SORs back in the news

As we report , the Sexual Orientation Regulations are in the news again. (Update: in Wednesday's paper we again preview the debate.) As those few MPs who were still around learned late on Friday night, they are being voted on by the Commons tonight. They will then go to the House of Lords on Wednesday. More than 40 lay members of the General Synod signed an open letter sent yesterday, Sunday, to the Church of England's bishops. They are angry about what they regard as an abuse of Parliamentary process as well as substance. The passions aroused by this debate do not diminish. A alternative view of what is going on comes from one of the leading campaigners supporting the regulations, Ben Summerskill of Stonewall. (Update: the Government won the Lords debate, see reports and links at Thinking Anglicans.)

on Ben, pictured here, says, 'Once again we’re seeing regrettably inflammatory and inaccurate claims being made in the defence of age-old prejudices. These campaigners wish to put a coach and horses through the settled principle of adoption, that it should be based on the best interests of a child, not the prejudices of those involved in the adoption process. It is regrettable that bishops have threatened, completely unnecessarily, to close adoption agencies and understandable that some parliamentarians have regarded this position as bullying. Many lesbian and gay couples already adopt. Often they are looking after some of the most disabled children. Those loving adoptive parents should be being lionized by people claiming to be Christian, not demonised in this way. It is untrue that there was not enough room for members to attend the Committee hearing into these regulations last week. The only reason for confusion during the debate was the near-constant barracking and shouting in which some MPs were engaged. It was one of the most disturbing sights I’ve witnessed in some years.’

Update: an alternative view.

A contact tipped me off that General Synod member Glynn Harrison, a Consultant Psychiatrist, and Norah Cooke Hurle Professor of Mental Health at Bristol University, tried to make a speech on this issue at the recent Synod meeting. For some reason he wasn't called. Having witnessed the 'interesting' standard of chairmanship at the relevant debate, I was able to reassure my contact that this would most definitely have been 'c*** *p' not conspiracy. Nevertheless, Glynn has kindly agreed to let me post his undelivered contribution here:

'Archbishop Rowan Williams has called for the Church to undertake further theological work on issues of human sexuality. But as the quality of debate in the General Synod has illustrated only too well, there is an urgent need for further study of the medical and scientific developments in this field as well.

'Over the past 30 years the view has become widely held that sexual orientation is a fixed and enduring category of human experience. This is usually linked with a strong presumption of biological causation. We have heard reports of a ‘gay gene’ found on the q28 region of the X chromosome and been shown evidence of apparent differences in the hypothalamic region of the brains of gay men.

'Taken together, these data have seemed to point to a general and plausible biological story. We have come to believe that if we categorise people on the basis of the gender of those to whom they are attracted to (making them hetero- or homosexuals etc), we are saying something deep and important about them. We believe we are ‘carving nature at the joints’ or recognising different human ‘kinds’.

'The reliability of the evidence supporting this view is particularly important because it is used as a powerful argument in the current debate. Those holding a traditional biblical view of human sexuality may be portrayed as scientific illiterates or bigots bent on denying the very essence of another person’s humanity. It is the ‘so you are denying who I am’ argument. This is a serious allegation so we need to take a careful look at the evidence that supports it.

'More recent brain imaging studies indeed confirm that certain behaviours show up in the size and functionality of different areas in the brain: that is not in contention. We can see differences in the brains of people who lie a great deal, or who are good at juggling, even in the brains of London taxi drivers.

'But these studies have also shown that our behaviour shapes our brain as well as our brain shaping our behaviour. And in the wake of the human genome project we now have a much better understanding of the way genes can be switched on and off by our environment and the way we respond to it. When it comes to understanding complex human behaviours the roles of environment, experience and human choice, as well as biological susceptibility, are back in the reckoning.

'So we should not be surprised that those early findings of a ‘gay gene’ and ‘gay brains’ have not been replicated. Indeed, in recent studies the evidence for a significant genetic contribution to what we call sexual ‘orientation’ has weakened rather than strengthened.

'The notion that there are enduring and discrete categories of sexual ‘orientation’ is also problematic. Among recent critiques of the existing data, none is more compelling or comprehensive than that of the leading gay philosopher and legal theorist, Edward Stein. In nature, and especially in the sphere of complex human behaviours, few things fall into neat boxes. We have much more to learn about the different dimensions of our sexual desires, and how durable they really are. And there is preliminary evidence that some people (by no means all) report changes in their predominant pattern of sexual preference as a result of reorientation therapies. These are tentative data of variable quality but they are sufficiently plausible to merit further examination.

'None of this of course invalidates the experience (and felt pain) of people who experience strong same-sex desire. Neither am I arguing that biological susceptibilities do not play some role in the genesis of those experiences (or indeed in other sexual preferences to do with the ethnicity or age of the kind of people one is attracted to or different behaviours or objects that arouse our sexual desires).  All complex human behaviours are underpinned biologically at some level. The point is that sexual experiences and preferences are just as capable of being contained within an ethical framework as are other human desires.

'So there is nothing in the medical or scientific evidence at the moment that need cause us to abandon the teaching of scripture on the rightful place of sexual activity within the marriage covenant or to question the traditional wisdom of the Church on this matter. Indeed, we need to regain our confidence in the Gospel - the teaching of scripture in relation to sexuality is good news for our society.

'Calls for a Church ‘listening process’ now provide us with an opportunity to pay much closer attention to the scientific and theological evidence than hitherto. And when we listen to personal narratives of pain and distress, as we must, let us make sure we include those people with stories of personal change or positive experiences of celibacy – their voices need to be heard too.'

The whole debate has been picked up by Thinking Anglicans and others.

Glynn is one of the signatories to the letter mentioned at the top of this post. I am reproducing it in full here. The 42 lay Synod members say: 'As we observe the process in Government and Parliament leading up to the debate on Sexual Orientation Regulations in the House of Lords on Wednesday, the fears expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in your pages on October 26 following his visit to China look perilously close to becoming a reality.

'He wrote: "We in the UK do not have anything like this history of top-down rule by regulation.  We have in practice taken for granted that the State is not the source of morality and legitimacy but a system that brokers, mediates and attempts to co-ordinate the moral resources of those specific communities, the merely local and the credal or issue-focused, which actually make up the national unit. This is a “secular” system in the sense that it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body; but it is not secular in the sense of giving some kind of privilege to a non-religious or anti-religious set of commitments or policies. Moving towards the latter would change our political culture more radically than we imagine. " 

'Given the great significance of this vote, many people would understand that the responsibility that Bishops undertake as members of the House of Lords requires them on such occasions to vary their  crowded timetable in order to attend the debate. Many Christians will be praying outside Parliament at the same time, giving up other activities that could rightly claim their attention.

'We also note the spirited defence made last week of the role of the Bishops in the House of Lords by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Chelmsford.  Important substance would be given to their words if all the Bishops in the Lords were to attend to vote.

'May we respectfully suggest that all Bishops should regard it a duty to attend and vote in this important debate.'

The signatories, representing more than one fifth of the General Synod's House of Laity, included Anthony Archer (St Albans), Lorna Ashworth (Chichester), Colonel Edward Armitstead (Bath and Wells), Barry Barnes (Southwark), Analiese Barrell (Exeter), Tom Benyon (Oxford), David Blackmore (Chester), Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury), Peter Bruinvels (Guildford), Michael Burbeck (Salisbury), Gerald Burrows (Blackburn), Dr Graham Campbell (Chester), Jim Cheeseman (Rochester), Nigel Chetwood (Gloucester), Prudence Dailey (Oxford), Brigadier Ian Dobbie (Rochester), Paul Eddy (Winchester), Sarah Finch (London), Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford), John Hanks (Oxford), Professor Glynn Harrison (Bristol), Mary Judkins (Wakefield), Frank Knaggs (Newcastle), Philip Lovegrove (St Albans), Keith Malcouronne (Guildford), Dr Peter May (Winchester), David Mills (Carlisle), Steve Mitchell (Derby), Joanna Monckton (Lichfield), Gill Morrison (Peterborough), Terry Musson (Truro), Mary Nagel (Chichester), Gerry O'Brien (Rochester), Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield), Alison Ruoff (London), Clive Scowen (London), Ian Smith (York), Penny Stranack (Truro), Michael Streeter (Chichester), Carol Ticehurst (Lincoln), Sister Anne Williams (Durham) and Alison Wynne (Blackburn).

Comments

[Martin]

"How is Christianity expected to progress"

I find the assumption that it needs to or is expected to "progress" very telling.

It is a touchstone word of liberals who just want to do away with some piece of heritage which they consider outmoded.

