Thursday, March 18, 2010

Catholic Care judgement – the Devil is in the detail

When the evil spirit of the Inquisition re-emerged to take possession of New Labour, it was only a matter of time before the state began to apply the thumb screws to the Church, the rack to Christian education, and a red-hot poker wherever the extremist equalitists wanted to insert it.

And so it was that the Roman Catholic adoption agencies – suddenly obliged by statute to place the nation’s most vulnerable with same-sex adoptive couple in contravention of their millennia-old doctrine, their religious ethos and the traditional understanding of the family – were terminated.

And if they were not terminated, they merged with cultic-sounding secular organisations and surrendered the Catholic brand by which they have served God and country for over a century.

New Labour’s 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations were the fulfillment of the long-promised ‘equality’ for homosexuals in the provision of goods and services. In the hierarchy of rights, they trumped the rights of Christians in their own homes and businesses, and even in the Church.

It was only a matter of time before extremist homosexualist equalitists began demanding their ‘rights’ at the altar – in matrimony as well as the Eucharist: excommunication itself would become an illegal discrimination, and, after centuries of religio-political conflict in the British Isles, the State will finally have triumphed over the Church.

Cranmer exhorted the Catholic adoption agencies to find their backbone: “Where is their moral fibre?” he asked. “Where is their conviction, their faith, their capacity to endure until the end?”

But it appeared that they just don’t make martyrs like they used to.

His Grace exhorted Catholic Care to bring their case to court instead of simply complying with the unjust legislation.

And Mark Wiggin, chief executive of Catholic Care, was suddenly possessed by the spirit of Thomas More.

Catholic Care alone remained open, and they alone challenged this anti-Christian Government in the courts.

And yesterday they won a battle.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Rev Arthur Roche, issued the following statement:

‘The Court has confirmed that Catholic Care was correct in its reading of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and has agreed with us that Regulation 18 can apply to any charity subject to it being in the public interest. We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process that without being able to use this exemption children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.

'Catholic Care has been providing specialist adoption services for over 100 years. We have helped hundreds of children though the recruitment, assessment, training and support for prospective adoptive parents as well as offering on-going and post-adoption support to families that give such security and love for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. The judgement today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities.'

Rejoice, rejoice. His Grace says it again, rejoice.

This was never about ‘homophobia’, but what is best for the children.

It was never concerned with diminishing the dignity of the homosexual, but with prioritising the security of the child.

Of course, the fundamentalist secularists and extremist homosexualists are incensed that anyone engaged in delivering a publicly-funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users ‘on the basis of individual prejudice’.

But there is universal celebration among Christian groups that an important principle had been upheld. According to the judgment, it appears that Catholic adoption agencies might be exempt from the Sexual Orientation Regulations because of the ‘arguably pre-eminent needs of those children who will otherwise be left unadopted (which) may constitute a very special and unusual case for recognition under Article 14, quite unlike any other to be found in the existing jurisprudence, but none the worse for that’.

And so Mr Justice Briggs ordered the Charity Commission to reconsider the plight of Catholic Care in the light of his judgement.

This is, of course, good news.

But it is not a final victory.

And for this reason His Grace, being, like Qoheleth, naturally inclined to pessimism and cynicism because there is nothing new under the sun, did not leap with glee.

He rather suspected the Devil might be in the detail.

And indeed he is, having taken up residence within the British Government whilst on a break from his duties in the Vatican.

If the justification put forward by Catholic Care had been based on the need to respect the traditions and beliefs of the Church, then the ruling would have been highly significant: it would have turned the emergent hierarchy of rights on its head. But Catholic Care did not argue that that they should be allowed to discriminate against homosexual couples on the grounds of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And if they had argued this, the Judge makes it clear that their appeal would have failed.

The Judge found that the Charity Commission had misread the law and so bounced it back to the Commission to decide, on the proper application of the law, whether the public benefit in placing children as agency of last resort outweighed the discriminatory effect or vice versa.

This was not a judgement establishing the supremacy of the Christian conscience: it was not a ruling in favour of religious liberty.

It is observed that Catholic Care are 1-0 up at half time, no more.

The Charity Commissioners have leave to appeal and may simply apply to have this judgment overturned.

And they may well win.

And they are likely to win because the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has left Catholic Care isolated.

If they had all remained united and true to their convictions instead of simply giving in and falling by the wayside one by one, there would have been a far more powerful witness and a more convincing martyrdom.


OpenID Michael said...

Agreed on the supine capitulation of certain of the adoption agencies, though I must admit I do not quite share your overall pessimism. Whilst remaining a little cautious would be prudent, nonetheless I'm hoping this half-time lead might have something of the clarion call about it - and emboldened once-Catholic adoption agencies, as well as myriad other Christian organisations, might come out with their standards raised high.

18 March 2010 at 10:50  
Anonymous Mikec said...

If I was (let me emphasise I am not) a paedofile, I would have to remain celebate in order to 'enjoy' the 'freedoms' of this society.

This is correct, and if as a heterosexual male, I see a woman who I wish to get to know, I can make myself known to her as long as I do so in an acceptable way.

The difference here is the age of the person to whom I am directing my attentions.

Not only does a child have a right not to be the target of sexual advances, he or she has a right to not be put in a situation where they are more vulnerable to sexual advances.

Same sex relationships to not provide the standard safeguards of a heterosexual family. They also lack the input of the role imprint of the missing gender.

Being sexually assulted as a child is bewildering, one is suddenly in a situation which is outside of any imagined experience.

I felt trapped. I felt betrayed and I felt shock.

This happened almost fifty years ago and it is still vivid.

Of course, I could not discuss this with anybody, because I was not sure whether I was to blame or not, so I bottled it up.

Males are more likely to do this to a child than are females, to place a child with two males is to increase the risk to the child. Whilst my own incident was with a married man and not a relative, he was very careful to only catch me when his wife was away, which 'lowered' the odds and thus lowered the risk....

I belive it is this risk which has to be managed. It is not a question of 'equality'; Children cannot manage their own 'equality' or therefore, their own risk.

Children in an adoption situation should have an absolute right to a family situation that includes both responsible males and responsible females, this way the risk, whilst admittedly still present, is minimised.

18 March 2010 at 11:32  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

In matters that pertain to the family most of us would agree that the best interests of the child are paramount. Most of us would also agree that for a child to grow up in a stable home with a loving mother and father is highly desirable.

However many children are raised in circumstances that are less than desirable and this should be of concern to all of us all. Some have to contend with poverty, others with inadequate parents, others suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, yet more experience the break-up of their family through separation and divorce and some are born into a household where no father was ever present, it was ever thus.

Within this rather bleak scenario are children who for whatever reason have no family at all. For them adoption can be the opportunity for a life spent with loving and devoted parents. Because adoptive parents are usually unable to sire their own children but feel that their family is incomplete without them it most likely that they will make good parents, in fact it is likely that they will make better parents than many who become parents naturally.

