Monday, November 01, 2010

Can we render sexual ethics unto Ceasar?

Meet Owen and Eunice Johns, who are today having their case heard in the High Court sitting at Nottingham Crown Court.

They are not terrorists, murderers, thieves or drug dealers.

They are Pentecostal Christians whose beliefs are deemed to be antithetical to the effective fostering of children.

It appears that if a homosexual couple wish to foster or adopt, they may do so without let or hindrance.

And if this couple wishes to inculcate anti-Christian (or any other religion) doctrine or induct those children into a way of life which is consistent and harmonious with their same-sex domestic arrangements, they may do so with impunity.

But a Christian couple who happen to believe in the superiority of heterosexuality are apparently barred from fostering children, presumably because they might wish to inculcate children with an understanding of 'sin' and sexual ethics which is consistent with the traditions of the Church and the teaching of Scripture.

Those who support Mr & Mrs Johns hope that this case might set a precedent for the rights of Christians to foster children without having to compromise their faith.

Those who oppose them hope, once and for all, that the religious bigots will be prevented from religious child abuse and their insidious doctrine will be expunged from the public sphere once and for all.

It is all, of course, a logical consequence of Labour’s equality legislation, by which 'gay rights' now trump the rights of Christians.

In an open letter, senior Church of England bishops have intervened in this case. They include Lord Carey, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt (Bishop of Winchester); the Rt Rev Peter Forster (Bishop of Chester); and the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali (former Bishop of Rochester). They write:

The High Court is to be asked to rule on whether Christians are “fit people” to adopt or foster children – or whether they will be excluded, regardless of the needs of children, from doing so because of the requirements of homosexual rights.

Research clearly establishes that children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship.

The supporters of homosexual rights cannot be allowed to suppress all disagreement or disapproval, and “coerce silence”.
According to the summary in The Daily Mail, Eunice and Owen Johns have fostered almost 20 children over the years but were rejected by Derby City Council 'because they would never tell children a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable'.

Mrs Johns said: ‘The council said: “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?”

‘But I said I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that.’

And so Derby Council deemed them to be 'homophobic'.

It is curious, is it not, that discrimination on the grounds of religion preceded Labour's 'gay equality' legislation by seven years.

And yet it remains quite acceptable for foster carers to criticise orthodox Christian beliefs (and those of any other religion), but foster carers may not hold a critical view on homosexuality.

Why is it acceptable for Christian foster carers to teach children that extra-marital sex is wrong, but these same carers may not pass any judgement upon homosexual practice?

Since civil partnership is not marriage, it would appear to be something of a contradiction to permit one ethical teaching whilst prohibiting the other.

If today local authorities are declared omnipotent in deciding that Christians are barred from caring for the the most vulnerable children in our society, and that decision is made solely on an issue of sexual morality, then Caesar has extended his brief.

In the Mail, there is a quotation from Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights charity Stonewall. He said: "Too often in fostering cases nowadays it’s forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter."

Quite.

So why should the best interests of the child be subsumed to the prejudices of those who insist that 'equality' should come free with every condom?

56 Comments:

Blogger Span Ows said...

Once again what could be best for - in the interests of - the child, is sacrificed to the graven image and false Gods of 'equality'.

1 November 2010 at 12:00  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Astonishing!
Why are homosexuals so touchy (so to speak)?

On the other hand, these evangelical Christians seem determined to provoke them by portraying them as especially sinful.

If you want to promote 'equality' and comply with the Labour legislation, I suggest that Christians should tell the truth: we are all equally mired in sin and without our repentance and acceptance of the Saving Grace of Christ we all (no matter who we are or what our practice) stand in mortal peril every minute of every day.

1 November 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

We're exhorted from Scripture to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. However, the early Christians refused render to Caesar the worship that he (i.e. the embodiment of the Roman State) demanded - and they paid for it very dearly.

There comes a time when the imposed and legally codified values of the State are so perverted that it is impossible for Christians to obey them because their biblical values are subversive to those of the State. At what point is the Christian Church of this country going to make a stand against this? Sooner or later this is going to be necessary.

