Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Kirk gay row: the ugly face of liberal bigotry


This is a guest post by the Rev'd Julian Mann (aka Cranmer's Curate):

The persecution by the Church of Scotland of St George's Tron, a thriving evangelical church in Glasgow city centre, reveals the ugly face of liberal bigotry. This ogre will haunt the Church of England if its militant liberal wing wins the argument over gay marriage.

St George's, now called The Tron Church, has left the Church of Scotland because of the decision by its General Assembly to accept practising homosexual ministers. The congregation has moved out of its building on which it has spent a lot of money recently refurbishing but, not content with that, the Church of Scotland has resorted to legal action over disputed assets.

Shortly before the congregation left its building, the Kirk called in Sheriff's officers over some items of movable property. The 'sheriffs' entered the building to 'serve papers' during the church family's mid-week prayer meeting. The Kirk is now complaining to the Scottish charity regulator over the transfer of financial assets to a charitable trust set up by St George's before the congregation left.

One of the ironies here is that the senior pastor of Tron, the Revd Dr William Philip, is one of the most gracious, kindly, humble Christians Cranmer's Curate has ever met. He undoubtedly shares many theological convictions in common with the magisterial Scottish Reformer John Knox, but temperamentally the two men are about as different as Brian Clough and Peter Taylor.

The legalities of the Tron dispute may be complicated but the morality is not. If a liberal congregation wishes to leave the Church of England because of its current clear stand against gay marriage, then the right response by the Anglican authorities for the cause of Jesus Christ is to let them go.

Let them keep their building and their assets. Evangelical churches would not be abandoning communities to a false gospel by supporting tolerance in this instance. They can plant new churches that proclaim the true gospel. Such 'fresh expressions of church' meeting in secular venues, experience shows, can grow very rapidly. It is surely better to let the cursed fig tree die of its own accord than to hire lawyers to pour poison over it. What would orthodox Christians achieve for the Kingdom of God and of His Christ by sending a posse of sheriffs against a liberal congregation that wants to secede?

But politically corrrect liberals in both the church and the state determinedly set their faces against such an eminently sensible and tolerant approach. They have to conquer; they cannot live and let live. They are the secular equivalent of militant Islamists in their desire to occupy every inch of their enemies' territory.

If the Church of England gives in to politically correct pressure to celebrate gay marriage, then evangelical congregations and their ministers must expect this sort of treatment. For the sake of the Body of Christ, it is necessary to be wise before the demons of liberal bigotry are unleashed in their terrible fury.

Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK.

114 Comments:

Blogger Matt A said...

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 deals with this matter head on.

18 December 2012 at 09:31  
Blogger Brian West said...

Although I am not an Anglican, I believe that some evangelical CofE congregations would also be inclined to separate if the decision to appoint women bishops were taken. So within the next year the CofE could be facing the tensions outlined above by Julian on two issues and at both ends of the theological spectrum.

Brian

18 December 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger Unknown said...

FWIW, part of the issue here is that the Church of Scotland has not actually made a decision on this matter, and thus the Tron have somewhat jumped the gun. The General Assembly in 2013 will make an initial decision, but this decision will still need to be ratified by the Presbyteries in the (IIRC) 2014 GA. And by leaving the denomination, the Tron have weakened the evangelical wing of the church, making the potential for a full split even greater.

The reporting on this situation has been poor, and I think the whole matter has been handled ungraciously by both parties involved.

18 December 2012 at 09:47  
Blogger Flossie said...

This is no different to what has been happening for years in the US Episcopal Church, where the Presiding Bishop is suing the pants off departing congregations. When the congregation of the Church of The Good Shepherd in New York departed, they were not allowed to take anything with them, even though they had paid for and maintained the propery. The diocese refused to sell it to them, and it was eventually sold to Muslims at a fraction of the price, and is now an Islamic centre. And the whole diocese of South Carolina has pulled out, whereupon their Bishop, Mark Lawrence, was promptly defrocked by Jefferts-Schori.

While Tron has not got to that stage yet, we can all see what lies ahead. The bitter divisions already caused by celebration of homosexual practice will only accelerate.

18 December 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I hesitate to promote myself, but if anyone is interested, I wrote a 7,000 word essay as I felt moved on the subject 'Is creationism divisive?' which can be found on the web site of the Creation Science Movement. It contains over 50 Bible references and considers the creation/evolution divide and the issue of division in the church in general. It concluded that given the existence of heresy, division is inevitable, as Matt A references at 09.31. It's dealt with in 1 Corinthians.