For a couple to be eligible as potential adoptive parents they must undergo vigorous scrutiny in order to verify that they are capable of offering a stable loving environment to the child. This should be the paramount criteria.

There are Gay and Lesbian couples who can offer this love and stability, so who are we to say that they should be denied the opportunity.

There are many here who regard homosexuality with disgust. I can only assume that it is your ignorance that motivates this. Many regarded black people with the same prejudice a generation ago. Look at the human being not the label, it is what’s inside that counts and let the scales fall away from your eyes; homosexuals are the same as you and I except in one respect. For most their sexuality is not their defining characteristic, they can be as good or as bad as the rest of us.

18 March 2010 at 11:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

I would have thought that any right minded person can see the folly of placing a child with known sexual deviants.

Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester. These figures are from the Psychological Reports, 1986, pp. 327-37.

It is just burying one's head in the sand to pretend that homosexuals are not more likely to sexually assault a child than heterosexuals. Read what I wrote before people start whining; more likely, not certain.

That the biggest paedophile network known to man (the Catholic Church) should be attempting to defend these children is a bitter irony.

18 March 2010 at 11:59  
Anonymous Hereward said...

" who are we to say that they should be denied the opportunity[?]"

They are not being denied: they can go to other adoption agencies.

18 March 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

It is clear that the law of England and Wales contains values that are hostile to the Christian faith.

In this case, Catholic Care, it is clear that both sets of lawyers and the judge agree with that observation I have just stated.

It was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who said that, ‘what is natural has the same validity everywhere alike’; it was the Roman lawyer, Cicero, who said that, ‘what is right and true is also eternal, and does not begin or end with written statutes.’

Again, St Paul in Romans makes observations on natural law: ‘For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.’

The values in Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill (and the Equality Act 2006 (containing the sexual orientation regulations on the provision of good, facilities and services)) are positive law. But as can be seen natural law, since time immemorial, had always been seen as a higher law than positive law. Again, as Cicero said: ‘in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true… Therefore Law is the distinction between things just and unjust, made in agreement with that primal and most ancient of all things, Nature; and in conformity to Nature’s standard are farmed those human laws which inflict punishment upon the wicked but defend and protect the good.’

In the installation, in law, of New Labour’s values on equality what we are witnessing is the Great Divorce between positive law and the higher Natural Law. What this is resulting in is this: the political party that is in power is no longer restrained by universally shared values; indeed, those have fled from public debate and the law courts. The vacuum is filled by the values of the party in power. This means that a party who is extreme will no longer feel constrained as happened in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (it is poor thinking that New Labour or Cameron’s Conservatives will always be in power).

The Chair of the Bar Standards Board, Baroness Deech, is quite clear that the law now compels thousands of officials to record and disseminate lies (legal fictions). For example, same-sex couples now have their names on a child’s birth certificate with no mention of a father.

Today it is reported that a British IVF centre, The Bridge Centre in London is promoting a new service which allows recipients to choose an IVF egg based on the egg donor’s race and intellect.

The Director of The Bridge Centre, Mohamed Menabawey, defended his organization’s decision, saying it was just reacting to changes in supply and demand.
The raffle, to be held in a London hotel today, will give both an egg and the accompanying IVF treatment – worth up to £13,000 – as its first prize.

These children will ask one day the same questions that reflective men ask: where do I come from? Who am I? Where am I going? The severe psychological damage that these children are about to suffer is: predictable. Will they take revenge?

How well the Book of the Apocalypse speaks of the last days: "And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore: merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet, every kind of citron wood, every kind of object of ivory, every kind of object of most precious wood, bronze, iron, and marble; and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.”

18 March 2010 at 12:15  
Blogger Grogipher said...

"assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population"

Erm, I think you'd find the real figure to be nearer 20% than 2%.

If this was about the real interests of the child, then you'd see that to find them a loving and caring home (with either two parents or one, regardless of gender) is much better for them than being in care for the rest of their lives.

18 March 2010 at 12:15  
OpenID Michael said...

@grogipher - Oh come off it. Trying to ply the ‘this is all about the children’ line won’t wash, especially when the homosexualist lobby happily watched Catholic adoption agencies go to the wall simply because they refused to bow down to their political agenda. As was argued at the appeal,

‘For those children, usually of the “hard to place” category, Catholic Care was the adoption agency of last resort for the local authorities concerned, whose practice was to have recourse to Catholic Care only when all other avenues for the identification of willing and suitable adoptive parents had failed. But for Catholic Care’s work in that field, those children would therefore not have been adopted that year or, probably, at all.’

In other words, try telling the children who no longer benefit from the services of many Catholic adoption agencies that this battle was really fought on the grounds of their best interests – they might be inclined to think otherwise. It was spiteful control-freakery, dressed up as 'equality'.

18 March 2010 at 12:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

”When the evil spirit of the Inquisition re-emerged to take possession of New Labour”

Old ‘Demon eyes is back. Blair a convert to Catholicism and Brown a Son of the Manse, Bishops in Parliament and a Monarch the head of the CoE – come on!

Your Grace with this argument, is really trying to back two horses to win, in a two horse race; and as any casual observer of horse racing will tell you – apart from not being an exact science – it also a tad foolish.

It is well known that your stance on the Catholic Church is your by own record a largely negative one and that of course, is within your rights in a democratic society, so why appear to support it on the grounds that appear as some sort of exclusive theological equivalence that only religion has a moral core. It is akin to espousing that all religion is good - when you and the world knows, ‘it aint necessarily so’. At the same time you use the argument rather disingenuously I hold, to claim that the government of this day is anti-Christian. I looked for your ‘must read’ explanation of the foundation of this statement but no; rather than provide hard evidence to support your claim, you simply - don’t.

I suggest that this is so because it suits your political agenda more as an un-frocked Conservative rather than a Christian, (hence the reason for my equine analogy), and after all, there is an election forthcoming.

The question of equality is fundamental in any humanitarian discourse, however, the lengths to which it can be legitimately stretched in my opinion is limited by Nature, before it becomes a travesty.

Personally, and this is not in any way rooted in my atheism, I find the concept of two homosexuals or lesbians wanting a marriage ceremony in the same manner as provided by the Christian Church for heterosexual couples an invalid argument and not a question of equality. I hold the same opinion for the adoption of children by homosexuals or lesbians as an equally inappropriate equality issue for the simple reason that there is no basis for equivalence through the existence of natural law.

Get off the fence Your Grace – you have an excellent reputation to uphold.


18 March 2010 at 12:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught – I think even you will realise that at some point there is going to be a reaction. This is a National Socialist government in this country.

Police questioned the family-values campaigner, Lynette Burrows, after she expressed the view on a radio programme that homosexual men may not be suitable for raising children. Police telephoned saying they were investigating a reported 'homophobic' incident.

The Bishop of Chester was investigated by the Cheshire constabulary in November 2003 after he told his local newspaper of research showing that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality. The police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to prosecute.

In 2006 a Member of the Scottish Parliament asked Strathclyde Police to investigate remarks made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow. The Archbishop had defended the institution of marriage in a church service.