1 November 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Manfarang said...

There's nowt so queer as folk.

1 November 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Leaving aside for a moment the moral & spiritual dimensions of this case, it is stupefying that apparently educated men can pass such laws & that society in the shape of councils & adoption societies can uphold them without question. Even Ben Summerskill & Peter Tatchell have recognised the inconsistencies in these ridiculous laws.
As history has proved, when the state supports & encourages mankind to act without restraint, then eventually that state will collapse & either anarchy or a dictatorship will rule. upon reflection, perhaps that is the hidden adenda set forth from our would be masters in Belgium.

1 November 2010 at 12:31  
Anonymous Whitestone said...

If the agencies were not agenda-blinded, they would look at the evidence in research, CDC statistics, police reports, clinical medicine and mental health practice, they might even attend a 'pride parade,' and visit a few 'gay' websites and bars, streets and hang-outs.

These persons would then reasonably conclude that homosex is not a healthy or stable lifestyle, nor is it an environment that is suitable for rearing children.

However, "There is none so blind as those who will not see." The refusal to stand up for what is true, good and healthy, rather than what people feel and want results in such foolishness as the recent decision of Scottish police - who plan to prosecute anyone who objects and interferes with homosexual anal and oral sex acts in public parks.

1 November 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous Whitestone said...

PS - I do not claim that all hetersexual couples' relationships are healthy or good for rearing children. There are many ways for even Christians to wound children early on...even unborn children.

A life of repentance, humility, faithfulness, mutual submission and accountability, forgiveness, love, truth and respect for human life, adherence to the Word and Commandments of God, abiding in Christ, bearing the fruit of the Spirit certainly produces the best parents and safest homes. People sincerely dedicated to being conformed to the mind and transformed to the likeness of Christ make the best parents, homes and church. There are many pitfalls, but God helps and gives grace to the humble.

1 November 2010 at 12:55  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I really do get tired of reading about the poor Homosexuals in our society not being given a break. I will repeat yet again what I believe. Homosexuality is NOT NORMAL, so to treat it as so is wrong. Homosexuals do need to be shown compassion and tolerance in society but not equal status as Heterosexuality( a word that shouldn't really exist as it is a counter to something that is abnormal)

There is too much promotion of Homosexuality in society,(Gay pride rallies are an abomination) and not enough of Christian Morality.

Rant over.

1 November 2010 at 13:35  
Blogger steve said...

Going to a Christian church is always presented by the left as a minority issue.

Yet more people attend Anglican services on any given Sunday than are active members of any of three main parties by a good few hundred thousand.

And that isn't including the non-conformists, Romans, Orthodox churches.

1 November 2010 at 13:49  
Anonymous Septimus said...

In the German Nazi era, the state
pronounced that Jews were subhuman.Decent families had to tell their children it was a lie and that they had to keep quiet about it or suffer dire consequences.Same situation as far as I am concerned.
This is not the time to express honest beliefs to government officials.It is unfortunate to think one has to conduct oneself as in a wartime situation, but this is the reality for Christians as it was once for the Jews of Europe.

1 November 2010 at 14:06  
Anonymous RobTab said...

Knee jerk flavour of the month laws passed by arrogant men always end up depriving or persecuting the innocent. King Darius of ancient Medo-Persia did such a thing then quickly regretted such a thing, when he had to throw the only politician/lawyer/leader with any integrity into the Den of Lions.

1 November 2010 at 14:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**Why is it acceptable for Christian foster carers to teach children that extra-marital sex is wrong, but these same carers may not pass any judgement upon homosexual practice?**

Because one is a choice and one is genetic.

You are free to disagree with that, but that is my answer.

Not that i think this has any relevence to their fitness to adopt, not unless you are going to start rounding up all the kids of parents who preach such.

