line 'em up matey, I'll knock 'em down!

[J Pearce]

"Again, J Pearce, it would be so nice if you would actually stick to absorbing and taking on the arguments actually put to you. There is no integrity and no weight either in misrepresenting or in personally abusing those with views different to yours."

Yeah, OK, no problem matey! Perhaps you would like to go first, show me how to do it?

I suggest you start by answering the last point I made about whether you would minister the "spritual needs" of hetero's who wish to become homosexuals, or trans-gendered? That would be a good start. Then you could get round to the rather large list of salient points Christopher has made on this thread, but have mysteriously not yet been addressed by you?

Ta.

[David Smith]

J Pearce to Jill:
'When you speak out to defend your brand of orthodox Christianity and your "rights of conscience", Jill, remember that you are by default, defending everything else that has been done in its name throughout history.'

That is not true. Jill has not done this at all.

Translation: '... I will say you are - because I need to put something into your mouth that I can then easily attack - defending everything else that has been done in its name throughout history.'

Again, J Pearce, it would be so nice if you would actually stick to absorbing and taking on the arguments actually put to you. There is no integrity and no weight either in misrepresenting or in personally abusing those with views different to yours.

[Tim Cooper]

David: There can be few people unable to understand who you think you are. You are clearly inhabited by your god. He incubates, guides and governs every passing thought and specifies precisely how you should behave. You know him personally, like a human being. But then isn't the Christian god unknowable, mysterious, divinely different? Perhaps he has revealed himself only to you in this personal way. Some might think this wholly irrational.

What you are quietly insisting David is that you are really rather special. Someone who has the divine power to transform people's lives, in your one-way street. But what about JPearce's absolutely valid point? What salvation can you offer for those living a life of nightmares, forever genetically trapped in the wrong body, or those living a lie and seeking a way out of their marriages? Presumably none, because either the perceived ghastliness of facilitating the road to possible sodomy, non bible-specific surgical re-alignment or hormone-induced facial hair, all point to the inability to create a psalm-singing heterosexual, who screams your version of 'normality', whatever that may consist of.

What about the discrimination in human rights between homosexuals and lesbians, a subject much ignored by the pious contributors to this thread? Or does the image of red hot sodomizing vastly override the barely imaginable, if not ingenious, paraphernalia involved in lesbian lovemaking, through the spy-hole in the guest-house door. Presumably the bible has no views on that. But the discrimination continues nevertheless via the protracted arguments over adoption, civil partnerships and the ordination of women.

Where we differ significantly is not in the fear of the watering down of human rights, or an imaginary erosion of religious belief. It is in the weight of religious importance this issue contains. None of us can do absolutely as we like. Societal rules govern us all even Christians. From my perspective you can't have a situation where you can discriminate a bit, if you like. We must treat people equally, because they are human beings first. This includes you - whatever ancient texts you may consider are revealing, or however many disembodied voices are inside your head telling you what to do.

[Jill]

J Pearce! And to think I called you noble! There's gratitude for you! As to monetary transactions, isn't that shifting the argument a bit? I thought we were talking about prejudice.

Please don't hold all Christians responsible for what has happened in the past. Mistakes have been made, of course they have. Atheist societies have committed some pretty grave offences, too. Chairman Mao was the world's biggest mass murderer, I believe, and Stalin did a pretty good job too.

I don't regard any person as 'disordered' - I believe, as Christians are taught, that every human life is precious. That is why I am opposed to abortion and euthanasia. It is behaviour that is frequently disordered. Individual rights should never trump the common good. I might be an adultress (I'm not, honest!) but adultery should never be proclaimed as my human right as an individual because of the harm it does to others (my husband, for a start, and my children, and to my friends and neighbours).

Simon, thank you for your intelligent posts. Unfortunately, unless party leadership changes dramatically before the next General Election, there will be nobody for me to vote for; I don't know about you. David Cameron apparently approves of gay adoption. What alternatives are there? Who will stand up for ordinary people?

[J Pearce]

Jill,

Having digested your reply to the answer I gave you about adoption on this thread - now given prescience by recent events - I am beginning to understand why Kate does what she does! I gave you a straight answer and what do you do? Ignore it! Instead, you try and demean the relevance of it, by - of all things - questioning whether my wife would agree with me!

I mean, come on! Is that the best you can do?

I also give you a straight answer to the Blood donor situation you posit, and what do you do? Obfuscate! "I don't think its relevant whether you have to pay for it or not". Of course its relevant! That’s the whole point about the SOR's! They are designed to enable all people engaged in monetary transactions in the public domain, to have parity of legal status in the eyes of the law. That’s what this thread is all about. But as soon as you get a straight answer to your question, you disappear up your own ideology trying to confuse the issue - most likely, because you don't like reading the arguments ranged against yours.

You ask the rhetorical question, positing that the "Christian ideal" is not such a bad idea. Well, I'm afraid it is, when it crushes the individual to becoming nothing more than an unthinking religious drone who goes through the motions of belief (all that empty, meaningless ritual - whats that got to do with God?!). It is a bad idea, when it reduces innocent people to the level of being animals, for the crime of "sinning". And lets not beat around the bush, Jill - orthodox Christians like yourself see homosexuals as - to borrow one of your phrases - "disordered", despite your protestations to the contrary. This is the first step in de-humanising, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

And you will deny it, because you are only too well aware of the unedifying history of persecution meted out by the religious, against those in society who were not powerful enough to resist. The SOR's may - in their current form - be a flawed implementation of an ideal, but they have at least revealed the latent streak of raw prejudice and anti-human dogma still festering within Christianity. I read on another thread about the ingrained anti-Jewish sentiment in some of the Gospels. We know that Christians supported and fought to maintain the slave trade, as well as instigating the genocide against the native American Indians. And the Catholic Church is guilty of any number of heinous moral outrages, from the Inquisition, to colluding with the Nazis, to the modern day guilty silence over child abuse.

When you speak out to defend your brand of orthodox Christianity and your "rights of conscience", Jill, remember that you are by default, defending everything else that has been done in its name throughout history. That includes the alleged right to practice harmful prejudice against the innocent.

[J Pearce]

I also note, David, that you justify your beliefs through the "spritual healing" services you provide. I have no objection to your helping people who have felt the need to move from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. But what about vice versa? Have you had to deal with a person who feels that they are a homosexual trapped in a heterosexual world? Would you? From the tenor of your posts, I doubt you would - according to you, homosexuality is a thought crime - but what difference is there between these people? Physically, spiritually, emotionally, there is none.