A street preacher from Bournemouth was convicted by magistrates of a public order offence because he held a sign saying homosexuality was immoral.

In 2005 a Christian couple were interrogated by police because they complained about their local council's 'gay rights' policy. The police said they were responding to a reported 'homophobic incident'. The police later admitted that no crime had been committed and the police and council issued a public apology.

Following a vote by the House of Lords which successfully blocked a reduction in the age of homosexual consent, gay rights groups became violent towards some of the Peers. After attempting to storm into Parliament, members of the gay rights group Outrage! picketed the Lords, shouting abuse and threatening violence. One Christian Peer needed Police protection to get to her car.

Several experienced and well respected adoption and childcare specialists were forced out of their jobs for deciding not to place children with homosexual couples. Norah Ellis and Dawn Jackson were threatened with dismissal from Sefton Council; Dr Joy Holloway, a paediatrician, had to change her job.

In 2004 the Christian Union of the University of Cambridge was reported to the police following its distribution of St John's gospel to students and hosting an evangelistic meeting where the Dean of Sydney Cathedral put forward "a traditional biblical view on homosexuality".

In 1999 an Anglican parish church in Newcastle upon Tyne was vandalised and extensively daubed with obscene graffiti because its vicar upheld traditional Christian beliefs on homosexuality. The attack followed a local meeting organised by Britain's leading 'gay rights' lobby group, Stonewall, at which a member of the audience advocated action against Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle.

In 2002, a church in South Wales was sued for refusing to recognise a transsexual as a woman. Thankfully his case was thrown out of the court.

In 2006 the Western Isles Council in Scotland received hate mail and death threats because its registrars refused, on moral grounds, to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

18 March 2010 at 13:10  
Blogger English Viking said...


You maths are as bad as your morals.

Even if we assume the simply ridiculous number you propose of one in 5 being homosexual, you still have an over-representation of child molesters, by over 50%, within the sodomite community.

Just face it; people who stick things where they ought not be stuck are not suitable parents. I notice the usual gay lobby nonsense is that there is nothing unnatural about this practice, but they are unwilling to accept that the logical conclusion of this is that they are naturally unable to have children.

PS Spare me the 'for the cheeeldren!' clap-trap. What you really mean is 'for the queers!'.

18 March 2010 at 13:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

English Viking said:-


That means that a child is in greater danger from the 67% of molesters who are hetrosexual. Hmmm

18 March 2010 at 13:29  
Blogger English Viking said...



What you fail to mention is that only about 2-3% of the nation is gay and the remaining 97% are not, therefore there is a simply vast over-representation of gays involved in child molestations. i.e Some members of the 97% are responsible for 67% of molestations compared with some members of the 3 % responsible for 33% of child molestations.

You can play with the numbers all you like, the mathematical fact is that if a person is a homosexual, they are far, far more likely to abuse children.

With this in mind, and given that most adoption agencies will disallow a parent on the grounds that they are too fat, too old or smoke, how much sense does it make to leave children in the care of a demographic which has such a propensity for perversity, simply to satisfy a mad, marxist agenda?


18 March 2010 at 13:59  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

English Viking
Most reasonable people can see this issue is difficult and I can sympathise with those who disagree with my views. However at least address the comments that I made, argue against them if you must but don’t just spew out a stream of vitriol.

Your comments are disgusting.

Your “facts” are wrong.

You are bereft of compassion.

You are a bigoted and full of hate.

I am sorry for you.

18 March 2010 at 14:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


Not wishing to make great issue here but are you sure that the figures quoted are male on male abuse? I mean its a bit unfair to demonise all homosexuals as child molesters or potential child molesters. You know what they say about statistics and all that.

18 March 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You write:

‘If they had all remained united and true to their convictions instead of simply giving in and falling by the wayside one by one, there would have been a far more powerful witness and a more convincing martyrdom.’

It is a great tragedy that Christians in this country are divided.

‘And the Lord spoke and said “The prayers and fervent supplications of my saints in Great Britain – the repentance for the sins of commission and omission on behalf of the governments of Great Britain – on behalf of the people of Great Britain.” Then I asked the Lord about the Church – and He showed me thousands of people all belonging to different denominations with divisions and literally multitudes of OPINION – and somehow it seemed that the people’s opinion was all more important in their eyes than Gods opinion and I heard Him say: “Until their opinions become My opinion the Church will continue to be divided among itself and be weak and underfed and lack the true POWER of GOD – Oh yes,” says the lord – “There are many meetings – there are many committees – there are many opinions – opinions – but it is not the opinion and the thoughts of men’s hearts that will change the destiny of Great Britain – but the opinion and the thoughts and intents of the word of the Living God – Humble yourselves – Humble yourselves and put aside your opinions and press into me the Living God for a living Word” – And the Lord said – “A humble and penitent heart I will not despise” – and I saw the words written – ‘DIVISIONS AND FACTIONS’.

‘Then as people dropped to their knees all over Britain from every walk of life and denomination – the lion started to change – and He grew strong and sleek and his roar grew stronger. And I saw written in the spirit – “Create in me a clean heart O God – and renew a right spirit within me”. And as the people started to seek the face of the Lord I saw the word ‘COURAGE’ – and I knew that in the spirit realm that Great Britain had been endowed from the beginning of time with the mantle ‘COURAGE’ – and the Lord said ‘LIONHEART’

‘And God said Britain has yet to move into her end time destiny in the nations - And I saw again in great letters – the words – “THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED FROM THE LION – BUT THE GLORY OF THE LORD OF HOSTS SHALL RETURN”. And the lion’s roar by now had gained strength.’

From: The Journal of the Unknown Prophet

18 March 2010 at 15:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Graham Davis,

Slightly arrogant of you to think that I was responding to your post in the first place; I was responding to His Grace's post and then to Grogipher and Dreadnaught.

Having now read your post I see that it is the usual 'touchy-feely, can't we all get along?' twaddle that is typical in so many nowadays. Your second post goes way past the point of even trying to refute what I have said by using logic or facts, just emotive and pathetic attempts at holier than thou, ad hominem sentimentality that is devoid of reason, plus a simple 'you're wrong' (and a bigot, simply because I disagree with your lenience toward those who are sexually excited by children or excrement).

I am not full of hate for homosexuals, as you aver, I do, however, absolutely despise the pro -gay lobby that appears to have succeeded in brainwashing heterosexuals into thinking it is a crime not to give a pair of perverts a child, so their 'rights' are not infringed, even though it is a fact that more sexual attacks are made on children by gays than by straights, pro rata to the gay/straight breakdown of the population.

'For most their sexuality is not their defining characteristic,'

You're having a larf, ain't cha? When was the last time you saw a Straight Pride march, or went to an officially designated, Council funded Straight Bar? Or saw the Straight Flag flying atop Police Stations and Town Hall roofs during Straight, White, Married and Christian awareness week?