1 November 2010 at 14:09  
Blogger Gordon said...

This case actually goes back to 2008 but appears to have been "stoked up" by the Christian Legal Centre. It has also been misreported as relating to fostering when this couple actually applied to provide short term respite care (for 5 to 10 year olds).

The issue here is not the couples beliefs, but whether they would tell a homosexual child their orientation was wrong.

The question you have to ask is how likely that issue would be to arise in the provision of respite care to 5 to 10 year olds. Clearly it wouldn't, but the Christian Legal Centre needs cases to promote and we can never be sure of how far their involvement has gone or how they have advised these people.

There are large numbers of Christians who are foster parents. Clearly they are not being prevented from doing so, so there must be something special about this case.

1 November 2010 at 14:15  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

Morality is doing what's right no matter what you are told.

Religion is doing what you are told no matter what's right.

1 November 2010 at 14:18  
Anonymous Anna B. said...

Conditions caused genetically and the resultant behaviors are not necessarily healthy or Scriptural, exempted or considered beyond our responsibility or blame-free in God's Book.

Take alcoholism, for one. Statistics and gene studies have shown there is a hereditary, cultural and/or spiritual component. Native Americans have a large incidence of alcoholism and inability to drink 'responsibly'.

That does not mean God condones or exempts alcohol addiction or the harmful (to self and others) that result from being drunken state.

God only forbids what harms His beloved children.

Moreover, there is no conclusive proof that homosex feelings are inherited.

Sexual response is a conditioned response. Same-sex attraction is also conditioned by modeling, environment, relational and interactive traumatic events that cause a disruption and disorientation of the identity or self-identification process.

Yet, not all of our conditioned feelings, behaviors and responses are approved by God in Scripture. Who are we to think we know better than God, anyway?

Homosex behaviors, relationships and lifestyle are statistically not stable or healthy. Scripture states they are holy (set apart), affirmed and approved by God. God never approves what harms us. Sin could be translated 'harm' - to self and others.

1 November 2010 at 14:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**exempted or considered beyond our responsibility or blame-free in God's Book.**

Well, yea.

But they are not going by your book.

**statistically**

People are not statistics.

1 November 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Anonymous at 13.09.
If it's 'genetic' (whatever that may mean) why do there appear to be so many more homosexual men about these days than fifty years ago?

And just because 'it's genetic' (by which I suppose you mean inherent to human nature?) doesn't make it good, or absolve the person involved from responsibility for his actions - as you seem to imply.
It's 'genetic' to be angry and threatening, or violent, but we still punish the wrongdoer for the consequences.

I can't think I've read a dafter explanation for the toleration, even promotion, of homosexuality.

1 November 2010 at 14:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I can’t see on which civil law Derby County Council has based its decision upon. The law that they could base it on is not due to come into effect until April 2011 (the Equality Act 2010).

The Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 only apply in the employment context.

It seems that this a decision based upon policy and therefore open to judicial review upon the ground of maladministration (not negative discrimination).

1 November 2010 at 15:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If it's 'genetic' (whatever that may mean) why do there appear to be so many more homosexual men about these days than fifty years ago?"

Because 50 years ago it was illegal and they had to hide in the closet to escape bigots like you.

1 November 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**If it's 'genetic' (whatever that may mean) why do there appear to be so many more homosexual men about these days than fifty years ago?**

Why make such an argument when you know what the response will be, you set yourself up for failure.

Because it was illegal 50 years ago.

**I can't think I've read a dafter explanation for the toleration, even promotion, of homosexuality.**

Being black skinned is genetic, by saying so am i promoting black skin, stop being daft.

**It's 'genetic' to be angry and threatening, or violent, but we still punish the wrongdoer for the consequences.**

Really, comparing being gay as a flaw like being violent or angry. Is it any wonder you are loosing this argument in the mainstream?

1 November 2010 at 16:05  
Anonymous Oswin said...

It is amazing, how soon after the debates concerning the 'fitness of homosexuals to adopt' that we now have its exact reverse!

Perhaps it is time to begin the cry of 'Christophobia'?