The only difference is you, projecting your religious belief upon them.

I know a person who changed gender - she felt as trapped, depressed and pointless as you descibe you have been, before your conversion - while she was a man. But once she became a woman (and that included a long process of surgey and hormonal treatments, as well as psychotherapy - not a journey I would wish on anyone, by the sounds of it), she was transformed. The shackles of guilt were thrown off and she became happy.

I wonder, however, what kind of "healing" you would have prescribed her instead, given the rigid orthodoxy of your beliefs. Why do I get the feeling that she would rank even lower in your estimation, than a homosexual?

[J Pearce]

"Can I take it, J Pearce, that your resorting to personal abuse, means that you too are running out of genuine arguments?"

And your example of a genuine argument? A rambling, self-indulgent "testimony" about the healing power of God and how you and He - out of the billions on this planet - are on such close, personal terms?

Have you heard of the term "monomania"?

No, of course you haven't.

Oh, and a quick riposte to your and Simon Ickes trashing of "secular, liberal" values. If they are deemed so useless, why did our grandfathers sacrifice their lives to stop them being removed by the Nazis? And where was the Catholic Church placing its bets during WW2, until it became obvious that Herr Hitler and co. weren't going to be able to come good on their Aryan-Christian utopia?

I'll keep my secular, liberal values - warts and all - thank you very much David, if the alternative is the kind of religious crypto-fascism being promulgated by you and Simon.

[Tim Cooper]

Simon: Good idea. Mobilise against somebody or other. But why stop there? proclaim that it is your avowed intention to MAKE the whole world listen, by force if necessary. And turning England into a secularist state can be wholly and squarely blamed on New Labour. Everyone remembers the fantastic religious ethos enjoyed under the Conservatives.

The population in its complete ignorance, can only await the next exciting governmental shift towards atheism.

[Simon Icke]

TONY BLAIR COLLAPSES TO MINISTERIAL PRESSURE OVER SORs

Once again this atheistic Government ignores the majority view to appease the militant minority. The Sexual Orientation Regulations were never about gay rights, there was enough legislation already in place to protect people from being victims of ‘homophobia.’ (And there certainly was no evidence to support any real homophobia existed anyway, not from Christians in any case. However, Christianphobia certainly exists if recent media reporting is anything to go by). No, the real agenda from this Government is about turning this nation into a secularist state and it was convenient to use these SORs as the first major step in doing so. Just like they used multiculterism to attack and isolate Christians and our British heritage and traditions, plus ten years of political correctness from the invisible liberal elite to control our British Society.

No, this is part of a much wider and bigger agenda to eradicate Christianity from our society and its institutions.. These new regulations show no respect whosoever for the beliefs and values of people of faith including Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews and other minority faiths who have different morals and values to atheist, aggressive liberal secularist and militant gay groups. The Catholic adoption row was just a red herring.

You may have won your little battle, enjoy it whilst you can, the faith communities will now mobilise against New Labour at the next general election who have now revealed their true colours and their hidden agenda. New Labour will pay the price for its arrogance and showing no respect for the beliefs and values of the faith communities. And its hell bent secularist, now not so hidden agenda!

[David Smith]

Simon Icke:
'Or is it true that liberals are only liberal when you agree with them; anyone who dares to hold a different view or hold different beliefs and values should be treated with the utmost contempt.'

Good post, Simon.

It truly has seemed to be the supposedly uniquely persecuted demanding the law give them the right to be as intolerant as their real or supposed persecutors.

[David Smith]

Tim Cooper:
'David: I don't think it is a question of me wanting you to bend on your beliefs...

In short, faith is between your god and you... clerics are not some sort of narrow conduit through which universal rules are disseminated to all and sundry.'

Tim, if you aren't looking for me to bend on my beliefs, I'm not sure what the adjective 'unbending' you used in one of your recent posts was referring to.

When I became a true, born-again believing Christian 30 years ago - as opposed to the churchgoer and nominal Chistian that I had been until then by virtue of having had some water sprinkled on my head as a baby and welcomed to the Church of England Club - I came to know God personally, much as one meets and then comes to increasingly know another human being and their personality. Because His spirit came into me, something of who He is and what He is like became a deep part of my own make-up, mixing, if you like, with the exsiting good and bad parts of me - many of which still remain, I'm sure. Since then my Christian beliefs have been a very deep part of who I am. They influence all that I think and do, often entirely unconsciously. They are not just a set of ideas in a compartment of my mind that I can isolate, turn off, or leave at home when I go out, so as to speak. Once you understand this, I hope you will see that saying that my faith should be between me and God is a bit like me saying to you: 'It's only OK for you, Tim, to be truly yourself between you and your bedroom wall. But don't, whatever you do, project the real you at all of us, please.'

I sometimes tell people what I believe, just like you have done on this blog. But, like you I'm sure, I would not wish to 'impose' this on anyone... which brings us back to the SORs. All that I and others have asked here is not to be denied the right to simply do this, and nothing more, through fear of legal prosecution, which, as the SORs are currently worded, could be instigated just because someone is touchy about the way I see things.

Equally, when you find something positively life-changing that you know can work for others, it is quite natural to want to share it, if they want to listen. Over 30 years of doing this, I have been a part of many other people coming to know God for themselves and seeing their lives also changed for the better, often radically so.

If you want to believe that people like me go around inventing conditions and making people feel bad just so that we can have someone to 'help' or control, then I can't stop you. But believe me there are already more than enough people in this ailing country of ours with very real and universally recognisable needs who are turning to ministries like mine. They often come because a friend of theirs who they trust has told them they have been helped or healed through us. Where appropriate, I let people know that my ministry exists, but beyond that I do not 'advertise' or target any individual or groups. I am certainly not part of any permanent anti-homosex lobby group. The only reason ultimately that my beliefs on this are coming out in this forum is because the law is threatening to tell me that I can no longer hold and express them.

Lastly, I am not a cleric. And actually, they are a class of person that I have considerable difficulty with myself... But perhaps that discussion is for another time.

[Simon Icke]

The new Sexual Orientation Regulations are unnecessary as there is already plenty of legislation in place to stop discrimination to protect homosexuals. These new laws are about rubbing peoples religious beliefs in the dirt. Telling them what they can believe and how they can live their beliefs, even to the point of forcing people to act against their beliefs. Now where is the equality in that? Do two wrongs make a right? If the respect is not mutual, but only one way, then what is it worth?