Only two conditions are necessary for a division to exist. A lie, and at least one person who won't stand for it.

Trouble ahead, we were warned. He who endures to the end will be saved.

18 December 2012 at 10:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It seems to me that there could more to the 'complicated legalities' than the article suggests. The assets would be held in trust and there would be legal duties involved surely? Whilst it may seem heavily-handed, wouldn't trustees have a duty to act?

18 December 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So long as the church hierarchy were to act the same way towards all departing congregations, I don't see what the grounds of complaint are. A church (ie, the building) belongs to the organization; Catholic churches belong to the Catholic Church, not the individual congregation; ditto, Anglican churches and CofS churches to their respective organizations. This holds even if the congregations have put money into their maintenance and refurbishment; that was voluntary, they didn't have to do it. Legally, there may be an issue in certain fringe churches which demand a piece of the congregant's earnings, but the mainstream churches do not do this (leaving aside the idiotic Church Tax in Germany, of course). If evangelicals leave, they leave with nothing from the church they have contributed to; if liberals leave, the same rule should (and almost certainly will) apply to them. Splits are sour things to swallow; just suck it up and get on with it.

18 December 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Well I do think that the departing congregation has a right to complain. I question whether the money put into church maintenance and so on over the years was "voluntary" - in fact I believe that there are statutory contributions. In effect, the bishops are making them homeless if they won't go along with a change in fundamental moral teaching. They are being expected to cave in, under threat, to secular values and immoral behaviour. Yes this is one more example of the harm that is being done by rampant lgbt mania. It is causing strife, misery, injustice and tyranny.
In the EU there are moves to make "hate speech" against homosexual extremism a criminal offence. when will hate speech against conservatives become a criminal offence? I want to see vicars going into schools to conduct an anti-bullying campaign on behalf of conservatives. They should confront children and say, "How many of you have called conservatives bigots homophobes and gay-bashers? That is hate-speech! It is a form of bullying and it is despicable."

18 December 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

The CofE has already behaved in such a bigoted, grasping, spiteful and bullying manner.

Look at the treatment of the nuns and congregations who have gone over to the Ordinariate !

http://bit.ly/UyndVh Nuns

http://bit.ly/UyoFqR Congregations

18 December 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Nowhere man

Not to mention the post-Reformation grabbing and sacking of Catholic property.

18 December 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Links don't work, Nowhere.

18 December 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Wellards Academy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 December 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

An informative and timely piece Cranmer's Curate - many thanks.

The public has, I suspect, little notion of the real issue behind the proposed changes to marriage, i.e. longstanding old-left hatred of Christianity (and the association of church and state, etc). For decades they have tried to destabilise and disempower religion and the 'gay rights' fiasco over marriage is merely the latest weapon in the arsenal at their disposal.

It is not even a 'gay rights' issue – the issue is whether or not marriage should remain as it is or incorporate any and all relationships (homosexuals are only one of a number of groups wanting to change the established definition of marriage).

When the change is made, marriages will become, in law, the same as civil partnerships, not the other way around (i.e. the requirement of sexual intercourse in marriage will be removed from the legislation). Once this has been achieved civil partnerships will most likely be discontinued as no longer necessary and 'marriage' will remain as an ambiguous, likely-polygamous, non-sexual entity incorporating everything and standing for nothing.

The irony is that the Tories, claiming to respect and value marriage, will have brought it to an end, replacing it with something that resembles it in name only.

The majority of people in favour of the current change will not have thought about it in any detail, believing it to be an equality issue only. They will therefore support it.

Rambling Steve Appleseed – can you provide a link to your doc as I'd like to read it and cannot find it? Thanks.

18 December 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...


This video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs4iancnT2w

is particularly disturbing and will grieve the heart of any Christian believer because of the way it glorifies and 'normalises' that which is anathema to the Lord and to His people. Please watch it - just so you are aware of the legacy we will leave to our children and their children unless the Lord through His Church turns things around.

Calling good evil and evil good in 21st Century Britain has risen to a new level and must surely result in every believer who testifies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh falling to their knees and petitioning the Lord God that His power might once more be manifested through His Church so that we may "put to flight the armies of the aliens" (Hebrews 11:34).