The thing between your ears (no, not your mouth) is quite handy, if only you would use it to see that you are simply being used.

PS The reason that some of my comments will jar so much with some readers is that they have NEVER see or heard a counterpoint argument to the excellence of homosexuality and homosexuals, at least not without the statutory accompaniment of 'bigot' and 'hate filled'.

I don't feel sorry for you. Your (and other's) moral relativity is part of the reason for the simply dreadful state of the country.

18 March 2010 at 15:46  
Blogger English Viking said...


I never said that the ABUSE was male on male exclusively, I said that the perpetrators, according to the facts, are more likely to be homosexual (including lesbian) than heterosexual, pro rata their respective numbers in the population.

I did try to ask people not to assume that I had said that all gays were paedophiles and if you read closely you will see that.

18 March 2010 at 15:56  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Erm, I think you'd find the real figure to be nearer 20% than 2%.
Demonstrable rubbish: you only have to look round at all the people you know. Shirtlifters are a very small proportion of the population, even after years of promotion of deviant sexual practices.
English Viking, you are right.
(What has "Erm" got to do with it?)

18 March 2010 at 16:23  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Demonstrable rubbish: you only have to look round at all the people you know. Shirtlifters are a very small proportion of the population, even after years of promotion of deviant sexual practices.

As the head of an LGBT organisation, I'm guessing that I know rather a lot more "shirtlifters".

Almost all decent scientific studies however, put the real figure of "deviants" at around the 10% mark.

18 March 2010 at 16:29  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I am pleased with the ruling also ,I know that there is somthing called "better" and the gay lobby would have done themselves more good in leaving parents in the position which everyone used to more clearly understand .

Dam fools all those who voted to take this little piece about the wisdom of life ,into the court of public opinion , imagine a referendum on it ! No wonder we struggle with such fake arguments as this being injected into the legislature and British conciousness.

18 March 2010 at 16:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis asserts:

‘There are many here who regard homosexuality with disgust. I can only assume that it is your ignorance that motivates this. Many regarded black people with the same prejudice a generation ago.’

It is pleasing that Mr Davis associates homosexuality (rather than the homosexual) with disgust.

He also reveals a lesson for us to learn. He associates disgust with homosexuality with racial prejudice. That makes him feel morally superior for by implication he suggests that those who are disgusted by homosexuality are the moral equivalent of racists.

Homosexuality is a sexual practice whilst race is not. A white man does not practice being white. And that is where his deep seated ignorance rests.

18 March 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Puts homosexual deviants at around the 10% mark. He feels he is qualified as he is the head of a homosexual group.

He lists no research in support of the 10%. He is either lying or misleading.

18 March 2010 at 17:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

There is an amazing amount of crude biogtry on this forum that comes from purported Christians, falling over themselves like hyenas to attack without intelligence, anyone perceived as 'different' from themselves.

They know who they are and care little if they drag this site down to their gutter level. Maybe His Grace doesn't care about reading responses once he has posted his chosen topic - who knows?

Well I say I value my 'difference' far more highly now, if only to distance myself from them as members of the human race.

18 March 2010 at 17:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught

'Well I say I value my 'difference' far more highly now, if only to distance myself from them as members of the human race.'

Don't tell me we have been exchanging views witha product of evolutionary theory? A chimp?

18 March 2010 at 17:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dread'all'

I'm curious. Why didn't you respond with an erudite analysis in your last post?

After, within New Labour your views have won; the law supports your views; Christians are suspended from their jobs; they are sacked; they lose their homes; Christian charities are closed down; homosexuals adopt children and are caught abusing them and these children will grow into adults and seek revenge.

So if your child is ever abducted, her throat slit and the body dumped in a ditch; don't ever say: 'She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.'

By the way, any time you liberals want a scrap with us Judaeo-Christians - you know where to find us.

We're right here.

18 March 2010 at 17:46  
Blogger English Viking said...


i thought you said that you didn't want to make a great issue?


So you now cut your figure by 50%. Why stop there? You could cut it again, by another 50%, and then again, by the same amount, and you might be getting warmer.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Being involved in some weird sexual cult means that you can say things without proof, and all those doubters are either racists, homophobes or bigots. Sorry.

18 March 2010 at 18:10  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Grogipher is still using Kinsey's "10%" which was discredited many years ago. He must think we were born yesterday.

It is completely logical to suppose that many of those adults who are unable to restrain themselves from committing crimes against nature with each other will be unable to control themselves with minors in their 'care'.

As I wrote on my blog today, when homosexuals have fulfilled their mission as social engineers, they will be as despised as the rest of us are just now, if not more so.

Homosexuals are being used to aid the destruction of our society by the tried and tested route of spreading hedonism and decadence.

The children are used as pawns in this pathetic charade and given over to deviants when they could be placed in stable families were it not for the excuses English Viking lists (and many more).

18 March 2010 at 18:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Cowan

Outstanding post!

18 March 2010 at 19:01  
Anonymous Simon said...

You can play with the numbers all you like, the mathematical fact is that if a person is a homosexual, they are far, far more likely to abuse children

Paedophiles who have homosexual sex with Children, don't do it because they are homosexual, they do it because they are Paedophiles - your conflation of the two is bananas.

In fact, the evidence says that all things considered Children perform as well educationally, socially and emotionally as their counterparts raised in straight households. They are also at no more risk of being abused than their straight-parented peers.

Here are some research studies:

18 March 2010 at 19:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The point you baldly assert in your last paragraph, could you provide research in support?

Thanks very much.

Why do homosexuals want access to boy scouts?

Stay away from our children.

18 March 2010 at 19:12  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Why do homosexuals want access to boy scouts?

I'm really rather offended by this one.

I am a Scout leader (not a boy Scout leader, we've been co-educational for more than half of our 102 year existence but hey ho, don't let facts stop you, eh?) and a homosexual. I don't do it to "access" the boys or the girls.. I do it to help my local community.

We are a small group (c50 members or so), but the difference we make to those childrens' lives is amazing. I have every confidence in every single one of the leaders in the Group I manage.

I can ignore the 18th century views of being a "pervert" and a "queer" and a "shirtlifter" and whatever else you want to call me - I'm a bigger person than that (or you). But that is far too far over the line.

Get a grip.

18 March 2010 at 19:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Have you been subjected to a Criminal Records Bureau Check?

Have you sent a letter to their parents?

18 March 2010 at 19:22  
Blogger Grogipher said...

I don't live in England or Wales, but have the equivalent, yes.

Most of the parents are aware - I don't hide it. It's their decision if they want me to take their children away or not.

18 March 2010 at 19:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...


I would want to know if my boy's scout leader is a homo-sexual.

18 March 2010 at 19:24  
Anonymous Katie said...

If the 'enlightened' Government agencies are serious about 'enabling' same-sex couples adopt children, there was a much simpler way of going about it, and that was to get better at finding homes for them. It's only because they haven't the expertise to do it themselves that they rely on my Church to do it for them. This is about causing a row, not achieving 'gay rights'; if gay people want to adopt seriously disabled or disturbed children who have seen things you and I can't begin to imagine, or family groups of 6 (these are the sorts of 'difficult' cases that Catholic Care take on) then they can get in first by approaching their local council's adoption service, thus 'depriving' Catholic Care of it's ability to 'discriminate' against them.