During the last week of the SOR debate I have heard nothing but aggressive divisive words coming from those who claim to represent the oppressed homosexuals, is this helpful in an open free democracy? Or is it true that liberals are only liberal when you agree with them; anyone who dares to hold a different view or hold different beliefs and values should be treated with the utmost contempt. Please tell me how this makes them any better than the people they love to criticise?

If the people of faith allow these regulations to become law it will only be a matter of time before we have a secularist/ atheistic state, which I believe is the Government's ultimate agenda. The SORs are one big step in that direction.

This Government has road roughshod over the majority, time and time again to appease a militant minority. It has shown no respect whatsoever for the beliefs and values of the people of faith.

[Tim Cooper]

David: I don't think it is a question of me wanting you to bend on your beliefs. But what was the real trouble with your students seeking re-alignment? Did they have a problem with their own sexuality, being thoroughly pursued by the church's avowed proclamation that they were 'intrinsically disordered', as well as suffering fear and guilt, having believed the frequent assertions that homosexuals are unworthy sinners? At what point did religion interfere with their own self-worth David?

I'm sorry, but I think that for clerics to make these quasi-analytical statements from a perspective based solely on biblical edicts and then, having defined the 'problem', to claim to have solved it, is pseudo-science in a fool's paradise. It suggests that the very concept of inverted sexuality is somehow interlinked with the Christian perception of the world. And your example ignores the millions of gay men and women who are untroubled by either their sexuality or religion. I think that it is as removed from reality as the morally-blind Catholic position on abortion and contraception, which militates against compassion, disease, poverty and common sense.

Recent statements from leading clerics, condemning or seeking exemption from this far wider human rights legislation serves only to isolate them further from the society they are clearly desperate to remain a meaningful part of.

Nobody is screwing up their faith and throwing it away but, just because some people maintain certain beliefs, it does not necessarily mean that all of society should automatically consult them for their own received wisdom. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, for example, says that 'we are descending into a spirit of immorality'. Who is? The 1.1 billion Catholics, or the world in general? Why doesn't he stop fulminating in a torrent of irrelevance, by pursuing the irritating and frankly hopeless task of trying to define other people's moral standards?

In short,faith is between your god and you, not everybody else and clerics are not some sort of narrow conduit through which universal rules are disseminated to all and sundry.

[Tim Cooper]

David; As you well know, the salient point about a bully who claims to be the spokesperson for the many in order to belittle others, is that they actually rely on overstating their position, i.e. a minority of one. In this thread I have argued consistently on behalf of the human rights of the wider society and your paltrey attempts at twisting Kate's words around are too transparent to be taken seriously. What a wind-up merchant you are!

[David Smith]

Tim Cooper:
'The gulf between you and the world in which some of us strive to show real concern for other people is too wide.'

My full-time work for many years now has been working with God to bring permanent healing to people with many different deeply limiting and unwanted spiritual, emotional, and physical conditions - many 'incurable' in the eyes of the conventional medical establishment. People wanting to be free of an orientation towards homosex have been amongst these.

In this context, my mind immediately goes to two letters not far from me now - one from a man and one from a woman. Both approached me entirely of their own free-will, because they were so orientated and had not found the fulfilment in same-sex relationships that they saw and heard about in the heterosexual marriages of close friends. Both tell me that they are now deeply and contentedly involved with members of the opposite sex and looking forward to lifetimes together with their new partners. In terms of where people are now and what they aspire to, I do not want to generalise about all same-sex orientated people and relationships just from these two, but I am hugely happy for them because, amongst other things, the incomparable joy of having their own children is now open to them.

I once helped in a group for people with similar aspirations - again they had, before I even met them, made the decision to come because something told them that they were missing out. That group actually had to meet in secret, for fear of people who thought otherwise and were making it their business to force their view on others by forcibly and physically invading such groups as ours, and doing all that they could to break them up.

I see, believe in, and wholly applaud your compassion for other people. It's just sad that because I and others hold a different view to you of what God's best for a life is, you see us as you do, and just because we will not 'bend' on our personal conviction, have to stereotype us and label us as somehow inhumane, and, even though we ourselves deplore any form of genuine discrimination against anyone, insist on supporting a law that seeks to limit our right to actively and publicly hold and advocate the view we do.

[Jill]

David, thank you so much for your support. It was very brave of you – one thing I have learned is that standing up for somebody else immediately puts you in the firing line! You are quite right, of course, but I have not felt it incumbent upon me to point out Kate’s bullying and intimidation to any great extent, as anybody can read it for themselves. I simply don’t have the weapons in my armoury to deal with this sort of thing, as quite frankly I’m not used to it. I must get out more. I have to admit I had wondered, on reading Kate’s last post, whether I had been harbouring a misunderstanding of what a bully was, or the meaning of ‘ad hominem’. Kate seems to be accusing others of all the things she is guilty of in the form of aggressive behaviour. And I was astonished to see from your last post that you had not, in fact, been bombarding her with private emails, which is what I had assumed from her accusation. Tolerance and free speech do not appear to rank very highly with Kate from people who don’t agree with her.

I have to say, though, that I think it rather odd that people who pride themselves on their free-thinking will happily rubbish years of research when they don’t like the outcome, but swallow hook line and sinker propaganda from gay lobby groups on their ‘permanent, faithful and stable’ model of homosexual relationships, which even the most modest amount of research shows is blatantly untrue. And no, Christopher, I don’t mean ALL gay relationships, as you well know. That would be as daft as saying that because most rapists are men, all men are rapists.

On the topic of adoption, it has been borne upon me forcibly in this blog that the Christian Guest House scenario was never going to be a winner because there are many people who don’t give a toss about Christians being persecuted – some would even possibly be rather pleased about a few of us being banged up - but when the issue gets closer to home, as with adoption, (and blood) they are rather more cautious and perhaps a little less comfortable. (Especially if they have read the link I posted about paedophilia.) However, this is all part of the same package. If you want the SORs you will have to take them all. Don’t be beguiled by any promises of ‘special exemptions’ if they are offered – I would give them five years before they are overturned. The SORs are tyranny wrapped up in weasel words, as can be seen from the newspaper article that the Local Government Association is proposing to remove any would-be adopters who do not agree with gay adoption. I think we have reached a very sorry state when the ‘rights’ of homosexual groups trump the rights of damaged children.