[David Smith]

Christopher, responding to David Smith:
' ..god you persuade yourself has singled you out from the common herd for a personal visitation.'

David Smith's post in question:
' ..as does the personal experience of MANY THOUSANDS throughout history.'

Please, Christopher, in your on-going ire with me and desire to look for evidence on which to base personal swipes, try to take account of what I actually write.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'I have NEVER said that I do not believe in God. I am an agnostic. If you don’t understand what that means, look it up.'

Concise Oxford Dictionary:
agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known,of the existence or nature of God.

The Bible on 'believing in God':
The Greek word used in the Bible for 'believe' is pisteuo. This means 'to adhere to, cleave to, to trust, to have faith in, to rely on, to depend on'.

By Jesus definition, therefore, someone who believes in God is someone for whom He is real and is the rock on whom they depend, and around whom their life revolves.

If you are an agnostic, you cannot therefore be a believer. You can't make someone you don't know or even think you can know, the person you depend on.

[J Pearce]

”Apparently J Pierce, though he neither knows or believes in God, does know just what He thinks.”

Dave:

a) I have NEVER said that I do not believe in God. I am an agnostic. If you don’t understand what that means, look it up. Please carry on slagging me as much as you like, it is uniquely hilarious, but at least get your facts right about me. OK?

b) Pray tell me, oh magnifique born again one, what is it in your experience that invalidates anything that I might claim about “knowing God”?

Honestly Dave, what is it about YOU that makes you so special, that you can claim to know God – and reject anyone else who happens to claim the same? Where’s the proof? What does it essentially boil down to, eh? Something along the lines of “I’m right because I believe I am right”, yes?

Given the nature of the religious belief system you have signed up to, it is incredulous that you criticize another who might proffer to have encountered a similar experience to you. Yet here you are, seeking to undermine and vilify me!

Ah, but there’s the rub, eh? Just because MY personal experience of God happens to radically differ from yours, I MUST be wrong, yes? What was that I was saying about maniacal dictators from the not-too-distant-past? Did they not believe in God too? Did they not believe that they had a divine right to carry out His Mission?

Pffft! I’m sticking with God, mate. The REAL one. That’ll be the God who is pretty miffed at having his name used to justify inhumane persecution and injustice. The God who looks at the multifarious religions who claim to be His true representative, sighs, and goes “Have these bozo’s learned NOTHING?”. The God who looks at bloggers who deliberately and continually misspell a persons name just to spite them, and goes “that just pathetically sad and childish, really”.

Christopher – from what I’ve read of Hitchens, he seems to have a pretty good insight into hubris. Falwell was a Yankee ass - the classic manipulator. A man who knew how to bully people into submission (where have wee seen that before, I wonder…?) – and so much the better if you can invoke God. As far as I am concerned, I can discern no difference between him and Bin Laden – both have manipulated religious belief to further their own petty egotistical concerns. Have you noticed how much certain Christian believers have in common with militant Islamists? It’s no coincidence, as I am sure you are aware.

Ps – SOR’s rule! (just thought I’d get it back on track…).

[Christopher]

"This experience is just one of several major reasons why I believe in Him and chose Him as my God - rather than, for example, Shiva or Vishnu."

Yes, and also with respect David, all of this tells us more about you than it does about any god you persuade yourself has singled you out from the common herd for a personal visitation.

I contend that you are still stretching the meaning of 'to know' beyond the reasonable use of language. It is just another example of inexact and obfusticating religious 'speak'. Hitchens thinks that 'people of faith' have no automatic right for their 'faith' to be respected and I agree with him that I would prefer to respect people for their actions and attitudes rather than their beliefs.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
' ..you do not, indeed cannot 'know' god.. '

With respect, Christopher, you say that because you have not personally encountered Him. But this does not mean that no one else has or can.

The Bible says otherwise in many places, as, for example, in the verses I quoted in my last post, as does the personal experience of many thousands throughout history.
(This is not the same as saying that we can instantly understand everything about Him, and always know exactly what He is thinking or what His perspective on a given situation or issue is. It is as with any relationship, the longer we know a person, and the more time we spend with them, the better we get to know them.)

I do not believe in God because I 'chose to believe' in Him. As St Paul, whose active relationship with God like mine started with a dramatic intervention from Him, puts it, God 'laid hold of' me, rather than the other way round. What I did do was to sincerely give Him a chance to show Himself to me as real. His response was to permanently turn my 'incurable' inner life around.

You may remember that I have already been questionned about this, and have said that I have not had the shadow of a doubt in 30 years that this was not the result of something self-created or imagined.

This experience is just one of several major reasons why I believe in Him and chose Him as my God - rather than, for example, Shiva or Vishnu.

[Christopher]

"But I think I'll stick with God for now." Or rather, David, what you have chosen to believe in, since you do not, indeed cannot 'know' god in any greater or different sense than Dawkins can 'know' the Flying Spaghetti Monster; both are human constructs, both making claims on your credulity. Perhaps the FSM seems more incredible - but only because it is pointedly ridiculous and obviously made up to illustrate the point that the human mind is incredibly imaginative when it comes to gods. But if you take a more serious example, why don't you believe in Shiva or Vishnu? Millions do and they have an even more ancient heritage than the god you say you believe in.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..do you really believe that any "God" would touch the Bible with a barge pole?! Do you honestly think that an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the The Universe is going to want.. '

Christopher:
' ..as if he or they know or could possibly know what god 'thinks', 'wants', 'plans for mankind' or has a view on.'

Apparently J Pierce, though he neither knows or believes in God, does know just what He thinks.

My Bible says to me, as a born-again Christian:
"For who has known or understood the mind (the counsels and purposes) of the Lord.. ..we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts (feelings and purposes) of His heart."

I know that J Pierce is bidding to replace God as the arbiter of all things, including what is right and wrong in this 'modern' age. But I think I'll stick with God for now.

[Christopher]

JPearce

Christopher Hitchens is a good antidote to the 'Chaucerian frauds', as he calls them, who prey on the gullible, the 'hucksters, charletans and bullies, many who call themselves reverend' who purvey the kind of nonsense posted by David Smith about god's 'thinking' - as if he or they know or could possibly know what god 'thinks', 'wants', 'plans for mankind' or has a view on.

See what Hutchens says about such people on Youtube where he is commenting on the death of Jerry Falwell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKU

He also talks about his new book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything on

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=85999

[J Pearce]

"His thinking...."

Honestly Dave, do you really believe that any "God" would touch the Bible with a barge pole?! Do you honestly think that an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the The Universe is going to want to be associated with an iron age social manifesto, produced by barely evolved simians, clinging onto a ball of rock and gas in quiet backwater of a particularly unremarkable galaxy?!

Do me a favour! This really is the kind of Teletubbie level of intellect that puts the cause of religion back into the Dark Ages!
How is Christianity expected to progress, if it doesn't come to grips with some pretty damn obvious facts about the political, sociological and religious motivations behind the creation of the Bible?

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'I would also uphold the opinion that the Bible "needs updating".'

So, God needs to amend and 'modernise' His thinking to line up with yours, does He, J Pierce? I think not.

[J Pearce]

"You answer your own question."

Dave,

You'd better re-read the posts. Again, you come to a wilfully perverse conclusion, which is utterly at odds with the true meaning of the words I put down. When I said that "I couldn't be arsed", it was a sarcastic response to Jill's previous accusation that I hadn't done my "usual character assassination" - and NOT an indication that I hadn't read the referenced post. Given Jill's constant attempts to portray my arguments as personalised attacks, I think sarcasm is the only reasonable response to someone who refuses to open their mind and is more interested in denigrating the opposition.

Perhaps you'd also like to note that Jill failed utterly to answer any of the questions I put to her re: SOR's and - especially - CP's. Instead, she posted yet another tangential fact sheet about American legal issues, in order to present yet another fatuous and unverifiable link between the SOR's and the reduction of rights (and by rights, what Jill actually means is her self-anointed Christian right to pursue a prejudicial agenda against whoever she happens to have a Biblical crusade against this week).

For the record - in regards to the American legal issues Jill reported - I would oppose the proposition that "marriage, family values and natural family" are offensive. That’s just plain barmy. However, I would also uphold the opinion theat the Bible "needs updating". Any one with half a brain could work that one out straight away.

[Jill]

On the offchance that anyone is still reading this thread, here is an indication of where the SORs are taking us.

US Court Rules it’s OK to Censor the Terms ‘Natural Family,’ ‘Marriage’ and ‘Family Values’

Attorney representing harassed Christian employees warns, “If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be”

TEMECULA, California, March 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Earlier this week, San Francisco’s United States notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the matter of Good News Employees Association v. Hicks that municipal employers can completely censor the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” as hate speech.