Personally, I dislike any connotation of martyrdom, although as it is here, it is perhaps more apt than most.

However, I suspect that once we accept such, as our retort, we will not then be afforded the same auto-defence that it appears to afford others.

I've folowed this particular case on other blogs/news-comment sites, and have been startled and appalled at the Nazi-like hysteria/obsessive fervour of many homosexuals who uphold the case against this couple. I am concerned that liberalisation has allowed the illiberal a frightening potential for harm.

Who would have thought that Pandora would turn out to be a 'Drag Queen' ???

1 November 2010 at 16:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**and have been startled and appalled at the Nazi-like hysteria/obsessive fervour of many homosexuals who uphold the case against this couple.**

There is probably some saying in the bible about this.

But basically they've been on the recieving end of it, and now it's your turn.

When you repres people, for whatever reason, when that opression is released, it tends to explode in your face.

You can look at any group of people that where once repressed, and see the same pattern.




To be clear I don't support the banning of people being able to adopt on anything else other than "are you a kiddy fiddler / abusive or about to pop your clogs".

1 November 2010 at 16:41  
Anonymous Pete Matthew said...

I'm not sure how the crown court works and whether they have to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God", whilst holding a bible. But if they do would it be permissible to ask the judge to open the book they've just sworn to tell the truth and see what that has to say on the issue?

I think that would aptly demonstrate the irony of this case.

1 November 2010 at 17:22  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

No matter what you say to me, and no matter how you say it, it will always be filthy and sick in my mind for a man to put his penis into another man's bum. Sick.

1 November 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why let a few facts get in the way of bigotry your grace?

someone who is a homosexual is that way because that is how god made them, someone who has chosen to take on certain religious beliefs however has made a choice.

personally i'm a Roman Catholic but i chose to believe that we are all gods people however there are some who use their beliefs to cover up their personal bigotry and surely it is only fair to make sure that vulnerable children are not brought up by biggots, what would happen if a child placed with those bigots happened to be a homosexual, its not as if they could "convert" them to be hetrosexual any more than you could make a hetrosexual child a homosexual so other than make the childs life a misery what could a couple of bigots do for a child?

1 November 2010 at 17:35  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

You can't reason with queers, they are like smack heads, they will fight you to the end so long as they can continue with their filthy habbits. I had a smack head brother who used to steal my mother's pension money so I threw him out the house. Turn your back on them and get on with what you know is right.

Bugger off else where basically, I am not interested.

1 November 2010 at 17:45  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace

I have an idea for a compromise. Why don't Christian foster parents tell the kids that the 'law' says it's OK to be homosexula, and when the kids ask 'how come you aren't homosexula?', then you can tell them that it is because you think it's bloody vile and disgusting, but that it is only your own personal opinion.

1 November 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Gordon's points have substance, and should be taken seriously. I wonder how many of these cases have been in some way exaggerated or misrepresented by the Christian Legal Centre. Only wondering...

By the way, I also agree with Mr Jared Gaites @ 17:35.

P.S. Word verification and password are playing up again.

1 November 2010 at 18:19  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous @ 16.41

I think, in a way, that was what I was skirting around, but not quite as how you portray it.

Being ''suppressed'' as you would have it, but suppressed by a middle-ground, semi-tolerant basically half-reasonable populace, is not the same as being suppressed by some screeching, proselytising sexual-deviant suffering from God-knows what associated 'personal issues' is, perhaps, a tad different?

Besides, it is accepted within the wider homosexual community itself, that many homosexuals are massively too demanding of attention. Thus, when released from your ''suppression'' what is then available to them to rile against; where are their needs to be met? Just how extreme are they prepared to be?

For as sure as eggs is eggs, they ain't about to settle for moderation!