However, I don’t want to get involved in any more quarrelling, because the actual issues get sidelined. I think it might be best to take some ‘time out’, which I think I shall do, unless anyone challenges me directly. I shall just ignore insults and personal remarks, because they get us nowhere.

[Tim Cooper]

Some Christians, by insisting that there are lessons to be learnt from them, draw absolute distinctions between right and wrong, and place themselves in the position of presumptuous mentors. They define and allocate degrees of human value by divine decree and champion inequality through slavishly adhering to rote-learnt assertions. Severe, critical, judgmental, pedantic, overbearing, didactic, authoritarian, unbending...... No thanks. My last word David. The gulf between you and the world in which some of us strive to show real concern for other people is too wide. Good luck with the campaign to transform the world's obviously dysfunctional homosexuals into pious heterosexual bigots. The words 'terrifyingly confused' come to mind.

[Kate]

This thread seems to have deteriorated into a competition. Two absolutists versus the rest.

Comprehension presents as a large problem. Along with several requests that D. Smith desist from harassing me DIRECTLY, I include:

"You may, of course, in a public forum present anything you like to the general reader." (18 Jan)

Having been too busy to engage directly with Christopher and ignoring other insightful posters e.g. Tim Cooper; D Smith scours the thread for selective quotes and continues to target me by name.

On 23 Jan, DS posts:

"This, Kate, is a public discussion forum. No one 'directly' communicates with anyone."

Really?

[David Smith]

Kate:
‘A common 'bully' tactic is to claim to be spokesperson for 'the many' - e.g...’

Tim Cooper's latest post to David Smith:
‘But don't expect everyone to take eggists seriously or to regard their views as anything but marginal.’

‘Suffice it to say that the… perspective that you have outlined… is one that not many balanced people would recognize.’

‘Because you and your slim minority demonstrate an interpretation of Christianity which overrides the general will, you cannot expect endless magnanimity from every quarter of society.’

At last something Kate and I agree on!

(Tim, I have not deliberately singled you out. I simply do not have time now to do a comprehensive survey of all bloggers. No doubt the other 'guilty' are already quaking in their boots!)

[David Smith]

Kate:
'I request AGAIN that you desist from further direct communication with me. Harassment is a criminal offence.'

This, Kate, is a public discussion forum. No one 'directly' communicates with anyone. If you don't want to answer a post addressed to you (for whatever reason - including lack of time, or having other priorities), it is understood that you don't have to, and no one can force you to.

Readers of this blog will readily see that your bullying of Jill, for example (including speculatively and smearingly judging her inner motives, misrepresenting her arguments, and defaming her), started long before I addressed any post to you. (I could take you exhaustively through the evidence, but I am quite sure that we both have much better things to do.)

Yet when I inconvenience you by not simply disappearing in the face of the on-going points you make to me just because you tell me to (also smearingly), and then of the personal abuse that you add, it apparently becomes the crime of harassment. (No wonder you are so keen to see the SORs made law in this country.)

Though I cannot insist on your complying, I too now have absolutely no wish to pursue our exchanges on this issue further. But I suggest you learn a lesson. If you don't want a repeat of what has happened here, in future stick to taking on the arguments and leave baselessly discrediting the person well alone.

[Kate]

David Smith: what a preposterous, 'Aunt Sally' you persist in being. Even down to the vacuous 'last word'.

I refer you to my response to your first address:

"Let us agree to differ David. You have every right to disagree with my views. That I am "deeply mistaken" is merely your opinion. It changes nothing." AND

"That said, I have no interest in an exchange of biblical quotations. I absolutely support your right to be guided by anything you wish. I hope you will accord me the same courtesy and accept, without prejudice, that there is no way across the comprehension gap you define."

You have shown yourself crudely incapable of respecting that request. Instead, you intrude and harass, employ a policy of selective quotation, repetition, further biblical quotes and patriarchal 'rebuke'.

How dare a WOMAN have strong opinions, training, experience of life, AND the facility to express opinion in unambiguous plain English!! Interesting that you have allied yourself with the only other blogger here who posts as a "loving" personification of the Word.

In contrast, Tim Cooper, J Pearce and I, all stand accused (by you) of "personal abuse". I wonder why you have not targeted Christopher. I suspect you are very wrong if you imagine he is a suitable 'case for therapy'.

In short D. Smith you present as a bully. Bullies carry a great deal of internal aggression which they direct at others. This may include projection, criticism and patronising sarcasm but contributes nothing of any value. A common 'bully' tactic is to claim to be spokesperson for 'the many' - e.g.

"Not only with me, but with OTHERS on this blog as well, when genuine argument has failed to brush aside your opponents, you have resorted in spades to plain old fashioned abusive bullying.'
[My capitals]

This is standard bully-speak. It is a fabrication or a distortion of the reality. Bullies are also adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise pool negative information about them. [ergo: playing off JP and me].

This provocation is intended to create conflict in which bullies delight. They are adept at coercing others to respond in a manner which can then be distorted. The bully gains gratification from seeing others engage in destructive behaviour.

Bullies are also serial attention-seekers. It doesn't matter what type of attention they get, positive or negative, as long as they can provoke someone into paying them attention.

But, the thing bullies hate bitterly is when someone refuses to engage with them - no matter how politely the refusal is couched. Bullies cannot stand being ignored.

The anger of a serial bully is magnified when they come across anyone who can see through them to the dysfunctional aggressive individual behind the mask.

PLEASE NOTE: Pernicious, patriarchal, clerical pursuit is offensive and harassing. I request AGAIN that you desist from further direct communication with me. Harassment is a criminal offence.

[Christopher]

David

"I and many others who are far more legally qualified than me have read the SORs, and have no doubt that their effect, as presently worded, is to force even those who think homosex is wrong to actively facilitate it."

I am sorry David, but you would say that wouldn't you, otherwise you and the Fellowship of Christian Lawyers are going to have a lot of egg on your faces. By the way, the Lord Chancellor is not one of those who thinks you will have to support anything you don't want to. It is infinitely different from saying that because you cannot actively discriminate against homosex, as you delicately call it, that makes you facilitate it because you are no longer allowed to discriminate in the provision of goods and services. Pleading that you do not discriminate against people only acts means you have to judge the state of grace of people and prejudge their acts. (I think if I believed as you do, making the judgments you and you religious friends do about the state of grace of other people's souls I would be in fear and trembling that I was putting my own soul in mortal peril, dangling myself over the pit and preparing myself to be rejected on Judgment Day.)