The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee’s speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. Shockingly, the court concluded that the interest of Christian employees in speaking out on the issue of marriage is “vanishingly small” and that the “administrative” interests of a city are more important than speech rights.

The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland’s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech.

The Pro-Family Law Center has vowed to immediately take this ruling up to the United States Supreme Court on a petition for review.

Last month, attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman argued the case on behalf of an African-American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claimed that references to the “natural family, marriage and family values” constituted hate speech which is scary to city workers. Mr. Lively argued that the terms “marriage,” “family values” and “natural family” could just have easily been used by gay activists in expressing their opinions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mr. Ackerman argued that the Pro-Family Law Center’s clients were entitled to the exact same free speech rights as those who had openly attacked the Bible through the city’s lines of communication with full approval of high ranking officials.

The Ninth Circuit panel of judges included Judges Fletcher, Clifton, and Ikuta. Without citing a specific author for the memorandum of decision, the Court wrote, “the district court correctly held that [the City of Oakland] had a more substantial interest in maintaining the efficient operation of their office than appellants had in their speech, appellants cannot establish a viable free speech claim.”

Back in February of 2005, United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board. According to the lawsuit, gay and lesbian city workers had already been using the city’s e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views to other workers, including the plaintiffs.

In fact, the e-mail system was even used by a high-ranking official of the City of Oakland to declare that the Bible “needs updating” and other insulting comments were lobbed at the plaintiffs by city employees and officials. No action was taken against those responsible for the public attack on the Bible and Christians working for the city.

Plaintiffs, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association and other communications. The two Christians responded with a promotion of their own — the start of an informal group that respects “the natural family, marriage and family values.”

But supervisors Robert Bobb (now in charge of the Washington DC school district) and Joyce Hicks, (deputy director of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency) ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained “statements of a homophobic nature” and promoted “sexual-orientation-based harassment,” even though the flyer made absolutely no mention of homosexuality.

The July 2003 lawsuit by Rederford and Christy claimed the city’s anti-discrimination policy “promotes homosexuality” and “openly denounces Christian values.”

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed the case in February 2005, ruling the two women did not have their First Amendment rights violated and that federal anti-discrimination protections afforded to gender, race, and religion did not apply to the women plaintiffs.

In a memo announcing a newly revised workplace anti-discrimination policy, Hicks noted recent incidents of employees “inappropriately posting materials” in violation of that policy. At the time she noted, “Specifically, flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation-based harassment.”

Attorney Richard Ackerman says, “We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court. We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day — especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights. If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be.”

The unpublished “memorandum” by the Court can be found at http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/35.pdf

[David Smith]

J Pearce
'Now, what were those accusations ranged against me about "abuse"…?! '

J Pearce, you have spent a considerable amount of time personally abusing those who disagree with you about homosex and the SORS as originally worded, whilst at the same time calling on them to engage in proper argument.

Yet, when Jill produces a slice of argument (without a word of personal abuse) against homosex being accepted as a God-given alternative to heterosex so meaty and long that she has to post it in two sections, your reply to the bulk of this argument, and by association to her, is:

'I couldn't be a***d, it was so long, boring and self-indulgent...'

You answer your own question.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'Do homosexuals have a right to believe that they too can resort to the protection of the law, should they encounter actual discrimination against them, based on their sexual orientation? Is it acceptable, that when they believe this, homosexuals are subjected to "hate"... from yourself, who has been on record as stating that homosexuality is "disordered"?'

J Pearce, I am afraid that you are just re-circulating old 'straw men'. I have already replied to the allegation that I hate those who practise homosex more than once, as well as clearly expressing my views on discrimination against them.

As for the allegation that I have described such people as "objectively disordered" (to use your original words), you keep saying that I am on record as having said this, or words to the effect of 'I know that you said this somewhere', but you have yet to tell me when and on which thread. Probably because these are not my words, and therefore yet another 'straw man'.

[J Pearce]

"You have been answered over and over again, but you keep on asking the same questions in that aggressive and insulting manner that you have."

Et tu, Jill, et tu.

"Prior to that, we were all either men or women, and as such enjoyed the same rights."

Ah, the airbrushed idyll of the Christian history lesson. Who was that Emily Pankhurst anyway? Stroppy old mare. And what was "slavery" again…?

"Please NAME some 'discrimination' that you perceive against homosexuals."

Please NAME some 'discrimination' that you perceive against Christians.

"I daresay you are frustrated because you cannot do your usual character assassinations on the guy who wrote the article I posted, and whose view tallies with mine on every single point, because he is gay, and non-religious."

I couldn't be arsed, it was so long, boring and self-indulgent. I would like to point out - again - the issue I raised about the article before (which you chose to essentially ignore), which was that the article was primarily dedicated to attacking "gay marriage", and not about parity of legal rights - which is the essential difference between CP's and the SOR's.

You ignored the fact that I conceded that CP's may be unfair and need legal amendment. You also ignored the point I made, which was that the writer of the article did not once indicate that he would like to see gays disenfranchised in regards to legal protections in certain scenarios.

Instead, you continued to conflate the two issues (CP's and SOR's) as if they were inextricably inter-related - which is incorrect. You do this because it makes it easier to make sweeping accusations, rather than focus on the essential details the seperate issues present.

For example, you claim earlier in the thread that CP's "contribute to a number of societal ills". If, Jill, you can provide verifiable evidence that there is a correlation between CP's and anti-social or sociopathic behaviour, I will consider conceding your claim.

"Get over it, J Pearce"

Now, what were those accusation ranged against me about "abuse"…?!

[Jill]

J Pearce, this is all too boring. Why do you keep on dredging up all this stuff? You have been answered over and over again, but you keep on asking the same questions in that aggressive and insulting manner that you have. All this huffing and puffing is based on the single concept of 'sexual orientation' which is a relatively new concept. Prior to that, we were all either men or women, and as such enjoyed the same rights.

Please NAME some 'discrimination' that you perceive against homosexuals. Could it be similar to the discrimination suffered by house-sharers who are not entitled to form Civil Partnerships with its attendant benefits because they are NOT engaging in high-risk sexual practices?

I daresay you are frustrated because you cannot do your usual character assassinations on the guy who wrote the article I posted, and whose view tallies with mine on every single point, because he is gay, and non-religious. Get over it, J Pearce.

[J Pearce]

"However, I believe you have a perfect right to believe what you do without being hated and subjected to the personal mockery and abuse to which you subject others who disagree with you on certain issues."

Interesting how you apply that to me, Dave. Lets apply those sentiments to homosexuals.

Do homosexuals have a right to believe that they are entitled to the same legal protections assured to the majority of the population? Do homosexuals have a right to believe that they too can resort to the protection of the law, should they encounter actual discrimination against them, based on their sexual orientation?

Is it acceptable, that when they believe this, homosexuals are subjected to "hate" - scapegoating for societal ills, as Jill has done, by vilifying CP's and using various statistical reports to label homosexuals as "disease carriers" - and from yourself, who has been on record as stating that homosexuality is "disordered"?

Is it acceptable, Dave, that homosexuals remain disenfranchised in certain legal respects, compared to the majority of the population, merely because people such as you "disagree on certain issues"?

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'Dave, Christianity is a belief system. I barely put up with it because I believe it is false and does not save people or bring them the full life that can be enjoyed without deference to an unproven confidence trickster who appeared circa 1AD. Instead it rules them through fear, and denies them any assurance of salvation in this life.'

I think that you are wrong, J Pierce.

At the heart of true Christianity is a perfect love that 'casts out all fear'. That has been my personal experience of knowing Jesus, who has more than proven Himself to me and to countless others to be both real and fathful.

However, I believe you have a perfect right to believe what you do without being hated and subjected to the personal mockery and abuse to which you subject others who disagree with you on certain issues.

[J Pearce]

"The ‘discrimination’ argument is also a non-argument. There is no unfair discrimination towards gays…"

Errr….not being gay yourself, Jill - how can you say this? What evidence do you have? What experience of being gay do you have?

"CPs are not actually wanted by many, yet they contribute to a number of societal ills."

Again, how can you say they are "not wanted" by many? Work for Populus, do you? Got a part time job in the NSO? What facts do you have to back up these sentiments?

"Yet they contribute to a number of societal ills".

Such as? As someone noted on another thread, are you going to blame global warming on CP's now? What specifc evidence do you have definitively linking sociopathic behaviour to CP's? How has the quality of life in this country been reduced as a result of CP's?