On a lighter note, just got back from Tesco, now looking at a Smarties Easter Egg which is going to be included in a raffle at our local school. The proceeds will be going to Catholic Care; how apposite was today's post?

18 March 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger Grogipher said...

That's your prerogative.

Most of my parents are more enlightened. I've never had an issue with my sexuality in Scouting.

I do wonder though, what difference it would make. Across my district there are many gay leaders.

18 March 2010 at 19:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Please explain why the minority of parents are not aware?

At the risk of repetition have you sent a letter to all parents stating that as a homo-sexual you have access to their son?

18 March 2010 at 19:27  
Blogger English Viking said...


If a man has sex with a man, he is a homosexual. If he then goes on to abuse a child, regardless of sex, he is a peadophile as well .

You're not suggesting that it is not possible for a paedophile to be a homosexual, are you?

Your links to so called evidence of the benefits of sexually deviant parents are refuted by:

and at:


18 March 2010 at 19:27  
Blogger Grogipher said...

No I have not sent any letter to the parents to inform them of any of my leaders' sexualities. That's a private matter for them.

If a parent of any of the boys or girls (I have more female Scouts than male Scouts at the moment) have a problem, they can take it up with my leaders, their superior (me) or indeed the Commissioner.

None of them have done so.

18 March 2010 at 19:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Grogipher said: 'I've never had an issue with my sexuality in Scouting.'

We parents do.

Declare in public that you have informed all parents, that as a homo-sexual you have access to their son.

18 March 2010 at 19:31  
Blogger Grogipher said...

And you speak for every single parent in the country do you?

Arrogance. It's not attractive. The vast majority of the Scottish/British public do not share your views, in my experience.

Declare in public that you have informed all parents

I will not do this, as it is not true.

And do you really insist on being so misogynistic? Should I not inform the female Scouts' parents?

18 March 2010 at 19:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mssrs D. Singh & English Viking

Please be kind to Mr Grogipher. He is a most welcome communicant to His Grace's blog of intelligent and erudite comment upon matters religio-political.

It is curious that you would feel the need to pry into the sexual preferences of a scout leader who would be obliged by statute to have undergone all the necessary checks to ensure child safety.

Paedophilia is manifestly not synonymous with homosexuality, and the suggestion that the latter somehow implies the former is unneccesarily offensive. His Grace is sure you will agree that it is a little like suggesting that all confirmed batchelors are gay.

Mr Dreadnaught,

You write:

"There is an amazing amount of crude biogtry on this forum that comes from purported Christians, falling over themselves like hyenas to attack without intelligence, anyone perceived as 'different' from themselves.

"They know who they are and care little if they drag this site down to their gutter level. Maybe His Grace doesn't care about reading responses once he has posted his chosen topic - who knows?"

His Grace cares very much actually.

But he prefers robust argument to censorship.

If, however, there is something you consider to be gratuitously offensive, please let His Grace know.

18 March 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Your homo-sexuality is not a private matter - parents are allowed to assess risk to thier children.

They are not your children.

In any event your position conceals your homo-sexuality: you should blow the whistle and demand ree-cognition.

And then let all parents decide the risk you pose to thier children.

18 March 2010 at 19:41  
Anonymous BenHal said...

Reading some of the hateful attitudes on here, I wouldn't let a child near most of you. Polluting a young mind with the brainwashing fairy tales you people spout IS child abuse. Writing lies about homosexuals does not make your case any stronger, after all it is blatantly obvious that if Jesus did exist, he was clearly gay, surrounded by all those single men.

18 March 2010 at 19:42  
Blogger Grogipher said...

So what should I else should I tell them?

My political views? My job history? My educational record? A full criminal check of any or all of my acquaintances? Where do you draw the line? Why is my religion a private matter, but not my sexuality?

I do not understand how I "conceal" my homosexuality. It is not hidden from anyone. Somewhat ironically I am not "forcing it down people's throats", as is often a complaint of the LGBT community. It seems we cannot win. If we don't mention it, we are in the wrong, and if we do mention it, we are making a fuss over nothing.

I do not pose any risk to any children. I will not ask the blog owner to remove any of these accusations, because I believe in the uttermost right to freedom of speech and expression, but I would politely ask you refrain from such accusations.

18 March 2010 at 19:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You state: 'It is curious that you would feel the need to pry into the sexual preferences of a scout leader who would be obliged by statute to have undergone all the necessary checks to ensure child safety.'

He has already declared his homo-sexuality.

Further, he has declared, without prompting, that he has access to boys.

Moreover, he has not declared to which jurisdiction he falls under.

18 March 2010 at 19:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

One further point: he has not informed all parents that as a homo-sexual he has access to thier children.

He needs to be Out, Loud and Proud - he's afraid.

18 March 2010 at 19:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Grogipher said, 'Most of my parents are more enlightened.'

No they are not.

'Most' of your parents have not been told that a homo-sexual has access to their sons.

18 March 2010 at 19:55  
Blogger Grogipher said...

as a homo-sexual he has access to thier children

I don't have access to their children because I happen to be gay - what an odd choice of words.

I am not embarrassed nor am I ashamed nor am I afraid of my sexual orientation. Depending on your belief structure or sociological standpoint it is either how I was born or made or brought up or whatever. I just stick to what I know - the truth - and trust in my fellow human beings. I'm sorry if that offends you.

And Mr Singh, I said that most are aware. I do not feel the need to give everyone I meet a full record of my sexual history, as I would not expect to hear yours.

18 March 2010 at 19:58  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Oh Lord help us all!
This is all about selfishness.
Can any of you remember being a little child at primary school? Can you remember being taunted and singled out for ridicule for some slight difference that the others perceived about you?
Do you think it will be any different now for a child that is brought up by two men, or two women?
Children with stable homes and a mother and father have moral strength that comes from the self-restraint and moral example of their parents. This is the ideal.
We all fall short of it to a greater or lesser extent, but that does not diminish its value or its desirability.
To promote something that is clearly less than ideal as being equivalent to that ideal is perverse, morally defective and cruel.
One asks oneself why anyone would want to do that to children, to our people and to our future.

18 March 2010 at 19:59  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Watcha you bloody squabblers - how's that for robust debate? It's all a huge homosexula conspiracy orchestrated by the Jews I reckon. They are taking over the world...who else can travel around offin people willy nilly?

18 March 2010 at 20:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr EViking

I dont think I have Made a great issue of the figures or assertions you offer. I really think that the subject is way too complicated to be addressed by simplistc generalisations. Maybe you are right, I don't know enough to engage in any sort of constructive dialogue.

I do find certain matters a turn off when instead of measured argument and debate some of the exchanges descend into nothing more than grossly distorted characterisation and insults.