What is wrong about two men chastely sharing a bed? President Lincoln did it for years. They wouldn't get a room in Bigots View Guesthouse these days.

But we are missing something here. What if I do not share your religious convictions and don't think I am committting a sin? Why should I have your worldview foisted on me in the public market place? This something you people can never seem to understand - you don't want to respect law-abiding members of society equally but you expect the rest of us to respect your judgmental theology.

But before you go any further along this route please see what I said about the odd absence of objection to being made to facilitate the worship of idols and false gods.

" If the SORs are as this latter group argue, then why does Lord Rooker feel the need to 'clarify' them at all?"

Lord Rooker was answering question put to him by another peer, the lawyer Lord Lester, to exclude any reasonable doubt. Get used to it and try being honest, David, you are simply wrong. The other 2 questions flow from the first so need no further discussion.

David, it seems rather strange that you claim you are too busy and to ask my forbearance, but then go on posting and arguing with others (and with bits of mine you feel confidant you can answer).

Until then I cannot be bothered to answer any more of YOUR questions until you answer MINE or have the honesty to say you can't because I have found a loophole which exposes as completely inconsistent, on the one hand your side's objections to gay sex but on the other hand your lack of objection to idolatry. It proves once and for all that it IS homophobic bigotry that underlies the objections to the SORs, slice the salami as you please.

[Jill]

Sorry, Christopher, but I am not skilled in the art of dissimulation and artifice – what you see is what you get – take it or leave it. You obviously prefer to leave it. Fine.

In view of the link I posted above, I thought people might be interested to read this one.

‘One in every 20 children adopted from care goes to live with a gay couple, official figures revealed yesterday.
The number of adoptions by same sex couples is rising by more than 50 per cent a year in many parts of the country, encouraged by social workers.

Advice from the councils' umbrella body, the Local Government Association, has praised authorities that encourage gay adoption and instructed social workers to strike off from their list of potential adoptive parents anybody who disagrees with gay adoption.’

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382402-details/Rise+in+adopted+children+living+with+gay+couples/article.do#readerComments

Just for your information, I have fundraised for years for AIDS charities, particularly in the Third World where people become infected through no fault of their own. I think you should withdraw that comment.

[Tim Cooper]

David Smith: 'Genuine argument' is light on the ground in many of your postings, which rely heavily on a re-statement of your own position and not much else. And it is a measure of your mindset if you think 'brushing aside opponents' is, in any respect applicable here or has any cogent meaning whatsoever. The argument continues to centre around the standpoint of some non-aligned Christians, who adopt a rigid, judgmental view of other people and seek to undermine their human rights. Because you and your slim minority demonstrate an interpretation of Christianity which overrides the general will, you cannot expect endless magnanimity from every quarter of society. Just how appropriate it is for mainstream society with a humane agenda to endure almost manic preachers of intolerance, living inside their own heads, is open to conjecture.

Suffice it to say that the odious perspective that you have outlined; one of painting homosexuals as sinners who need to repent or, as a cheery alternative, requiring them to submit themselves in large numbers to the D.Smith programme of sexual re-alignment; is one that not many balanced people would recognise.

I can understand Kate's 'wrecking ball' approach. You accuse people of paying insufficent attention to your views - asking them to listen more. In your recent post your stance is one of allowing debate, provided it conforms to your standards - Pompous? Patronising?

Your biblically-sanitized view of the world is a matter for you, and happily in a country where free speech just about applies we are all able to express how we feel about issuse such as this. Insistent missions to 'transform' people actually are within the law through consent. This gives anyone the right to assert that the world is anything from flat to a poached egg. But don't expect everyone to take eggists seriously or to regard their views as anything but marginal. Some heavy degree of resistance is likely to be met when human rights are a general issue, from both open-minded Christians and also humanists.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'In the first quote, what you seem to be saying, essentially, is that homosexuality is not just an actual moral crime, but a thought crime as well.'
'Are you advocating that our inner thoughts – the most private, sacred of human retreats – are subject to religious policing and censorship?'

Whatever your shortcomings may be, J Pearce, having a dull imagination and an uninventive mind are certainly not among them!

I just said what Jesus Himself said: '..everyone who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' In other words, to God, purity is as much about what goes on inside us as what we actually say and do.

Do you extrapolate from this that Jesus was the first Christian campaigner for legal, judicial, and police 'thought control'? I assume not. I, like Him would want to persuade by argument, and that's all - unlike supporters of the SORs, who want to criminalise my beliefs and the actions of not promoting homosex that flow from them. The two posts I have already reproduced for your benefit make this crystal clear.

J Pearce
'The second quote I have borrowed from your repertoire is a classic that Jill would be proud of. The tired, hackneyed, trite religious fear-peddling that “homosexuality = paedophilia”.'

There is a clear distinction between saying that all homosex and all paedophilia are exactly the same, and saying that the same arguments used to support the promotion of the practise of one will be used to support the practise of the other. Again, this is what the post of mine that you quote actually says. I am sorry of you cannot see this, but many others can and do.

J Pearce:
'Overall, I am beginning to wonder David, that when one undergoes a “religious conversion” so profoundly retrograde to the intellect as you seem to have experienced, that some form of hallucinatory drugs must have been involved at some stage? Because that seems the only explanation for the “Plan 9 from Outer Space” arguments you seem to be putting forward!'

Can I take it, J Pearce, that your resorting to personal abuse, means that you too are running out of genuine arguments?

[Christopher]

Jill

No wonder Joe teased you and loved seeing your 'shocked' expression, not realising all the time that what he was telling you was going into a post. Your account reminded me of Miss Eleanor Lavish in A Room with a View. It's no use, Jill you can't get away from the fact that you are using your gay friends to further your own agenda. What would they feel, for instance, if they knew you posted a link to an article by Timothy J. Dailey backed by the Family Research Council... and then you say you don't think any of your gay friends is a paedophile when you clearly must think it a posibility if you actually quote from this poisonous rubbish (and disseminate it further by giving the link). I am sure they would think you had stitched them up to put no finer a point on it.