1 November 2010 at 18:24  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I will try and be pragmatic but your graces post chooses an interesting dilemma .There is little doubt that a christian upbringing is of value wether fosterd or not .There are variations of "christian" upbringing which I understand as CofE being the one most would understand , but there is pentecostal, baptist ,methodist,jehovas witness etc where one could find disagreement. However the view of homosexuality has now being more clearly defined by law , and by enlarge has been succesfull in that to discriminate in acess to work or legal partnership and child upbringing , is we are told a triumph of equality and we should be joyful that the thugish fears and phobias have been dealt with an society is improved.
Looking back and having seen how gay men (for gay women seem not to attract the same upset) had to either be discreet or face abuse , I do conclude that we have arrived at a more humane approach.

However the gay community haveing won its battle for legisaltion has never really understood the wreckage left in its wake ,for certain equalitys were in my view unobtainable in that ones sexual lifestyle choices has conflict with the faith .It isnt biggoted to uphold marriage as somthing ordained by god , in that sense the couple have seen the principal at work and the good in which to teach to there children , that makes the faith what it is.

We have of course have the modern beleivers of civil society , pointing out that children brought up in modern civil homes are balanced , more open , happy and likeable and there is nothing to worry about .Of course in the upheaval we have forgotten that the homosexual community is a minority .The assumption that a child may be gay and therefore must recieve equality indocorination by foster parents greatly misses the prinicpal of how hetero sexual marriage gives more to society in stability , than a minority does .
To describe it as a mere liberal choice of lifestyle , does not fully recognise learning or understanding , and how the great value of christian fostering is giving these children a root understanding of family life and how things are worked out , let alone the spiritual learnings .
The closing of catholic adoption agencies was one casuality of this somewhat ill thought rebellion in the name of equality .
What if the failiure is upon the gay couple for not teaching there children that christianity is a necessary part of a relationship with god , which is vital for there salvation ? why does the social services not fisk the gay couple for this lack of awareness?

1 November 2010 at 18:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

not a machine @ 18.27 - a well-balanced summation!

1 November 2010 at 18:35  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace

Apparantly, some molecular biologist dude called Dean Hamer, author of The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes, argues that our sense of spirituality is a biological trait hardwired into our genes by evolutionary accident. So, following this principle of equality for homosexulas, should we not be concerned about genetically disposed Christian children being taught that it's OK to shuv your penis up a man's bum?

1 November 2010 at 18:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So a Crown Court Judge gets to rule on this ? We are a sick society.

If Judges are to be the ultimate authority in this barren land we are truly a people lost

1 November 2010 at 18:40  
Blogger Gnostic said...

So what's next, kids from Christian homes removed from their homes because of "religious abuse"? Although I'm an agnostic this appalling situation makes me sick to my stomach. We are supposed to be a free society for goodness sake.

Surely the primary concern is that the children are fostered in a caring and loving environment?

1 November 2010 at 18:41  
Blogger Preacher said...

There seems to be an awful lot of anonamyce about tonight.
I've heard many times the excuse that homosexuality is genetic, but medical opnion is actually divided about this. I believe that a man may have many feminine traits & preferences without being a homosexual, it's the pressure of others, 'straights' mocking or 'gays' exerting equal pressure that it's normal to participate & somehow rebellious to be 'camp'.
Many are homosexual because of being sexually abused as children & are in need of Psychological counselling to overcome the many painful experiences & guilt feelings they have before they can be set free to enjoy their masculinity to the full.
It's this impressionable & vulnerable period in a young persons life that I feel is being sacrificed on the altar of so called equality by a leadership that we expect to protect societies children.
It's O.K to be 'gay' & adopt but apparently not alright to hold any views that disagree with this type of lifestyle & do the same.

1 November 2010 at 18:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Children were clearly designed to be brought up in the context of a secure, loving male-female relationship. Whether you believe this to be a God-given or nature-given directive, it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. To send children to be brought up by homosexual couples is abnormal and perverse. This does not justify the persecution of homosexuals. Homosexual practises are a sin, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

1 November 2010 at 18:49  
Blogger Owl said...

Gordon stated:

"The issue here is not the couples beliefs, but whether they would tell a homosexual child their orientation was wrong."

This is in reference to 5 to 10 year old children who have not even reached puberty (with a few exceptions).