"Debauched and depraved society"?

Take a look out of the window, Jill - the world has not quite yet become the Pleasuredome of fable. Fleshpots and dens of vice do not surround us on every street corner - unless, of course, you count the Church, where unnatural and unGodly acts can apparently be found on a regular basis, eh?

"The Christian viewpoint, as has already been pointed out numerous times, is that ALL people are made in the image of God and loved by God."

Then ALL should be treated as equal to everyone else, because according to this logic, in God's eyes, they are equal. Any attempt to denigrate them on the basis of their sexuality is in itself, sinful, as you casting aspersions in God's name. Which is the ultimate act of hubris, right?

"We do not condemn or judge if they do not, but we will not allow activists to change Christian teaching simply because SOME want to have their cake and eat it too. I have said all this countless times, but you don't seem to want to hear it."

You do condemn, you have judged and you have been told that the SOR's do not change Christian teaching. Its all been said countless times, but you don't want to hear it.

"SSA people are vulnerable."

Again - where is your evidence for this sweeping and judgemental statement?

"They are vulnerable to harm from their own behaviour if they do not follow the Christian code on sexual behaviour."

Innocent children have been shown to be vulnerable to harm from Christian behaviour, where they have been subjected to molestations in Church. Not much "following the Christian code on sexual behaviour" going on in the vestry these days, apparently. It would be prudent for the religious to get their own house in order, before making judgements about the behaviour of others.

"They are vulnerable to physical and verbal abuse from some elements in our society. "

Such as you Jill, who has taken every opportunity and numerous statistical references to portray all homosexuals as actual or potential disease carriers.

"We are all less free than we were because of this wretched legislation."

We are all less free if we allow crackpot religious freaks to bully and blackmail the democratically elected government of the day, into backing out of legislation designed - with the best intentions - to ensure parity of legal recourse for all law abiding citizens of this country.

[J Pearce]

Frank,

Thanks for pointing out the psychology behind "hate the sin, not the sinner". I readily acknowledge the implicit power relationship behind its deployment, howver, I was really approaching it from a simple lexical and logical analysis to highlight the inherent absurdity of those people who preach it, but don't actually follow it.

Interesting that I should get pilloried for a "convoluted exegesis", though. Would someone care to remind me how long the exegesis of the Bible has been going on? Still? And how "the greatest Biblical scholars" arrived at the opinion, initially, that the earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe? It seems that one mans learned exegesis of the Bible is another mans pile of utter sh*te. Yet this is promoted as the immutable core of the Christian belief system!
II think I'll stick with my humble analogies.

Jill - the SOR's have nothing to do with CP's. A small fact for you. And for crying out loud, cheer up. You desperately need a little more gayness in your life...

[J Pearce]

"I would not refuse a homosexual couple a room if I were a B&B owner.
So, J Pierce, another abusive, judgmental, generalising, prejudiced, 'straw man' post falls rather flat, doesn't it?"

Err...I don't recall saying you would, Dave. I was referring to the lookey-likey Dave (who is to be distinguished from banged-up Dave - I mean, how many Dave Smiths are there?!). Even then, only tenuously referring to him. Either you have a severe case megalomania, or paranoia, Dave, if you think every post is about you personally!

"No, Kate, it is not a fact [that I am homosexual]. I am not, nor are others I know who do this."

So - what gives you the right to try and impress upon innocent people that homosexuality is wrong, when you have no personal empathy with being a homosexual at all? I would aver that you have no personal understanding of the concept of being homosexual, Dave - yet you still feel justified in preaching that its wrong. Which leads me onto my next point…

"We simply reserve the right to say that we do not think that homosex is right in God's eyes."

How do you know what God thinks, Dave? Has he spoken to you? Has he written "Gay = Bad" on a post-it note for you? When I last spoke to God, he said being gay was perfectly fine. I really think you are confusing the messenger with the message, Dave.

"Christopher, Roman Catholicism is a belief system. I hate it because I believe it is false and does not save people or bring them the full life that Jesus promises. Instead it rules them through fear, and denies them any assurance of salvation in this life."

Dave, Christianity is a belief system. I barely put up with it because I believe it is false and does not save people or bring them the full life that can be enjoyed without deference to an unproven confidence trickster who appeared circa 1AD. Instead it rules them through fear, and denies them any assurance of salvation in this life.

Et voila!

[Christopher]

"I think you are stretching credibility (to put it mildly) to expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence."

Why not? What about the Rev David Smith who has just been jailed for molesting boys (see Ruth's post "Child abuse: CofE and RC churches in dock again").

Surely you WOULD "expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence", wouldn't you Dave?

[David Smith]

Christopher:
' "'Dear Disengenuous Dave,... etc. etc. etc.... 'J Pearce, you now even start your posts by addressing me as a liar."

"On the lookey likey David Smith issue, I think you are stretching credibility (to put it mildly) to expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence.
Posted by: David Smith | 2 May 2007 10:33:54"

And with what weasel words you have managed to label me a liar without actually writing the words "You are a liar". You have rightly earned JPearce's soubriquet 'Disingenuous Dave'. '

A question for you, Christopher.

Is it pure coincidence that my name and that of the character who owns The Bigot's View Guesthouse in your next novel are exactly the same? Just a simple yes or no, please.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'Of course Jill supports and quotes the full speech by McKellar. He's saying exactly what she wants to hear.. '

She quotes this, inter alia, because he is a homosexual who agrees with her on many points, and who, because he is, cannot be said to hate homosexuals, which, according to you applies to everyone who says anything less than that homosex is right and God-given.

Have you so run out of substantial points that you now even scoff at Jill for producing independent evidence for her own point of view, something everyone engaged in debate does.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
' ..your even more hateful and barmy views about catholicism.'

Christopher, Roman Catholicism is a belief system. I hate it because I believe it is false and does not save people or bring them the full life that Jesus promises. Instead it rules them through fear, and denies them any assurance of salvation in this life.

I do not see it as hateful to anyone to say this. I was not immediately grateful to the man who told me at 25 that I was not a Christian and saved just because I was an average Englishman and had been 'christened' in the C of E as a baby. In retrospect, I am eternally grateful that he did, because it gave me the chance to find out what a real Chritian is and to act on what I discovered to my own eternal benefit.

Is there, in your view, anything that we can name as wrong or misguided, or must it always be wrong to do so on the grounds that to do so is to hate anyone who happens to do or think such things?

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'When Jill and David Smith claim that it is their religious right to attack, insult and besmirch gay people they are on an offensive.'

Jill and I have done no such thing. We simply reserve the right to say that we do not think that homosex is right in God's eyes.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'Is it or is it not a fact that those who organise, run and participate in 'ex-gay' groups are ALL themselves 'recovering' homosexuals?'

No, Kate, it is not a fact. I am not, nor are others I know who do this.

PS - Enjoy the champagne!

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'Our pious and straight edge guest house owner (our lookey likey Davey Smith, perhaps?) leaps to the inevitable conclusion that "These people are obviously gay". So he refuses them the room, on the basis of his "conscience".. '

I would not refuse a homosexual couple a room if I were a B&B owner.

So, J Pierce, another abusive, judgmental, generalising, prejudiced, 'straw man' post falls rather flat, doesn't it?

[J Pearce]

Dave,

This is just for you:

Disingenuous

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

(ref: www.thefreedictionary.com)

I don't see the word 'liar' in there, do you?

[Christopher]

When Jill and David Smith claim that it is their religious right to attack, insult and besmirch gay people they are on an offensive. Their remarks ARE frequently offensive and they are unashamedly on the attack. They spuriously claim that in giving gay people their due human rights that somehow diminishes THEIR rights. A case of pulling the drawer bridge up.

When Kate, JPearce, Frank, Ciaran, Mac and I defend gay people against those remarks we are speaking defensively, not offensively. But those who think they have a licence to speak their minds in and out of season (mostly out of it) are challenged, even robustly, they claim that we are being 'personally abusive', whilst they are not. May they be granted the humility to see themselves as others see them. But they don't. Like all bullies, they run cry-baby to teacher and whine that their victims have given them a biff on the nose. This is what you are up to. You are a bully and you are trying to intimidate by claiming some kind of moral ground for your continued religious hectoring, painting yourself the victim who is nothing but kind in the things you say. We have seen through all that, Dave, so get used to it. I am no longer interested in your absurd prevarications over the unanswered questions. In fact I no longer give a damn - neither about your views on homosexuality nor your even more hateful and barmy views about catholicism.