I see you practically admit you are of the school that says to the raped woman "you were asking for it if you walked alone at night". I hope they never employ you as a rape crisis counsellor. Oh yes, you did tell us once that people keep urging you to train as a counsellor but your tender heart would not let you and you'd be in floods of tears lying awake at night fretting, as your husband calls it. Possibly, but I also don't think you would last five minutes if you dolled out the kind of thing you say here to a woman trembling in grief, pain and shock "My dear, you were silly to go walking home at night when the bus didn't come ". Your homespun philosophy is all very well when you are tut-tutting at Joe but it does become dangerous when you combine it with the misinformation you do here from the Family Research Council, a neo-con think-tank formed by the fascistic James Dobson. It is clear where your true friends lie, and it is not with the gay associates you meet in your "little world of art and music".

You have to take responsibility for what you say and if people read the plain meaning as other than you really intended, it is your fault. You analogies then are clumsy, and it is not I who am being 'artful'. I am merely calling you to be adult enough own what you have said and not keep playing the nice-bumbling-shocked-christian-lady card, like something out of Little Britain - "Oh piffle Maggie, I'm chairwoman of the local conservative association". Anyway, it's too late. People see that you are playing an old and fairly crude rhetorical device - smear by association. You are constantly putting together homosexuality and pedophilia, if only to say somewhat disingenuously that of course there is no connection. Then comes the BUT. And we soon realise that everything before the but is bullshit.

In your post to JPearce; first you say "And, proportionally, homosexual men are more likely to abuse boys than heterosexual men". What does that mean exactly? If anyone turns to your link they'll see where it comes from as a direct quote. You do it again but using a different formula (I know there is no connection BUT there is a risk) with "Casting my mind over the gay men I know, there is not one who is interested in children in any way, so far as I can see, and I can understand and agree with outrage from gay men on this connection in people’s minds. However, in my view, the risk is too great." Of course there's a risk. Life's a risk. Some mothers murder their babies. That doesn't mean all babies must be taken away from their mothers at birth, does it?

Then you say this "Not being a betting person I have no idea how to work out odds, but I think gay adoption is too chancy..." So you've no idea but you still persist in revealing your distrust of gay people. I am glad you are not in charge of adoptions - with your rigid views you'd be sure to pass up the suitable gay couple for a hard-to-place child and put her with unsuitable married heterosexuals because they fit in with your insupportable presupposition that married heterosexual always = the source of all that is good. That's risky.

Jill, you still haven't told us if Joe knows you are plastering all this stuff about him on this blog you tirelessly go on repeating it despite the fact that your credibility must by now be at its nadir. I am very sorry to say this Jill. Try as I might I am beginning to have a little niggle of doubt that you know what you mean when you say you care for gay people. I have suggested that if you were really concerned about HIV/AIDs and had gay people's interests at heart you would do something useful to help the Terrence Higgins Trust but you never respond to that. That says enough to me about your concern.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'..Rooker was speaking on behalf of the government, Mackay was not. Mackay's was OPINION, legally qualified may be, Rooker's (aka the government's) statement was a CLARIFICATION.. '

I and many others who are far more legally qualified than me have read the SORs, and have no doubt that their effect, as presently worded, is to force even those who think homosex is wrong to actively facilitate it.

Supporters of the SORS, as presently worded, have, on this blog and elsewhere, been adamant that this is clearly not their effect.

Three questions for you to ponder:
1. If the SORs are as this latter group argue, then why does Lord Rooker feel the need to 'clarify' them at all?

2. If even their supporters in the legislative process think they need 'clarifying' in this respect, why not simply make sure the SORs are clear in their own wording in the first place?

3. Should we believe without question that what a politically aligned Lord Rooker says is his opinion on the SORs, call it a 'clarification' or whatever you like, is true and valid just because he speaks for this (itself politically aligned) government?

[David Smith]

Kate:
'I did not enter the debate to play 'one-up-manship' but to argue for the civil rights of a minority.'

Kate - in recent posts alone to just one of several dissenters to her point of view in the SORS debate:
'Debating skill? You don’t have any.'
'What a twisting, turning, sardonic and self-satisfied pompous ass you are…'
'[You are] moronic [and] infantile… '
'You are… a purveyor of excrement.'
'[You are] …a… bigot with a fascist ideology seeking to eliminate 3 million of the population '

Kate, please do not try to dignify such phrases with the label: one-up-manship. They are just plain old personal abuse.

Not only with me, but with others on this blog as well, when genuine argument has failed to brush aside your opponents, you have resorted in spades to plain old fashioned abusive bullying. At the same time you demand absolute, unquestioning tolerance of and co-operation with the highly debateable practises of your own espoused 'minority group'.

Stay and argue the issues, by all means. But so long as you intend to continue in this vein, then I sincerely hope that we really have heard your ‘last words on the matter’.

[Jill]

J Pearce, on the topic of blood, I don’t think it is relevant whether you have to pay for it or not. It depends on how you see the gay lobby agenda – as a means of gaining financial advantage, or as being not discriminated against. Discrimination is discrimination, whether or not it carries financial implications.

As for adoption, that was a very noble gesture, J Pearce (I hope Mrs Pearce would go along with you on this, bearing in mind a mother’s role in the life of a child) but in fact most paedophiles are men (90% or something like that). It is not a risk I would like to take. And, proportionally, homosexual men are more likely to abuse boys than heterosexual men. This takes us into realms of grey areas like where does pederasty end and homosexuality begin, and of pre-pubescence and post-pubescence, and I would not really like to go there as there are many, many different opinions even amongst experts in this field. Casting my mind over the gay men I know, there is not one who is interested in children in any way, so far as I can see, and I can understand and agree with outrage from gay men on this connection in people’s minds. However, in my view, the risk is too great. You might think I am dangerous in issuing these warnings, but I think not heeding them is far more dangerous. My concerns are for small children, not for thinking adults like you. You might choose to interpret what I say as being anti-gay, but it is not. I fully recognise that gay people are as capable of loving and nurturing as anybody else. I also know lesbian couples who have naturally conceived children. That is not the issue. Not being a betting person I have no idea how to work out odds, but I think gay adoption is too chancy, and can only very rarely be in the best interests of the child.