Utter madness!

Children of homosexual couples will suffer abuse at the hand their peers. This should be bloody obvious to anyone who cares a jot about the children. No amount of social engineering is going to change this. How about a bit more equality for the children.

The children always end up being pawns of minority pressure groups.

Stonewall will inevitably, at some point in time, meet Iron Fist.

I just wonder if this is intentional.

1 November 2010 at 19:58  
Blogger HampsteadOwl said...

@ Voyager

It's a high court judge actually, but I take your point.

Truth is though there's a whole book in the Old Testament called Judges. Not one called "politicians" when last I checked

1 November 2010 at 20:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Archbishop I'm afraid you are right in assuming the omnipotence and dogmatism of local authority social workers when it comes to approving foster carers. I work with, and train, social workers and many of those in child care (those working in adult care tend to have more common sense) are serously infected with political correctness. This mind set is inculcated not only in legislation but also in social work training. It has been going on for years.

1 November 2010 at 21:06  
Anonymous len said...

I can only assume that the thinking behind Political Correctness and the enforcement of anti- Christian agendas is to bring about the end of Society as we have known it.
Then there will be built a Society in which there is a moral free for all, various groups promoting their own particular lusts or desires.
Where this will all end and what particular sexual activities will be indulged in is anybody`s guess.

1 November 2010 at 23:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon at 21.06

‘This mind set is inculcated not only in legislation…’

You are being misled. There are three public sector general equality duties. They are on race, gender and disability. Failure to have ‘due regard’ to them when carrying out a ‘public function’ may attract the threat of judicial review for maladministration (not negative discrimination).

The Coalition will bring into force in April 2011 the Equality Act 2011 – then social work departments can legitimately withhold Christians from adopting, I suggest.

2 November 2010 at 07:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Och!

Anon at 21.06

‘This mind set is inculcated not only in legislation…’

You are being misled. There are three public sector general equality duties. They are on race, gender and disability. Failure to have ‘due regard’ to them when carrying out a ‘public function’ may attract the threat of judicial review for maladministration (not negative discrimination).

The Coalition will bring into force in April 2011 the Equality Act 2010 S.149 – then social work departments can legitimately prevent Christians from adopting, I suggest.

2 November 2010 at 08:11  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Surely the most important ingredient in assessing the suitability of foster or adoptive parents is their ability to love and protect their children and those qualities can be found in parents of any persuasion, religious, gay, mixed race or a good old fashioned married couple.

There are no constraints on anybody starting a family, however unsuitable they and their environment may be; drug addicts, under aged single girls, those with a history of violence and those with no means of support.

So it does seem wrong to demand a “higher” standard from foster or adoptive parents. However if your beliefs system is likely to result in the extreme indoctrination of vulnerable children then the State has an obligation to consider this as a criteria for suitability. This doesn’t seem to apply in this instance but it could others, for example white supremacists that are likely to fill their children’s heads with bigotry would not be suitable as adoptive or foster parents (though they may well have children of their own).

We all influence our children for good or ill and I suspect that a belief that homosexuality is “wrong”, although irrational and objectionable, should not be a reason to deny a couple an opportunity to adopt so long as they score highly on all other criteria. In any case most British children will be subject to so many other influences as they mature that they may well cast away some of the less acceptable values that are held by their parents.

However I do think a line has to be drawn and I would make a strong distinction between Christian and Islamic beliefs, the latter demands such unthinking obedience to a belief system that the result is akin to brainwashing and I would say that Muslims are not suitable as adoptive parents. Of course this would exclude some who might be good parents but Islam is alien to our culture and so its weight on the “balance sheet” is just too strong.

2 November 2010 at 09:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**Being ''suppressed'' as you would have it, but suppressed by a middle-ground, semi-tolerant basically half-reasonable populace, is not the same as being suppressed by some screeching, proselytising sexual-deviant suffering from God-knows what associated 'personal issues' is, perhaps, a tad different?**

Sorry what?