[Jill]

J Pearce! That you have to resort to such a convoluted exegesis of the b & b argument! How pathetic. We all know that it is the open promotion of homosexual conduct (and let’s not forget this includes other sexual misconduct) that is objectionable, not what two consenting adults get up to in private! This argument died a death ages ago. Have you turned on David now that you have found that MY views coincide with a large group of gay peoples’? And countless millions of others? Let’s face it, your own arguments only stand up if you can vilify and denigrate any opposition.

You can indeed separate the sinful act from its perpetrator. Many people do immoral or even wicked things; but if we believe there is no hope for redemption and forgiveness for them we might as well be dead. Behaviour can change. Christians know that through Jesus countless lives have been transformed. Denying that is pointless; there are too many witnesses to this truth. Would you refuse people the opportunity to change their lives if they sought it? Some people have been scathing about ex-gay ministries, but if you read some of the testimonies you would see why so many ex-gays run these organisations – their lives have been transformed, and they want to help others. Not for everyone, I grant that, but to close them down would be doing a grave disservice to a lot of people who do seek help.

The ‘discrimination’ argument is also a non-argument. There is no unfair discrimination towards gays – not that can be put right by legislation, anyhow. They are men and women, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles – just like the rest of us. We have been over all this countless times, but you keep on trotting out this tired old mantra. I have yet to see an example of what this so-called ‘discrimination’ actually is.

You are right that I am opposed to CPs and the SORs. We have been over all this. CPs are not actually wanted by many, yet they contribute to a number of societal ills. The SORs just build on this non-foundation.

You say that I don’t care. Well, you are totally wrong. It is because I DO care – do you think I would still be here, to be insulted and abused, if I didn’t? I care a great deal, and since I have become a grandmother the future for our society has been brought into sharp focus, because I don’t want my grandchildren to grow up in a debauched and depraved society because it doesn’t bring happiness or stability. We are well down that road already, and we should now be turning back before this becomes impossible.

The Christian viewpoint, as has already been pointed out numerous times, is that ALL people are made in the image of God and loved by God. Gay people are part of this wonderful mixed bag and should be treasured for what they ARE, not for what some people try to make them. You cannot squash people into boxes that make YOU feel more comfortable. Christian teaching is for chastity or marriage, and this must be retained for the sake of mankind. Whether people want to obey it or not (easier for some than others) is up to them. If they seek help we must give it to them. We do not condemn or judge if they do not, but we will not allow activists to change Christian teaching simply because SOME want to have their cake and eat it too. I have said all this countless times, but you don't seem to want to hear it.

SSA people are vulnerable. This has always been the case. They are vulnerable to harm from their own behaviour if they do not follow the Christian code on sexual behaviour. The more 'affirming' society around them is, the more vulnerable they become to this behaviour and its attendant destructive outcome. They are vulnerable to physical and verbal abuse from some elements in our society. This is to be deplored, but there are already methods of dealing with this, just as there are with other forms of violence. The SORs will not improve matters, of that I am certain. When parents start finding books like ‘Daddy’s Roommate’ in their 5-year-olds’ bookbags there will be a backlash. The Islam threat I have already talked about, but that is very real, and lives could be endangered thanks to CPs. I am opposed to CPs and SORs, which I think are unjustifiable, for these reasons – not bigotry and spite, as you like to make out, (after all, it’s no skin off my nose, is it?) but because I care. I don’t want people to die from AIDS, I don’t want them to be beaten up; I don’t want them to be killed by Muslim extremists. We are on a collision course here, from several directions, and gay people are going to come off worse, come what may, and who will be to blame?

You say you are fighting to retain your freedoms, but you are not. We are all less free than we were because of this wretched legislation.

[Frank Schnittger]

I think, J Pearce, that you may be mistaking the psychology behind the "hate the sin, but not the sinner" slogan.

For some it could still be an act of kindness to refuse a room to a pair of men as it would save them from "an occasion of sin" - i.e. the temptation to engage in a lewd act - albeit in private.

It is the same psychology which underlies the "I must be cruel to be kind" and "this hurts me more than it hurts you" slogans of those who would beat children as to "spare the rod might spoil the child" - and occasionally can also be extended to include spousal abuse.

In more extreme cases like the Inquisition it can even excuse torture on the grounds that it was designed to save sinners from themselves and the much worse "fires of eternal damnation".

What characterises such a psychology is a denial of the right of others to hold a different view which is held to be in objective error.

Thus it is irrelevant that the men concerned might be in a loving and caring relationship or have no intention of having sex at all.

It is an authoritarian psychology in the sense that it upholds the right of some to impose their morality on others against their will, if necessary.

It is not so much a case of upholding a right of religious conscience for oneself (as presumably those who hold such views do not engage in such activity) but of upholding the right to impose one's conscience on what others may or may not do.

It is thus intrinsically about maintaining a relationship of power - of a priesthood to define morality for society in general - or within the context of a specific relationship (father/child, teacher/pupil, priest/layman, service provider/service receiver, owner/renter).

It is the same kind of unequal power relationship which is generally present in cases of child abuse. Children are required to submit to authority, their allegations of abuse are not believed, they are punished for disobedience if they resist.

That is why democracy is so subversive of such a mindset - because it, in theory at least, assigns an equal voice to all regardless of their status within society.

Women's Lib, gay lib, Child rights advocacy groups etc. are equally to be abhorred because they represents groups who were traditionally in subservient positions and are seen as attempts to undermine the natural authority of those who believe they have a God given right to impose their morality on others - for there own good - of course!

Such an attitude is also fundamentally unchristian because the Holy Spirit is a gift given to all - and there is no human test which can be applied to determine who is inspired by God's will and who is not.

The two men concerned could be the best Christians of all.

[Christopher]

"'Dear Disengenuous Dave,... etc. etc. etc.... 'J Pearce, you now even start your posts by addressing me as a liar."

"On the lookey likey David Smith issue, I think you are stretching credibility (to put it mildly) to expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence.
Posted by: David Smith | 2 May 2007 10:33:54"

And with what weasel words you have managed to label me a liar without actually writing the words "You are a liar". You have rightly earned JPearce's soubriquet 'Disingenuous Dave'.

[J Pearce]

Jill,

I'm sure you're pleased as punch to have finally trawled the net long enough, to find an article written from a gay perspective (but only one perspective, remember), which happens to push all your favourite moral buttons.

However, you'll forgive me if I point out that the majority of the article concentrates on gay marriage. This thread is about the SOR's - two very different issues, although I know you like conflating them for the puposes of your prejudice.

Obviously, you believe that the article is your "killer blow". Well, sorry to point this out, but a) its merely one perspective, b) not everything that’s been written in the article is immutable or unarguable.

For a start, the claim that

"whenever humankind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavior that contravenes natural law, and whenever humankind becomes arrogant, autonomous, egalitarian, nihilistic and foolish, civilization fails - always and without exception."

is utter rubbish and completely without historical foundation.

There have been no such societies which fulfill this criteria. The much favoured example of the "decadent" Roman Empire is a red herring - the Roman Empire collapsed because it ran out of money, overstretched itself militarily, then elected a leader who was unable to lead. It is also worth remembering that when the Romans lost the plot, they had already been 'Christianised'. Make of that what you will...

Furthermore, as this is a thread about the SOR's, it is primarily dedicated to arguing about whether homosexuals should be allowed access to the same legal protections in public transactional scenarios as currently enjoyed by the majority of society. It has already been noted that the details of the SOR's might require further legal test cases to iron out any intial flaws - however, the principle being established (that gays have the same legal entitlements in certain public transactional scenarios as everyone else) is sound.

I cannot find any reference within the article that suggest the author is arguing that gays should remain disenfranchised in certain public transactional scenarios. In fact, the author states the following:

"We've already won the same-sex benefits battle…".

Therefore, I can only assume from this that the author would, in fact, at least support the principle of the SOR's, if not necessarily some of the detail.

[Christopher]

Of course Jill supports and quotes the full speech by McKellar. He's saying exactly what she wants to hear AND, hey, he even backs reparative therapy (though surprise surprise he is yet to undergo it!) It's called cognitive dissonance, Jill - the woman who has just bought the house is the last one to see it has rising damp in the cellar (in this case an iffy argument from some kind of disgruntled guy who has done nothing more than create an anagram - an "ology"?). It obviously makes Jill delighted to have 'discovered' what she thinks is some kind of fifth column within the gay community but I sincerely doubt it is any more convincing to fair-minded people than the rest of her dubiously sourced opinions about gay people - though - wait for it - she's going to tell us she's got mountains more. And I don't doubt it because that's what gives her life structure, meaning and purpose. It's her implicit religion, even her implicit morality, putting gay people down and raising the anti against us. What a sad empty life she must lead - even potting petunias would be better than that, you'd think, but no, that doesn't get her rocks off quite so effectively.