Do take the time to read this link.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm

All those who think my posts are repetitive, boring and not worth reading, scroll on at this point because this is anecdotal. My young gay friend (I shall call him Joe, although that is not his name) and I have an excellent relationship. I don’t see much of him now as he has left home, but when he visits he usually contacts me. He and I have had some extremely frank conversations about homosexual practice, and he knows full well that I do not like a lot of the things he gets up to, but he also knows that I care about him. We have a lot of laughs together, and I have threatened to box his ears more than once when he comes out with horror stories. Well, when he was about 15 or 16, he was very badly beaten up. As you can imagine this caused a great deal of outrage, it was really very nasty. It was assumed by everybody that this had been a homophobic attack, and it wasn’t until quite recently that he confessed to me that it was in fact a jealous gay lover who had attacked him. When I tried to give him a wigging for deceiving people like that, he merely grinned and said ‘well, what would you have done?’ Pondering on this later, I had to ask myself if I would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes, and I’m not sure what the answer would be. He hadn’t exactly lied, he had just allowed people to assume. The incident gained him a lot of sympathy, which I think would have not have been so forthcoming if the truth had been known.

As regards other gay friends, well, no, I don’t suppose they do know my views, as I don’t see them as merely people who engage in unsavoury sexual practices. They are whole people. We have other things to talk about. I wouldn’t tell them I didn’t like their drinking habits, or smoking habits, or drug-taking habits, either, (if they had them!) but I might well – on a blog such as this – talk about drinking or smoking or drug-taking, and mention friends who indulged in these habits.

On the topic of ‘back into the closet’, which Christopher has rather artfully interpreted as what I think should happen (which is not what I said at all) is that I think that to some degree people are responsible for their own safety. ‘Victimhood’ is easy to claim, as it lays the blame on somebody else, but it is rather dishonest. I mentioned earlier that I have been a victim of stalkers – now, I come from the generation who were repeatedly told by our mums and grannies that if we go around half-dressed what do we expect? This seems laughable today when girls seem to be only a quarter dressed a lot of the time, but it was the era of the mini-skirt. I suppose it is fair to say that one is far less likely to be stalked if one goes round in a burqa, and in the same way, if gay people clearly identify themselves as gay, then they are putting themselves at risk. Before I get howls of outrage, I am not advocating either dressing in burqas or living in closets, but just that we must take some responsibility for ourselves instead of just blaming others.

J Pearce, your whole position is based upon your belief that our fears are groundless – ‘we’re all DOOMED’ - but you will see from the above link that they are far from groundless. Someone I know said recently that he thought it was perfectly fine for grown men to go around b******** each other until the cows came home, and even b******** the cows too, so long as the cows were okay with it – in other words, each person has to deal with his own conscience. Most of us, I guess, felt like this too on a shallower level, until we found that we will be forced to go against our own consciences in matters such as gay adoption, which will affect everybody, not just people of faith. (I’d better stop here before some clown accuses me of equating homosexuality with bestiality.)

As for the history lesson at the end, this is a huge subject, far too big for this blog. I would just point out that in the US, the Center for Disease Control has estimated 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people aged 15 to 24. In addition there are the major physical and psychological consequences of STDs, which exact a tremendous economic toll estimated at up to $14.1 billion annually. I don’t know what the UK equivalent is, but you have to admit that this sort of money could alleviate a great deal of poverty, if nothing else. So the Christian ideal is not such a bad idea, is it?

[Kate]

J Pearce - Thanks. Suspect your 'detection' is correct - 'play ... off' - no chance.

But JP, "weakness"!! my one (I think) incurable addiction. In that context - do not imagine a 'smiley' will exempt you. Clicking your name with an offer of 'adoption', and compulsory personal 'instruction' on the 'incomparable':
I get a message
"1Trackback pings and Comments must use HTTP POST" appeared.
What does it mean?

Back to topic. To all whom it may concern:
I am NOT an 'expert' in any field - (apart from Bob Dylan!)
I learn more every day. This blog being a case in point.
I AM however, well trained and well read in my subject.
I am NOT a psychiatrist - my discipline is psychology.
I am NOT a 'dry' academic. My priority is teaching.
I impart information, listen, probe and support.
I AM the mother of six sons and three daughters.
Biologically five (including twins - one gay); adopted four.

Earlier on this topic I registered an interest in "(for brevity) gay psychology". I learned, of course, there is no such thing - only human psychology. Homosexual men and women are as diverse in background, social behaviour, intellect, education, mindset, spirituality and emotional stability, as any other grouping.

I did not enter the debate to play 'one-up-manship' but to argue for the civil rights of a minority.

In the process, I am grateful for the (very useful) information gleaned on the mindsets of certain self-proclaimed Christians i.e. a proclivity for transference, absolutism, false-witness, unverifiable anecdote, uninformed 'holy' snobbery, pettiness, evasion, dismissal of the Other, and a total absence of Christ-like humility.

I am supremely grateful to have experienced the ethical wisdom of Christopher, Tim, Frank, alistair, Keith,
JPearce, Ken Keir, Alex Hill, bernard o'reilly, Simon, Craig Nelson, Mike Homfray, Aden Lucas, edpennington,
The Reverend LJ Roberts, and any I may have omitted who are more interested in humanity and justice than in dogma.

[Christopher]

David, Rooker was speaking on behalf of the government, Mackay was not. Mackay's was OPINION, legally qualified may be, Rooker's (aka the government's) statement was a CLARIFICATION and will be cited in any future litigation.

Meanwhile, I look forward to your response to the rest of my last post and to the short questions you have also promised to answer.

[Tim Cooper]

David: Many people describe life-changing experiences; some claim salvation through believing in the existence of gods. And for some this is undoubtedly one way of finding peace. Many Christians, like Kate, demonstrate a liberal tolerance of others and interpret faith in a personal way, which also allows others the same freedom of thought.

What I find unacceptable is the smug rigidity expressed by those who, through religion, seek to interfere in the lives of others, religious or not, homosexual or not and whether they want it or not. Their definition of their god's word overarches the words themselves. Only they have the prescience to foreground salient issues in society, turn them into problematic obsessions and ruthlessly solve them against a backdrop of predicted, dire consequences.

Well I don't buy it David. Missions to conquer the imagined flagging spirits of individuals who do not fit your own reference frame of holiness are an obscenity. The issues you highlight and distort are stolen from the realms of palliative clinical psychology, and not contained in a vortex of guilt and reckoning. Right and wrong are concepts that are not easily defined and it is of course an utter nonsense to believe that you have been chosen to descend to earth to negotiate the 'sins' of others. Your earlier post, in which you imply that you too are unworthy, is a typical specious self-denunciation, designed to dilute an excess of obvious self-importance.