Semi-tolerant basically half reasonable populace?

No, you made it an act punishable by death up till recent history, and it remained illegal up until living memory, it was also perfectly sociably acceptable to beat this living poop out of gays as well up until recent history.

It’s the same with black people, women, etc.

Now that they are no longer suppressed, each group has it’s extremes, women who think men are evil and that marrying a man is traitorous to your sex, ethnic races who play the race card at every opportunity, and gays who think

You reap what you sow.


**Many are homosexual because of being sexually abused as children & are in need of Psychological counselling**

**You can't reason with queers, they are like smack heads**

**It's 'genetic' to be angry and threatening, or violent, but we still punish the wrongdoer for the consequences.**

**To send children to be brought up by homosexual couples is abnormal and perverse.**

**Children of homosexual couples will suffer abuse at the hand their peers.**

And this is why your side have lost the argument.

2 November 2010 at 10:17  
Blogger William said...

Anon 10:17

"And this is why your side have lost the argument."

Whereas your argument seems to be that homosexuals have suffered enough in the past, so lets compensate them with some disadvantaged kiddies to play with. Nice. Is there any natural law that you are prepared to stand by?

2 November 2010 at 11:13  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Derek T Northcote said...

Morality is doing what's right no matter what you are told.

Religion is doing what you are told no matter what's right.

1 November 2010 14:18

Who decides what is right, our esteemed political class or perhaps our Church which has had a lot more experience throughout the centuries.

There must be a collective right or wrong to some degree and I know who I would rather take my moral guidance from and it isn't the House of Commons.

2 November 2010 at 15:24  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous @ 10.17 .... relax a tad .... history repeats itself, you'll get all your suppression needs' soon enough ... no need to go getting into a tizzy...

2 November 2010 at 18:49  
Anonymous len said...

If being gay is so' natural'then taken to the logical conclusion if gays were all grouped together then 'naturally'they would die out being unable to re-produce.
So the'gay' community needs acceptance by the 'straight' community so as to keep up their numbers and to get new'recruits' as only' straight' couples can reproduce 'naturally'.

2 November 2010 at 18:53  
Anonymous len said...

I would say that as a general rule a Christian heterosexual couple would give a child a FAR more stable, and secure environment to grow up in.This is due to the seemingly high proportion of partners that 'gays 'have and the instability of those relationships.One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year . The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

I cannot understand why 'Gay rights(6%)of population trump Christian rights (67%)of population.

3 November 2010 at 00:33  
Blogger ZAROVE said...

Anonymous, can you prove Homosexuality is Genetic? I hear this argument all the time, that people are born with a Sexual Orientation that, like Race, never changes throughout ones lifetime, yet not a shred of evidence exists for this claim. In fact, evidence exists against it. EG, Twin Studies show that of Identical Twins where one Brother is Homosexual, only about 25-30% will have their Twin Sibling as also Homosexual. Meanwhile, if one is black haired, the other is something like 96% of the time, if one has blue eyes, the other has blue eyes about 98% of the time, and for the most part other Genetically inherited Traits copy over 90% of the time between Twins.

Why is it that ones innate Sexual Orientation which is inborn, Genetically caused, only transfered about a quarter of the time to both Twins? Doesn't that suggest that the Cause is not Genetic, Or at the very least not solely Genetic?

What actual evidence exists that says Homosexuality is Genetic? The usual claims are base don the outdated and now discredited studies like the Dean Hammer Study or the "Gay Gene", XQ28, found in the early Millennium which turned out to have nothing to do with Sexuality.

Meanwhile there are ex gays, people who have given up the lifestyle. The Three standard excuses, that they were never really gay in the first place, they are really Bisexual, or they are suppressing their True Natures, are just that, excuses, with nothing substantiate it beyond a belief that Sexual Orientation is innate and unchangeable, and Genetic.

So this brings me back to my question: Can you prove that Homosexuality is, in fact, Genetic? If not, why should we act as if it is?