I simply find it unnecessarily offensive and counter productive to use terminology that deflects from what may well be a valid argument and turns it into pure bigotry.

18 March 2010 at 20:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recall being told at a child protection seminar that 96% of all abusers are family members.
It would be reasonable to assume then, that a child is at far more risk from its parents than from a gay youth worker.
I find many of the views expressed here bigoted, narrow minded, and above all very unchristian.

18 March 2010 at 20:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Grogipher states: 'I do not feel the need to give everyone I meet a full record of my sexual history, as I would not expect to hear yours.'

When we hetrosexuals get married: we do declare in public for all the world to witness.

Now will you declare in a public forum: that you will declare that as a homos-sexual you will inform the parents of your charges that you have access to their children?

I think you are afraid to be Out, Loud and Proud.

18 March 2010 at 20:05  
Anonymous Simon said...

D. Singh

My URLs all direct to abstracts of published scientific journals in support of my last paragraph.

English Viking

There doesn't seem to be anything at your first link- just a bio of an author.

Second link seems to support my argument.....

The anti-gay activists' characterization of the body of research on gay parents as flawed is baseless. More to the point, they fail to produce any studies supporting the contrary position that lesbians and gay men are less capable parents or that their children are disadvantaged in any way. Those who do claim to have such studies are referring to the work of Paul Cameron. As discussed in Chapter 4, Cameron, who runs the anti-gay advocacy organization, the Family Research Institute, has been thoroughly discredited in his profession for distorting the data on homosexuality.

Your third link is a mashed together screed by someone who cannot interpret peer-reviewed data correctly. Is the paper you link to a peer-reviewed scientific journal - it doesn't seem so.

Of course, I acknowledge that male paedophiles abuse children of the same sex - but this is a function of being a paedophile, not (specifically) of being homosexual.

In terms of the stats you quote - I note the author of the original report is Robert A. J. Gagnon who is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary - so, not an an actual scientific researcher then. Also, they only refer to Illinois for the period 1997-2002 and included only 270 perpetrators. That sample is far far too small a sample to draw the sweeping conclusions you have.

18 March 2010 at 20:06  
Blogger Grogipher said...

When I have my Civil Partnership, I will inform the world, don't you fret.

I will not waste our limited resources however, informing my childrens' parents that I am attracted to other adult males however. It is irrelevant to my appointment. I think that they know I look after their children - why would I tell them that? That would be somewhat crazy.

18 March 2010 at 20:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then Mr Simon why does the British government disagree with you?

18 March 2010 at 20:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Grogipher states: 'I will not waste our limited resources...[to inform all parents]....

In other words he is saying, 'I will conceal my homo-sexuality from the parents I have assessed who might withdraw their children from my supervsion.'

Further, at some point in the future he may declare in public his homo-sexuality in a disgusting parody of marriage.

18 March 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger ukbrumboy said...

I am appalled to see such manipulation of the figures.

In an equal society, where all points of view are held to be of equal value... why do we see the majority of posts on here revolving around Man on Boy paedophilia...

Surely there is equal chance of a heterosexual molestation (i.e. Man on Girl and Woman on Boy) and for that reason, should all heterosexual men be forced to declare their interest in "having access" to your daughters?

If straight men do not have to send out letters declaring their sexuality, why should gay men have to?

If straight women do not have to send out letters declaring their sexuality, why should gay women have to?

As for the homosexuality figures... I think you'll find the average in all studies conducted lies at about 9% with the extremes being as low as 2% of population and as high as 20% of the population.

Oh... and the old crap about it being against nature...

18 March 2010 at 20:13  
Anonymous BenHal said...

Blogger D. Singh said...

"I think you are afraid to be Out, Loud and Proud."

and I think you're a bigot and an uneducated fool. It's never too late to learn but sadly your sort always seem stuck in the middle ages.

18 March 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Benhal

I am encouraging the homo-sexual to be Out, Loud and Proud.

18 March 2010 at 20:16  
Blogger Grogipher said...

There is no rhyme nor reason for who knows or who doesn't. If they ask, or work it out themselves, or if it happens to come up in conversation, or if someone else mentions it, then they'll know. I do not obfuscate or hide the truth, nor do I mince around like a fairy pushing it into people's faces.

I'm just a 22 year old man, trying to give something positive back into one of the communities of my city. If you find that disgusting, that's up to you. Does your Saviour not teach you to turn the other cheek? To look after your own affairs rather than pry into a private matter between me and a group of parents?

18 March 2010 at 20:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You homosexuals are caught.

On the one hand you want to blow the whistle and attract recognition.

On the other you know that the majority of parents will withdraw their children from your supervision.

Either way: you're caught.

18 March 2010 at 20:21  
Blogger Grogipher said...

I'm going to stop replying to unfounded statements.

I have never met a parent that has had a problem with my sexuality. I have never seen an example of a parent removing their child after they have "found out".

If you would remove your child for this reason, you are merely letting your child lose out on more of their childhood. You might as well just not allow them out of the house - there are homosexuals and adulterers and even Socialists and Muslims out there!

Oh noez.

I'm glad we agree on something though - it is very difficult for members of the LGBT community to find a balance that society finds acceptable between being too secretive and too open. I welcome the fact that you admit this problem for us.

18 March 2010 at 20:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'I have never met a parent that has had a problem with my sexuality.'

That is because you are afraid to inform all parents.

18 March 2010 at 20:28  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Please do not tell me what I am or am not afraid of. You cannot know.

I am not afraid of the truth. Scouts' honour, eh?

18 March 2010 at 20:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then inform all parents.

Tell us all you are not afraid of that.

18 March 2010 at 20:30  
Anonymous Simon said...

Here's a nice refutation of the Cameron/Gagnon papers - both of which have entirely flawed methodologies:

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.


The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

18 March 2010 at 20:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Simon

From English Viking:

'Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester. These figures are from the Psychological Reports, 1986, pp. 327-37.'

I think you are a Thicko.

18 March 2010 at 20:36  
Anonymous Simon said...

Yes, D. Singh.... and? I have just linked to multiple articles that discredit not just the methodologies in these studies, but the authors themselves. Cameron can't get published anywhere apparently, because of the BS in his papers about gay people.

Interesting that you have nothing to say on the actual peer-reviewed science!

18 March 2010 at 20:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

'Are you not entertained?



Maximus, The Gladiator

[After all, if St Paul could fight beasts as a gladiator in Ephesus - then we can do so here.]

18 March 2010 at 20:44  
Anonymous len said...

It is debatable in my opinion whether a homosexual couple can provide a long term stable environment for children.I know there will be exceptions to this! Homosexual rights advocates claim that the lifestyle of the practicing homosexual is healthy and harms no one. The facts however seem to say otherwise. The question of whether or not homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle can be firstly addressed by examining the issue of promiscuity. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as “relatively monogamous” or “relatively less promiscuous.” Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers (Bell & Weinberg, 1978). Just a few years after the publication of this report, Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: “The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months.” (Isaacson, 1983) In contrast with this, “the average heterosexual male has – throughout his life – from five to nine sex partners.” (Gudel, 2005).