This is what Religious Tolerance Org says about her source: "John McKellar is the founder and either the national director 9 or executive director 10 (sources differ) of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE). HOPE is a loosely knit Canadian group of unknown size. They do not have a membership roll, and apparently have on web site or office. McKellar has endorsed reparative therapy and appears to be undecided on whether homosexual acts can be moral. He feels that it is "selfish and rude" for gays and lesbians to seek the right to marry, and thus "redefine society's traditions and conventions simply for our self-indulgence." He applauds the decision by the Alberta government to oppose same-sex marriages. He believes that "less than 1% [of adult gays and lesbians] are interested in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership legislation. In other words, federal and provincial laws are being changed and traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique." Paraphrasing a famous statement by former Justice Minister and Prime Minister Trudeau, McKellar said: "We don't want the state in our bedrooms. We don't want to be shackled by rules, legislation and paperwork."

[J Pearce]

While I'm about it, I'd also like to take apart this ridiculous, slopy-shoulder excuse for rampant prejudice and loathing known as "hate the sin but not the sinner".

Deploying this phrase, for example, as Dave does to describe his attitude towards homosexuals, has to be the most facile attempt at Christian political correctness I have ever witnessed - and it fools virtually no-one. Let us use a concrete example to illustrate why:

Take our Christian B&B. Two men roll up, asking for a shared double room for a couple of nights. Our pious and straight edge guest house owner (our lookey likey Davey Smith, perhaps?) leaps to the inevitable conclusion that "These people are obviously gay". So he refuses them the room, on the basis of his "conscience" (this being a pre-SOR's scenario).

But hang on! "Hate the sin but not the sinner". What moral right has the guest house owner to refuse entry? Sure, if he catches the two men 'in flagrante' in the bed - that is, he witnesses the sin itself - then OK, he can throw them out without troubling his conscience, because he hasn't broken his little golden rule of "hating the sin but not the sinner". They're out, because they commited sin.

But unless they actually have sex, then refusing the two men a room actually breaks this little rule of his. Until the sin is actually commited, then our guest house owner has to "love" the sinners (or at least, "not hate them"). Refusing them shelter for the night cannot accurately be described as "loving" someone, can it? The only "proof" our guest house owner has that any "sin" will be commited is…in his own head.

Which brings me to the point of this example. When a Christian tells you that they "Hate the sin but not the sinner", they are talking utter, disengenuous bollocks. There is absolutely no way in heaven or hell that they actually mean what they say, because we all know that for a Christian, you cannot divorce the "sinful" act from its perpetrator.

If Christians actually stuck to the "hate the sin but not the sinner" ethos, there would be absolutely no need for legislation like the SOR's - because until a homosexual actually commits the "sin" which a Christian has a moral objection to, then the very logic of "hate the sin but not the sinner" dictates that Christians should treat homosexuals equally, as they would anyone else. To discriminate against a homosexual on the grounds that they might commit a homosexual act fundamentally breaks the logical dictate of "hate the sin but not the sinner". By the very act of pre-emptive discrimination, they are "hating the sinner".

However, we all know what actually happens in reality. Which is why, when people like Dave invoke this little golden rule as "evidence" of how reasonable he is being and how unreasonable everyone else is, its all just a PR stunt. Spin. An exercise in self-justifying propoganda. We know where he's really at...

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'And if you think you really have answered the questions as you claim you are the only one on this blog who believes it.'

On what grounds do you say this, Christopher?

Have you done a survey of everyone who posts on this blog, and did they all say that there are one or more of your questions to me that I have entirely failed to answer? If so how did you put the question? Did you send them an itemised list of your questions to me, and ask them to go through all the threads I have posted on to see if they could find an answer to each? Perhaps they have all spontaneously mailed you to say that they have already done this and agree with you?

Of course, it's none of the above. Is it? It's just your way of saying either 'I can't see the answers' or 'I can't be bothered to look', and trying to make this sound as if its my fault and give this idea the weight of numbers.

As I have said, when the torrent of personal abuse and false accusations comes to an end you and anyone else can ask whatever you want, and if I have not already made my position on the point clear I will reply directly.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'Dear Disengenuous Dave,... etc. etc. etc.... '

J Pearce, you now even start your posts by addressing me as a liar. And all the while calling on me to engage in proper debate on the issues. If this is the ground you chose then so be it.

[Jill]

Part 2:

One does not have to be a "fanatical, right-wing, religious fundamentalist" to oppose gay marriage. It is significant to note that an interfaith coalition of Roman Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims, Anglicans and Evangelicals intervened in the court challenges to the Marriage Act and continue to fight this nihilism to the bitter end.

That such a diverse body of religious organizations, all of whom have numerous disagreements in matters of doctrine, theology and practice, are unanimous in their defence of marriage, clearly shows a universal pressing concern for this issue.

So gays need to stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional rights to free speech about homosexuality and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow
philosophy.

Gay activists and their ever-willing accomplices in the media, relentlessly drive through our skulls that homosexuality is "not a choice", because no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. Firstly, there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. Secondly, despite public fanfare and trendy hypotheses, there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic, psychological and sociological influences on sexual orientation. The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as a scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. It is a transformation of public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as "progress", it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a counter-culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.

It is well documented that long term relationships and fidelity are extremely rare in the gay world. From Hollywood Boy Parties to Fire Island, from Gay Pride to Gay Games, homosexual men are
relentlessly searching for "Mecca" - even if it's just for a weekend. Even at the Annual Global Conference on AIDS, the nightlife is more noteworthy than the daytime activities. Every night the discos are packed with gay doctors, nurses, activists and researchers shamelessly cruising one another.
Likewise the bathhouses do land-office business. In spite of the solemnity and tragedy in dealing dealing with a wasteful and fatal disease, the hedonistic, promiscuous, sex-carnival atmosphere never lets up. One of the most popular and essential resource guides for gays who travel, are those which reverently chronicle cruising areas for anonymous gay sex, from bathhouses, parks, public washrooms, rural highways to big-city bus stations.

Anyone who thinks that same-sex marriage will quell the gay male compulsion for libidinal excess, is either naive or disingenuous. Recently, Xtra, Canada's gay and lesbian bi-weekly, ran a feature entitled "How to Stay Married and Still Be a Slut", which, at first glance, seems satirical, but which is actually a serious guideline on how to have one's cake and eat it too. Another article in the same journal spoke of the perverse irony that the right to marry is being fought by those who are already hitched, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and their parents shrinking before their very eyes.

In its affidavit in support of same-sex marriage, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) contends that if gays and lesbians are excluded from that which is available to the rest of society, we will always remain marginalized and stigmatized. Rubbish! Gay activism has always been naive in its belligerent confidence that "homophobia" will disappear with massive and forced education
of the benighted. But such relentless indoctrination cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all freedoms. And since freedom always trumps diversity and tolerance, you can rest assured that any perceived threat to freedom will result in a societal backlash which will guarantee oppression of all homosexuals.

Gay males, especially, are forever on the edge of a precipice, because in a political cataclysm we are always the first to be purged. Another spurious contention from EGALE is that "gender purity" is tantamount to "racial purity". This is not only intellectually dishonest, but is insultingly
disrespectful to Blacks, Jews and other ethnic minorities. Lesbian author and professor of humanities, Camille Paglia, succinctly states: " The gay activist establishment has been stupid and narrow in the way it has conducted its civil rights campaign. There is no gay leader remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King, because black activism has drawn on the profound spiritual traditions of the church, to which gay political rhetoric is childishly hostile.

The parallel claimed by gay leaders between blacks and gays as oppressed minorities has always been questionable, and many African-Americans have angrily rejected it. Indeed, discrimination against skin color is not wholly comparable to the complicated resistance of virtually all societies to open homosexuality, which involves thorny questions of morality and psychology. Most gays can 'pass' whenever they want - an option available to few blacks." (Vamps and Tramps, 1994)

Whatever society teaches or doesn't teach about homosexuality, no gay or lesbian, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his or her sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures. At a young age we learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation and appearance, and anyone who believes political. social or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally is denying reality. The unhappy truth is that male homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority, who are obeying the dictates not of "bigoted" society or religion, but of procreative nature. Yet this desperation deepens our artistic insight and allows us to create civilization. Undoubtedly, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Somerset Maugham, Gore Vidal, et al experienced hardship and alienation. But look what they gave to the world. Look how they advanced the cultural heritage. They were too cultivated, creative and cosmopolitan to be concerned with the trivialities of sexual pride, queer studies or diversity. One of them glorified God and Church by painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, despite
the Vatican's unequivocal denunciation of homosexuality.