3 November 2010 at 20:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one would not think it appropriate for children to be fostered or adopted by people who believe that the dead are raised to life, and amputated limbs re-grown, during their meetings, as some of these loons do.

I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong. it may not be to everyone's taste, fair enough. There are far more destructive human behaviours, and Christians should spend more time on those. Like wars, for example. but funnily enough they tend to like those.

5 November 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ien,

67% of the population is not Christian. this is just wishful thinking.

5 November 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

aNONYMOUS- According to Census Data, 67% of the Population is Christian. Saying its not and that this is wishful thinking is asinine. Why should we think the percentage of Christians is actually Lower? Surly thats what you mean.

Perhaps your is Wishful thinking?

That said, your attacks on Christians for their beliefs (Regrowing Limbs is more a parody surly, from "Why does God Hate Amputees") is much more revealing of your own biases.

In fact, so is the claim that Christians seem to like Wars. No they don't. Atheistic Blatherers on the Internet or in print often claim Christians always support Warfare but the Truth is Christians often oppose Wars. EG, the Iraqi war was opposed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and several others.

Please do check your facts before making stupid comments.

Also, if your the same Anon as I commented toward above, please show me evidence that Homosexuality is Genetic, or admit there is no such evidence. Thanks.

6 November 2010 at 19:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the actual percentage of course is lower, because many people who don't believe Christ is redeemer, don't believe in God, don't go to church, and find Christianity silly and embarrassing, also put the religion of their baptism on the census forms, and they were baptised at a time when everyone was baptised. Surely this is unarguable?

I've actually encountered Pentecostals who believed the above mentioned, on a number of occasions - and note I said "some".

As for wars, I've come across plenty of CHRISTIANS who supported wars; I didn't mention CHURCHES. Apples and oranges, old boy.

No, I'm not the same anon and frankly couldn't give a monkeys whether homosexuality is genetic or not. Homosexuality exists, has always existed, and is therefore natural.

7 November 2010 at 08:47  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

Anon-

Yes, the actual percentage of course is lower, because many people who don't believe Christ is redeemer, don't believe in God, don't go to church, and find Christianity silly and embarrassing, also put the religion of their baptism on the census forms, and they were baptised at a time when everyone was baptised. Surely this is unarguable?

Surly you mean "Inarguable".

But I digress,

However, that does beg the Question: If it is lower, by how much is it Lower? And how do we know? For all we know many people are Christian, believe in God and in Jesus in some way, but didn't bother to fill out the Religion section of the Census form, so by tis same (Speculative) reasoning we can conclude that the number of Christians may be, in fact, higher.

You'd never entertain that notion though as your the type of Secularist who wants to believe Christianity is dying so you will believe its drastically lower, just as you will believe its on Terminal decline and ill soon be extinct. Its all just blather though with no hard evidence on your part.




I've actually encountered Pentecostals who believed the above mentioned, on a number of occasions - and note I said "some".



So what? I've met Muslims who believe in Universal Salvation, and I've met Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah. So what is your point?




As for wars, I've come across plenty of CHRISTIANS who supported wars; I didn't mention CHURCHES. Apples and oranges, old boy.



Which suffers from two fatal flaws.

1: Why does support for war automatically make you bad? Some wars can be justified.

2: I've met Atheists who supported Wars. Does this mean I can castigate all Atheists now and claim Atheism leads to Warfare? How about Secular Humanism specifically?


Your point is still marginal.



No, I'm not the same anon and frankly couldn't give a monkeys whether homosexuality is genetic or not. Homosexuality exists, has always existed, and is therefore natural.



By that Logic then rape, incest, adultery, murder, fraud...all of those exist and always have existed, so they are Natural too.

But that doesn't make them morally right or inherent parts of someones being, and that is whats needed for the pro Homosexual side to prevail.

8 November 2010 at 00:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rape, murder, etc are all quite obviously things that harm others, this is far less obvious in the case of homosexuality.

you're keen to read into thing I've said things I haven't said.

8 November 2010 at 09:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older