18 March 2010 at 20:45  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Far from motivating understanding religion it seems, simply promotes hatred, since most here seem to justify their prejudice by allying it to some religious injunction. Or maybe it is their own perversion that attracts them to religion in the first place. To an atheist this is simply more evidence that religion corrupts because it removes from the individual the need to subject their own views to rational, objective scrutiny.

I am not 100% comfortable with Gay adoption but when I look at the state of “conventional” parenting it is clear to me that homosexual men and women can make good and loving parents and that many heterosexual’s do not.

My conclusion is that this practice should be allowed and that to deny it is unfair. If any agency that is currently involved in adoption discriminates against homosexuals wishing to adopt it is no different than discriminating against a black or deaf couple wishing to do the same and therefore that agency should be excluded from offering that service.

To discriminate on the grounds of religious belief is worse than any other form of discrimination since religion claims some moral authority. As the Catholic child abuse scandal and many comments to this blog has confirmed, religion has nothing to do with morality, rather it is simply a method of justifying prejudice. Shame on those who continue to support it.

18 March 2010 at 21:16  
Blogger English Viking said...


Note the difference between the prepositions 'by' and 'at'.

If a study is to be discounted because it is conducted by a Christian organisation, the same should be true of a pro-homosexual organisation.

Your Grace,

I shall be profoundly grateful if you could seperate your requests for my moderation from those addressed to others, as a casual reading may lead one to believe that I have said things which can only be attributed to others. I have made no enquiries as to anybody's sexual predilections. Thank you.

With regard to the 'all gays are paedos' thing, If you look at my original post I went to great lengths to make the point that this is not so. It is, however, a fact borne out by the arrest figures and subsequent psychological evaluations of the arrestees, that there really is a very significant occurrence of paedophilia in the gay community, compared to the straight, pro-rata.

You imply that I am unkind. It is always a kindness to tell the truth.

PS To all concerned. It is not now, nor has it ever been, 'un-Christian' to have an aversion to homosexuality and it's insidious effect on society. cf Romans 1

18 March 2010 at 21:16  
Blogger English Viking said...


You are entitled to your opinions, Sir, as I am mine.

18 March 2010 at 21:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

May it please Your Grace, this humble wretch thanks him for His most munificent interjection.

18 March 2010 at 21:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Viking - I raise my hat to you.

18 March 2010 at 21:34  
Anonymous Simon said...

English Viking

The papers I have linked to that support my argument are from respected Child Development journals, not pro-gay organisations - though I take your point.

See the link to the UC Davies article - which clearly states

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children".

Greg Herek, the author, is widely respected in his field. You can find other papers he has published here:

18 March 2010 at 21:42  
Blogger English Viking said...


Rainbow? In the address?

Gregory Herek impartial? You are joking, right?

Surely you see my point?

18 March 2010 at 22:42  
Anonymous Simon said...

Not really EV, no.

Rainbow in the URL, so what?!

Herek's papers are published in respected journals and are independently and anonymously peer-reviewed. They use tried and tested statistical methods; verified for validity and internal reliability by independent researchers over many decades.

Both Cameron and Gagon's papers use methods that are so blatantly un-scientific, they are laughable. A sample of just 270 people in one State extrapolated to be representative of the whole population 300 million+! Sorry, that just doesn't wash.

Cameron is a hack - publishing crap to support his own views. As for Herek being impartial, all I can say is it's very very unlikely he would be published in American Psychologist without knowing what he was talking about. His biography alone speaks volumes about his professionalism.

The three papers I linked to in my first comment showing there was no difference in Psychosocial outcomes for children parented by Gay people are from "The Journal of Child Development" x 2 and "Development" - these are held in the highest regard in their fields. I'm sorry, but on any rational basis there is no comparison.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. Best Wishes.

18 March 2010 at 23:12  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I always understood that the Christian attitude to homosexuality was that it is a sin like any other. We do not hate homosexuals and those that do are not Christians (by definition). We are offended not by them as sinners (we are all sinners after all), but their ruthless campaign to justify it to the rest of us and indoctrinate our children into thinking that it is not immoral. No group that tries to justify sin is as vitriolic as the homosexual lobby. A man that commits adultery or pre-marital sex is just as bad as a practiser of homosexual acts, yet he does not try to turn the public into supporting his acts and condemning anyone who questions it.

18 March 2010 at 23:16  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

We consider that homosexuality is immoral because it is...
1. Dangerous
A fantastic way to spread STDs is through buggery, either straight or otherwise. The epithelium of the intestinal tract is one cell thick, necessary for it's primary function as an absorber of nutrients and water. It is easily torn as it is not designed to withstand much stress. Comparably, the vagina of a female is around 40 cells thick(if I remember rightly) as it is designed to withstand the trauma of sex and birth. In the Old Testament, any disease was serious business as medicine wasn't far advanced (hence rules on eating pork and shellfish and other relatively dangerous foodstuffs). This is still relevant now, however, as STDs are still easy to acquire and are difficult to treat (i.e. AIDS, hepatitus etc.). Durex refuse to test condoms in this area as they consider it too dangerous; also, the NHS will not allow homosexuals to give blood, as they are so vulnerable to blood infections. I know this argument doesn't deal with all forms of the perverted acts, but the others can be covered below.
2. Immoral
Despite the unsupported and (frankly) completely misleading and uneducated (read ignorant/bigoted/prejudiced) opinions of the homosexual and atheist lobbies, the attitude of Christians towards the homosexual are not as simple as 'The Bible says so, so there!' In Christian morality, sex is considered not dirty or wrong, but sacred. It is an act for which we were designed for. When two oppositely sexed people are married, they become one person (which is closer to our asexual God). The sexual act has two purposes; to express the union of man and woman in love; to pro-create. If either purpose is ignored, it generally leads to a degenerate form of sex and relationships that are irresponsible, hedonistic and based around sex rather than love. Hence I support the Catholic church's position of contraception ('if you don't want children, then don't have sex' would be a rather better message to children than our current educational nonsense)

18 March 2010 at 23:17  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

You'll note that I've not covered the original post up until now. This is because, I feel, that certain things need to be cleared up before any real discussion can occur between homosexuals and Christians. I will now apply this general moral idea (from above) to our current debate.
The role of parents is to protect, educate and instil moral discipline into their children (amongst other things). A pair of homosexuals may provide an education for their adoptive children (as the poster showed earlier), but they will not be able to instil a sense of morality and discipline which is responsible about sex. Homosexual sex is superfluous as it is unproductive, irresponsible and motivated by lust. One could maintain a chaste male relationship which would not be immoral, but this rarely, if ever happens. This is because homosexuality is a culture based around sex and lust. Anyway, one's parents are one's perfect role models: we all take attitudes, opinions, and morality from our parents, whether we wish to or not. In today's society, divorce and unmarried parents are commonplace. I consider that homosexuals could make almost as good parents as them (losing out only on lack of a male or female role model) as both hetero and homo relationships of that ilk see sex and sexuality in the same corrupt manner (for the pleasure of the self). This is not a model of love that will bode well for society. In my opinion, neither homosexuals, nor unmarried (sexually active) couples should be actively put in charge of children, as they do not provide a family model (of parents who truly love each other) that is beneficial to society.