By far the scariest and most insidious corollary to same-sex marriage is same-sex adoption (already legal in some jurisdictions). This is blatant child abuse. Children need a biological mother and father. We know this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don't solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by augmenting it. Children are not meant to be guinea pigs for social engineering experiments.

Self-interested partisans will manufacture statistics to support ther specious claims that children of gay marriages fare as well as those of traditional families. But the phenomenon of same-sex parenting doesn't have the longevity needed for such conclusive evidence, whereas the experience of single-parent families has not always, but often shown detriment to the development of the offspring.

When society allows men to marry men and women to marry women, it perpetuates the alienation of the sexes and contributes to the ever-increasing crisis in the sex roles. Before Stonewall, gays and lesbians mixed socially and in the clubs with a pretty good understanding of and appreciation for one another. But as gay liberation took hold, gay males, feeling ebullient from their new-found freedom, descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity. Segregated bars, orgy rooms and bathhouses exploded in number and luxury. Strange parasitic diseases soon began appearing, and by
1981, a "gay cancer" was identified as AIDS. We must honestly admit that even gay men's attempt to create a world without women failed catastrophically.

Unfortunately, most people's sense of history begins the day they were born, which means all that precedes is outmoded and irrelevant and all that follows is enlightened and progressive. However, we cannot and must not ignore the lessons of history and natural law. Again and again, it has been shown that whenever humankind fails to protect time-honored political, moral and social institutions, whenever humankind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavior that contravenes natural law, and whenever humankind becomes arrogant, autonomous, egalitarian, nihilistic and foolish, civilization fails - always and without exception. So, here we are repeating the cycle and getting ready to crash and burn one more time.

[Jill]

Well. I have an article in front of me, written by a gay man, who represents a gay organisation. The link is here, but as these rarely work when I post them I will paste the whole article, (better do it in two parts) as it all needs saying, and may perhaps temper some of the hysterical over-reactions that we have had from some people on this blog. (I shan't hold my breath, though.)

Strange to say, he is saying EXACTLY the same things that I, and others here, have been saying all along.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/McKellarJ%20HOPE02.htm

Last weekend's attack on the Gay Pride Parade in Stockholm Sweden and the infantile spray painting of 'shame' on the sidewalk in front of St Michael's Cathedral is a sad
warning of how ugly and vicious the battle between the so-called right and left could become. My activist brothers and sisters in concert with the judicial elite, the cowed
politicians and the liberal media have seriously jeopardized decades of work to ensure tolerance and privacy, because of their greedy, relentless pursuit of lifestyle affirmation.

It's as easy as eating an ice-cream cone to deconstuct same-sex marriage without the slightest reference to Scripture or church doctrine. Although I hate dogma in
in any form - be it religious or gay activist - I recognize the universal truth that no major world religion has ever endorsed homosexuality which can be openly practised only in peaceful, affluent and cosmopolitan times. Even in classical antiquity,
homosexuality was controversial, and despite the exaggerated claims of todays partisans, there was no place or period where it flourished in complete freedom from moral opprobrium.

Instead of excoriating the Vatican and misquoting Bishop Henry,the 'choice and
diversity' crowd would do well to read the gay press, which normally tows the activist party-line, but which has long been replete with articles, editorials and
letters lambasting and lampooning the whole idea of same-sex nuptials. Clearly,
a substantial majority of us neither need nor want gay marriage. Lesbian authors, Jane Rule and Camille Paglia, drag queen, Sky Gilbert and the late pioneer activist, Harry Hay are among the numerous prominent opponents of this forced parity.

We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules, regulations or paperwork. We've already won the same-sex
benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates.

Let the straights keep marriage. We need to be liberated from the mainstream, homogeneous, egalitarian mindset that is destroying what is left of gay culture.

Even the January 14, 2001 gay wedding spectacle at Toronto's Metropolitan Community Church, although treated as the social event of the season by a delirious media circus, was shunned and scoffed at by the gay community.
Better to stay at home and clean out the fridge when your public image is so embarrassingly represented by such maudlin specimens of martyrdom, who
fancy themselves as pioneers and revolutionaries, but who simply
reinforce every prejudice against us.

As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and will always be the great human norm. But I have no time for the modern, feel-good, pop-culture mentality that facilely equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human psychology
beyond the the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy. And I have even less time for the unsatiable demands and infantile caterwauling of my radical brothers and sisters who want to make the whole world their closet.

So, I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) in 1997 to

a) expose the lies, myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism,

b) deconstruct the oppression and victimology politics, c) give a credible voice to happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who don't wake up every day
finding "hate, bigotry and discrimination" under the bed and who don't go running to the courts, the governments or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

Most Canadians believe that gays and lesbians should be able to pursue any brand of consensual sex as we see fit and form whatever relationships that make us happy. But I'm sick and tired of the activist mantra that my dignity
and my relationships are devalued because the state will not codify same-sex marriage. And I'm not so insecure and so selfish to demand that marriage be redefined for everyone else. Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not
meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose 4prohibitions - you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative - have been grounded in morality and in law for millennia.

Humankind yearns for these stabilizing factors in our
kaleidoscopic world and if we abandon these standards, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral. If gay marriages are permitted (a prerogrative of the most decadent Roman emperors), why not polygamy?Why not brother and sister or parent and child?

[Kate]

D Smith: "Although I believe that I have answered every question you have put to me, ..."

Okay - let's get back to topic. Even accepting the above - there is one very relevant question outstanding.

Is it or is it not a fact that those who organise, run and participate in 'ex-gay' groups are ALL themselves 'recovering' homosexuals?

[J Pearce]

Dear Disengenuous Dave,

C'mon man! Whats all this "I'm a good guy, me - its everyone else who's nasty" wet lettuce stuff all about, eh?

Lets take the SOR's - neither you or Jill have been able to provide any sane, reasonable objection as to why they should not be implemented.

You only response has been, essentially, "homosexuality is morally wrong". Its not exactly what one would call a robust rebuttal. We've also been privy to your "vocation", which apparently involves "ministering" to gays in order to basically convince them to be 'not gay'. So its not as though you don't have a vested interest in preventing the introduction of the SOR's.

Have you not considered, Dave, that some people might find your irrational judgement on homosexuality personally insulting (and I use the word "irrational", because your opinion has no rational, testable or verifiable basis to it)? Have you also not considered that the fact that you promote a methodology, which basically tries to psychologically pressure vulnerable people, such that they force themselves into a state of fearful denial, could also be personally insulting to some people?

Has it not impacted upon you, that although you may not make direct "personal abuse" against individuals on these blogs (at least, according to you), the very opinions you hold and actions you take against homosexuals are, in and of themselves, personally insulting to many people? It seems Ciaran Scott seems to think so, at least.

As for this:

"Although I believe that I have answered every question you have put to me,…"

Now your just taking the p*ss, Davey boy! You've made a fine art out of avoiding difficult and direct questions! The same with your rather pious attempt to plead that you want to get back to "proper argument" - the reason people get so frustrated with you in the first place, is that you never engage in "proper argument" in the first place! "Homosex is disordered" is not what people call a "proper argument".

And whenever you get challenged to justify why homsexuality is disordered, it always goes back to the same tired cliches - "the Bible etc etc yadda yadda". And when people point out that Bible might also be full of outdated, irrelevant crap on any number of issues, you…completely duck the question entirely and instead challenge the personal integrity of the person who happens to be asking it!

And so it goes on. And on. But you can carry on accusing me of being offensive and hateful, if it makes you (and Jill) happy. God tells me that He forgives you for your false accusations and that He is confident that one day, you will understand.

[Christopher]

"On the lookey likey David Smith issue, I think you are stretching credibility (to put it mildly) to expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence."

Now you are getting heavy. It is you who have turned a mild quip into an "issue". Maybe Kate is right about too much religion causing a humour bypass. Where you and Jill are so wrong is that you think you can say "Love the sinner but hate the sin" and not see that will be taken as an aggressive and hateful thing on the part of people whose whole way of being, loving, forming romantic attachments, seeing the world is more than the 'acts' that you reduce us to.