I have worked with many people who have claimed salvation from a life of mental torture. They have found a meaning in everything from studying at a higher level to potentiating abilities in art, business, charity work or any number of subjects. Their main salvation has been to find and maintain a focus and perspective in life; to achieve a meaningful identity; to gain self-worth through it and to contemplate a positive reaction from their contemporaries. These things are life-changing and far removed from marinating in a slough of rhetoric, aimed at the perceived weaknesses of others, but ultimately designed to promote self-interest and maintain the dubious mindset of the preacher.

No-one is telling you that you must promote homosexuality or to think in a particular way. Equally it is highly unlikely that you are being mystically instructed to interfere with the human rights of others, by seeking to control them.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
‘David is wrong in repeating the charge that the SORs will make people who believe like him that "that homosex is wrong" will "be forced to actively promote it". Lord Rooker in the Lords debate specifically denied this point by point. If David expects to be taken seriously in this debate then he should get his facts right.’

What Lord Rooker gave was simply his OPINION on the effect of the SORs as presently worded. The OPINION of Lord Mackay of Clashfern - Lord Chancellor from 1987-97, and therefore, I think it is fair to say, Lord Rooker’s considerable senior in legal circles - repeated in a Daily Telegraph article that he wrote on 9th January, is:
‘I believe… the regulations are intended to make it unlawful to refuse to facilitate homosexual acts.’

It would be good, perhaps, to try to analyse the words of the SORs and their effect in detail on this blog at a later date. But, in the meantime, suffice it to say that to put forward as fact what is only opinion – yours or anyone else’s – is to run the risk that, when you do indeed put forward genuine fact, you will not be believed.

Christopher, in all a lengthy and substantial post, for which thank you… and deserving of a similar response… the rest of which will I fear, where I am concerned, have to wait.

[David Smith]

Kate:
‘To paraphrase Merleau Ponty (1908-1961), language is the 'bridge across the void'. It is language, that is to say, primary expression, and one's perception of it, which enables analysis of action, of intentionality, of the speaker's or writer's own perception.
The essential partiality of one's view of things, and the fact that they are being given only in a certain perspective, and at a certain moment in time, establishes the speaker's reality. In this instance, I would contend that your intention and perception are clearly established by your own hand… '

‘This is.. grounded in a lifetime of study, professional qualifications, research and one-to-one consultation.’

’Debating skill? You don’t have any.’

'..an ample demonstration of a 'straight talker'.. who engages vigorously with.. pseudo psychological claptrap.'

Kate, my translation of your post is: “I am an ‘expert’ – especially in what from others I call ‘pseudo psychological claptrap’ (of which, here is a demonstration), and in personal abuse - except that when I deploy these, they should always be referred to under the generic term: ‘straight talk'. Therefore, don’t dare to argue with me.”

Kate, I expect the ‘expert’ doctor, who at least had the realism and humility to tell me - about my own combined crushing ‘incurable’ depression and breakdown - that I “could be in and out of psychiatrists rooms for the next ten years and see no improvement”, did so on behalf of self- and peer-proclaimed professional 'experts' just like you. But, as you may recall from my personal story, MY God, Jesus, who you so disparage, took days to get the job done… not particularly remarkable when, as I believe, it only took Him days to ‘speak’ our known world into existence.

The likes of Peter O on this blog have stood up as clear testimony to His genuine and effective transforming method and power - where a previous orientation towards homosex was concerned. In the face of this especially, my own view, for what it’s worth, is that you and some others on this blog would do well to humble yourselves and do more listening and less ‘demolition work’.

(Incidentally, I think Jesus Himself conveyed the meaning of your piece of 'claptrap' much more succinctly and clearly when he said: 'Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.')

[J Pearce]

David,

Are you trying to play me and Kate off against each other?! Nice try, but I don't think it'll work. For the record, I admire Kate’s focus and forensic academic detail she brings to the argument – certainly better than anything than I could provide. OK, she may have a weakness for Bob Dylan, but no ones perfect…:-)

"I believe that homosex, in thought and practice, is wrong because it goes against the fundamental way we are designed as human beings..."

"Once homosex is culturally accepted, I believe that the next bastion in God’s order to be attacked and to have its overthrow enshrined and rendered legally sacrosanct and irreversible by law will be our children’s innocence and their right to be nurtured and to develope as God intended."

David, I've never alluded to being a "champion of tolerance", so accusing me of such is a waste of time. I am definitely not tolerant of certain things. One of those things is the wholly spurious religious justification for the repression of homosexuals and the attempts to deny them parity of legal status within our society (parity of human status, in fact). After you’ve had so much fun picking out quotes of mine on this thread, it only seems fair I respond in kind, hence the two excerpts I have reproduced above.

In the first quote, what you seem to be saying, essentially, is that homosexuality is not just an actual moral crime, but a thought crime as well. Errr..hello? Have you not read Orwell? Are you not aware of the ramifications of what you are saying? Are you advocating that our inner thoughts – the most private, sacred of human retreats – are subject to religious policing and censorship?

If so, this is totalitarian religious persecution taken to its zenith. On the basis of the anti-human abhorrence of this belief alone, I refuse to engage with you as an alleged “equal”. What you are advocating by this statement is, as far as I am concerned, anti-life itself. It beggars belief that you could even think it, let alone put it into words. This is Big Brother writ grotesquely large and as such, it needs to be challenged and exposed for the repugnance that it is. Proof, perhaps, that what you really desire for this world is conceptually no different from the Islamic ideologues who would murder our babies for the crime of being “different”.

The second quote I have borrowed from your repertoire is a classic that Jill would be proud of. The tired, hackneyed, trite religious fear-peddling that “homosexuality = paedophilia”. I find this quote far more comforting than the first, on the basis that is such an intellectually vacuous perspective, one is left with little choice but to laugh at it!

Overall, I am beginning to wonder David, that when one undergoes a “religious conversion” so profoundly retrograde to the intellect as you seem to have experienced, that some form of hallucinatory drugs must have been involved at some stage? Because that seems the only explanation for the “Plan 9 from Outer Space” arguments you seem to be putting forward!

[Kate]

D. Smith - do get a grip: how moronic, infantile and utterly self-referential do you wish to appear.

"Kate to David Smith:
'You are, in the words of the clear-sighted J Pearce, a purveyor of excrement.'

Kate, isn't it just that sort of attitude in people to 'difference' in others that brought about the holocaust you accredit people like me with?

(Incidentally, I think you do J Pearce a great disservice. I don't think he said that at all.)"

NO he said CRAP. HE is not a Mr Pecksniff*. Thanks be to God. * In 'Martin Chuzzlewit' - Charles Dickens.