I noticed that in the above post I wrote that Christians consider homosexuality immoral because it is immoral. It should read 'we believe homosexuality is wrong because...'

18 March 2010 at 23:20  
Blogger Grogipher said...


On point one - the rules of eating pork and such in the Old Testament were changed, and are now not followed by modern Christians.

Does this mean that once we can cure AIDS, the Church will accept sodomy?

18 March 2010 at 23:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Fair point, though I did state below that point why it is immoral as well (in essence, danger is another reason why you shouldn't do it outside of the various moral issues). Morality doesn't change I'm afraid, even in the new Covenant. What I was trying to do (cack-handedly) was show a reason for the seemingly harsh attitude towards homosexual acts in the Old Testament, and how they were based on both practical and moral issues (the latter of which is still very relevant).
I'm afraid buggery will always be dangerous. Even though you may cure, (or partly cure) the diseases they are always a present threat (hepatitis may be cured but you'll still need a new liver); not to mention the other nasty physical side effects.
If you can accept, like the true un-judgemental Christian (the existence of which is far more common than you might think), that you are a sinner in need of repentance and salvation, then there is no reason why you cannot enter into communion with the Lord. Your inclination towards homosexuality equates to mine towards heterosexuality; it is how you act on it that is right or wrong. All sin is equal, so you shouldn't think that we mean to judge you more harshly than we do ourselves. After all, if I lust after a girl, I am as guilty as one who lusts after a man.

18 March 2010 at 23:44  
Anonymous len said...


The church may accept sodomy,God has made his views perfectly clear.

When God created the earth he created physical laws also spiritual laws.
One of the spiritual laws is the law of sin and death.You can see this in effect worldwide,you may deny it,but it is a reality.
Now if you break this spiritual law(one of many ) there will price to pay.
To give an imperfect example the electricity company puts up a pylon carrying 10,000 volts and places a notice on it saying don`t touch.Along comes joe and says " how dare the electricity company tell me how to live my life if I want to touch that pylon I will".

The bottom line is God is not mocked mocked.He gave us instructions for US about how to live our lives ,what would bless us and what would curse us.

God also gave us the means to change, he will(if we let Him)pull us out of our fallen condition and breath new Life into us.

18 March 2010 at 23:52  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Agreed. When God created moral law, he didn't do it to impose needless restrictions on us. Even the Levitican laws were there for the benefit of Israel and the fulfilment of his promise to save us. Grogipher, when you see a moral law in the Bible (or interpreted through 5000 years of theological reasoning) that you disagree with, try to see it from the point of view of a God who wishes his subjects happiness and fulfilment, not hardship. Sometimes dwelling deeper on these issues, rather than observing and judging the superficial, can lead to a deeper knowledge of how to improve your happiness and the happiness of others, and will help you understand the nature of your creator.

19 March 2010 at 00:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Re: Mssrs D. Singh & English Viking

I feel that your intervention in this debate was a tad unfair. After all the left-liberals persistently, without justification, constantly attempt to associate those of us who oppose the practice of homosexuality as the moral equivalent of racists.

That wretch Ms Dreadnaught and that socialist Mr Davis are the chief trouble-makers on this message board.

Why just look at her obsequious and fawning manner as if she just wants to touch the hem of your garment!

19 March 2010 at 08:12  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

It seems to me that all of this is just a matter of who gets to bugger the children,wether it is the catholic priest,the rainbow sodomite or any other pervert that our society is awash with.We are told that this deviant sexual practise is healthy,and that it is quite normal for an "adult"male to parade himself along our streets,dressed as a schoolgirl,or a prospective labour party candidate to solicit for sex in the toilets of reading railway station,and never a mention of ones immortal soul,the divine spark that seperates us from the beast,man grows from the restrain and control of his animal nature,not the wholesale indulgence in it,for desire can never be satisfied,it just produces more extreme attempts to gratify it,and because most sodomites are wracked with guilt,they wish to force society to sanction it and alliveate thier torment,this is more of a mental disease that a question of whos rights trump whos.Let a father be a father,a son ,a son, a wife a wife,a daughter a daughter,then all of the relationships will be in order and society will flourish.

19 March 2010 at 09:12  
Blogger English Viking said...


You are entirely correct, Sir.

19 March 2010 at 10:52  
Anonymous LapsedAgnostic said...

I have waded through 91 comments and am disappointed to have found no rabid anti-Catholic conspiracy theories.

If Catholic adoption agencies are allowed an exemption then many putting children up for adoption, who do not want them to go to the home of a homosexual couple, will use those agencies, and so many children will be brought up in that religion who otherwise would not be.

Unless I remember wrongly, the Blairs and other leading Labour Catholics, while supporting the passage of the bill, wanted such an exemption on religious grounds clearly written into it at the time but were not successful.

19 March 2010 at 16:12  
Blogger andy said...

Grogipher said...

"assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population"

Erm, I think you'd find the real figure to be nearer 20% than 2%.


Even Stonewall seem to suggest that the proportion of homosexuals is roughly equivalent to that of those who attend church regularly. That is far closer to the 2% figure - though there are probably more of the latter than the former.

As for others' suggestions that it is better to place children in a same-sex 'family' than leave them in care - we need to remember that actually the care option may well be better than the same-sex option, as there is usually a better gender balance of carers.

19 March 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous Simon said...

As for others' suggestions that it is better to place children in a same-sex 'family' than leave them in care - we need to remember that actually the care option may well be better than the same-sex option, as there is usually a better gender balance of carers.

...and as I keep pointing out, "Gender balance" of primary carers seems to have no effect on Psychosocial & educational outcomes for Children - so you'd rather they were in institutional care, than in a proper home, which for all intents and purposes is the same with Gay carers to maintain some fictional 'balance'.

Aye, I can see you're putting these children's welfare above your own dogma, right there.

19 March 2010 at 19:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

What happened to moral liberty, such freedom as is essential to render a person responsible for what he does, or omits to do.

20 March 2010 at 08:47  
Anonymous Septimus said...

This is an extremely depressing post.The most depressing aspect is the utter selfishness of gays who want to adopt children. I wish they would consider what it feels like to have gay parents in a society that mainly condemns it.
Life is a hard road without adding these complications.There are decent gays who would never consider marriage or adopting children,particularly because it is part of the heterosexual domain and they are not interested in anyway.

20 March 2010 at 09:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed. I hate those indecent gays who want to give children in difficult conditions a loving home.

As someone who grew up in care myself, I would much rather have been raised by 2 dads or mums in a loving home than live in the conditions in which I lived.

20 March 2010 at 18:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older