Perhaps I could direct you and Jill to have a look at the following website which answers most of the questions you could ask on reparative therapy, Paul Cameron, Joseph Nicolosi and many other issues. This linked page is on the Love Won Out conference which makes interesting and informative reading but you can explore from there. What I think you will particularly approve of is how the discussion is conducted in the most respectful terms. I am sure I can rely on you to read it dispassionately.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/12/220

And if you think you really have answered the questions as you claim you are the only one on this blog who believes it. I have to hand it to Jill, she never tires of reiterating her responses where she thinks her point has been missed. But since you say you are too busy to redirect us to where they ARE posted (a time reference would do) or repost those answers none of us recalls seeing first time round I can only assume it does not matter that much to you, in which case it shouldn't matter to us.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'The "ridiculous ideas from the ridiculous David Smith" assessment was coined (not by me) by Martin on another thread.'

Martin's words originally, yes. But now made your own to me, Kate, and therefore perfectly valid evidence of an effort of your own to ridicule me.

Kate:
'Alan Marsh, in response to my query re. you, actually said: "David Smith does not speak for me or any Anglican I know."
In keeping with previous evidence of infantile regression, you chose to ignore this unequivocal statement of disassociation, but instead, quote a further paragraph where, Alan is not at all concerned with you, but rather his ongoing private tussles with Frank.'

Alan said:'What David has picked up .. ' If this statement is not concerned with me, who then is it concerned with? Alan was united with me in his dislike of the use of 'straw men'.

Kate:
'PRECISION David - in the use and understanding of language is patently not your strong point. But both these people have made it clear they are not in your spiteful camp.'

Alan and Martin disagree with some of my views and I with some of theirs. Alan has expressly agreed with some of my views, and no doubt Martin would too. The fact that they disagree with me, even strongly, does not mean that they feel a need to put us into 'different camps' where the twain never meet. Unlike you, they can distinguish between a person and their views on some issues. They can strongly disagree with the latter without committedly abusing and ridiculing the person holding them. 'Spiteful', for example, is your word and not one that either of them has used to describe me or my blogging.

PRECISION Kate - in the use and understanding of language (and, I might add, recollection of what has actually been said) is patently not your strong point.

Again, it seems Kate that it is you and not I who you 'contort and manipulate meaning' to suit your own ends.

I repeat, stop the personal abuse, and we can all get back to properly discussing the issues.

[J Pearce]

OK Jill,

I will grant you that there are some aspects of CP's which might - might - prove to be vulnerable to legal challenge. It could be seen that, as you so charmingly put it, that CP's "reward sexual relationships that are morally wrong". I have no problem with challenging CP's on the basis that they are unfair to certain family arrangements - I would support amendments to the legislation to remedy that. However, I would NOT remove CP's from the statute, which is what I suspect is what you actually want to do. You seem to forget that CP's are not only a purely financial arrangement - they are symbolic as well.

The following quote is also more than a little disengenuous:

"Why should two adults in a Civil Partnership, both capable of earning a living, be entitled to financial concessions designed for the protection of a dependent wife who stays at home to bring up children?"

What about those married heterosexual adults who have no children? Are you saying that they do not deserve legal protections, then? According to your strange take on morality, am I to assume that the only partnerships worth having legal protections for, are married-with-kids? How conveniently Christian, eh? Reward the traditional, Christian approved family unit but let anything outside the "norm" go hang.

I don't believe you actually care Jill, that there are disadvantaged families as a result of CP's - that aspect is merely more ammunition for your pet prejudices, which we are all too well aware of: the outright repudiation of homosexual relationships. Lets be honest Jill, you want to scrap CP's altogether, because you hate the idea that homosexuals can engage in legally recognisable partnerships, because according to you they are "morally wrong".

As for the SOR's - well, as Christopher has alluded to, you haven't produced one iota of evidence to suggest that the SOR's - which is what this thread is all about - provide "extra benefits" for homosexuals, above and beyond what the majority of the population already enjoy. Which kind of renders your anti-SOR's rant a tad redundant, doesn't it?

As for your sentiments about Muslims - if I have to fight them to retain my freedoms, so be it. I won't be expecting any help from Christians like you! You have shown yourself to have more in commom with repressive, authoritarian Islam than you do with the society you live in! And frankly, the record of Christians in recent major conflicts is hardly inspiring - the Catholic Church kept its head down during WW2 whilst waiting to see who one. I fully expect the Chrisitan hierarchy to go toadying up to Muslims at the first sign of trouble.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'"So what are you doing now, David Smith?'"

ANSWER; Targeting Kate and JPearce while claimng that you do not hatefully so target.'

Kate and J Pearce have a long record of personally abusing and actually, on occasion, personally slandering people who do not share their views on the effect of the SORS and the morality of homosex. I think it right to stand up against this. As with my latest post to Kate, I do this not by speculatively judging the state of their hearts, but, using the actual words in their posts and the posts of those they attack personally to show them what they are doing, and to ask them to apologise or stop.

It is probably a waste of time to say that I do not in any way hate Kate or J Pearce, but will not accept some of their tactics, because so far this kind of assertion has been widely met by you with judgmental cries of: 'Oh yes, you DO!' It seems that those who cannot separate sin and the sinner assume that others cannot either.

Kate and J Pearce and you, Christopher, have used hateful adjectives and descriptions and hurled them aggressively at others. I attack what some people say, but not those people. For example, I may say to someone: 'That statement is not true.' (With evidence of things actually said on this blog.) But I do not then say: 'You are a liar.' But if they say that to someone else, I may object.

Although I believe that I have answered every question you have put to me, I want as much as you to get back to proper informative blogging and argument. I have made several requests that the personal abuse stop so that we can do this. For so long as it goes on, it has to be countered.

So where we go from here is up to others.

If we can get back to proper argument, I will respond to any question you ask in one of two ways: I will reply to it or I will do what I have sometimes done already, and tell you that I have answered already somewhere on the blog. I simply do not have time to repeat the same information to every separate individual who asks for it.

On the lookey likey David Smith issue, I think you are stretching credibility (to put it mildly) to expect us to believe that the fact that he and I have the same name is pure coincidence.

[Jill]

Christopher: 'So what are you doing now, David Smith?'

Nice try, Christopher. What David is doing is pointing something out. It is J Pearce and Kate who are doing the targetting on this blog.

[Kate]

D Smith: Any sane person must wonder why you persist! As a professional with long and weary experience, I however, am under no illusions.

Again, you dissimulate, avoid and indulge in dishonest transference. ANSWER THE QUESTION. Is it or is it not a fact that those who organise, run and participate in 'ex-gay' groups are ALL themselves 'recovering' homosexuals?

Whether you are suffering from straightforward 'shame' of your history; or infantile regression or an Oedipus Complex is of no interest to me. If you insist on addressing individuals in this debate it is common courtesy to answer questions on topic.

You are patently not accustomed to the ground rules of adult discourse.

Now David - This pains me more than it pains you. But, I write in your best interest. I do understand, as Jill does, that the information I present may be unpleasant BUT I am trying to save you from your
own unpleasant and ultimately self-damaging orientation.

Consider: By assuming the protector, husband - there is another word which, in the interests of delicate sensibilities I will not use - (p**p) - role, you degrade and undermine Jill's validity as an autonomous thinking individual. Jill of course, loves it - it makes her coo like a baby!

The "ridiculous ideas from the ridiculous David Smith" assessment was coined (not by me) by Martin on another thread. Martin has repeatedly made clear that he does not agree with ex-gay therapy or with Jill's assertions on homosexuality.

Alan Marsh, in response to my query re. you, actually said: "David Smith does not speak for me or any Anglican I know."

In keeping with previous evidence of infantile regression, you chose to ignore this unequivocal statement of disassociation, but instead, quote a further paragraph where, Alan is not at all concerned with you, but rather his ongoing private tussles with Frank.

PRECISION David - in the use and understanding of language is patently not your strong point. But both these people have made it clear they are not in your spiteful camp.

Like so many with identical dysfunction, you contort and manipulate meaning to your own dodgy agenda. For that reason you will continue to attract opprobrium.

Unlike you, I do not set out to damage anyone David. As a professional in the field, I am alarmed that any individual - exhibiting personal spite, compulsive malice and obsessive hounding in every post - has the freedom, in a secular state, to exert control and influence over the lives of a vulnerable minority.

[Christopher]

"So what are you doing now, David Smith?'"

ANSWER; Targeting Kate and JPearce while claimng that you do not hatefully so target.

"still waiting for you to tell us who 'the lookey likey David Smith' (against who you made a string of allegations) was a reference to - since you say that it was not a reference to me."

Since it wasn't a reference to you but only a fictional character, actually the owner of The Bigot's View Guesthouse in my next novel who MAY share some of your opinions (no physiological resemblance I assure you) will you now do us the courtesy of answering those questions you promised you would deal with?