It's time to seek the Lord, until He comes and rains righteousness upon us (Hosea 10:12).

18 December 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
There is almost nothing worse to our cause than an emotive article that might not have its facts right. The opposition will tear us to shreds and undo any good that might have been achieved.
I’m not suggesting that this piece has inaccuracies as I’m sure the facts as presented are very plausible but let’s be absolutely sure.

18 December 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

As Mother Winsome says:

“We’ve got an uncertain future. But we are doing this because we truly believe this is God’s call. The Bible is full of people called to step out in faith not knowing where they were going or how they will be provided for and that truly is the situation we are following.”

This nun along with 10 others are being cast out of their convent (Community of St Mary the Virgin in Wantage)by the Church of England after converting to Roman Catholicism and joining the Ordinate.

Next year the 11 sisters will stay for six weeks at a Benedictine convent. After that, they do not know where they will live and they have no endowments to keep them afloat financially.

This seems to me to be the correct Christian attitude.

18 December 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Jack Sprat.In the EU there are moves to make "hate speech" against homosexual extremism a criminal offence.

Indeed that man. This ominous ruse has been brought to our notice by the intrepid Mrs King

No doubt it will envelope criticism of any sort, in much the same way as denying homosexuals their every whim is considered bigotry by them today. When a group is beyond criticism, it implies they cannot do any wrong. And when they can’t do wrong, everything they do MUST be right. We can see how easily these militants will soon be running the show for THEIR benefit and no one else’s….

Gentlemen, time is getting short. The following has been forced upon us, and we must comply. We need to find a lasting and final solution to the homosexual condition…

Science is getting rather good at spotting potential birth defects, such as cystic fibrosis. We can but hope that another birth defect is similarly identified before conception, homosexuality. The homosexual child is a disappointment to their parents, and the disappointment continues into adulthood. EVERYONE is disappointed including the victim. But most of all, society is disappointed as when the sufferer ‘takes their rightful place’ God help us, the havoc is tremendous…

Until this happy development in science is available to us, we need to broadcast to the world that the sufferers of this unfortunate birth defect must NOT be allowed to influence society. This is justifiable, for as soon as screening can commence, they will surely lose all influence they have and not regain it.

Remember, no guilt now. It has been forced on us to act this way

Let’s put an end to this sordid condition and the suffering the afflicted live with as soon as we can, what !





18 December 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ps - I doubt they will be sneaking items out from the convent either!

18 December 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

Shame on you!

You will be well received by UKIP.

Geoffrey Clark, who is standing for the UKIP National Executive Committee and local elections, personal "manifesto" contains the following:

A Government review to "consider compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, spina-bifida or a similar syndrome which, if it is born, will render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family".

A review into medical treatment for people over the age of 80, which is "extraordinarily costly" to the NHS.

He describes immigration as a "cancer" and says Britain should "deport riff-raff... halt all immigration ... cut foreign student numbers by 75%" and "introduce a burden on the state test."

He quotes from the Koran and says "anyone who does believe it today must be a scumbag". On homosexual marriage, the candidate said the idea is an "abhorrence".

Can you hear them calling you home?

18 December 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, it’s very difficult to take anybody seriously who posts under that thing whatever it is...

18 December 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. Sounds like a no nonsense type. What’s on offer is a bit like the parsons egg...

Needs to speak to the Inspector and have his views on the unborn and the over 80s modified....

18 December 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 December 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Science is getting rather good at spotting potential birth defects, such as cystic fibrosis."

I'll ignore the rest as I expect you're trying to hook a marlin or two there but this bit is worth a comment.

It's a crappy, horrible disease and no mistake. It's also genetic and so there's a 1 in 4 chance of inheriting it if both parents of carriers of the gene. It also means there's a 1 in 4 chance of being free of it, either as a sufferer or a carrier.

So, what do we do? People can be very easily screened to see if they are a carrier but what do you do if you are a carrier and you fall in love with another carrier? Do you leave it in the hands of 'god' and have children anyway?

I think an option is to test embryos in an IVF scenario and select perhaps 1 or 3 of the 4 possible permutations. If you select the carrier-free one then there may be wider implications around eugenics because you're removing stuff from the gene pool which may have some sort of co-genetic expression. Obviously IVF is problematic for personhood at conception advocates too.

Is a life with cystic fibrosis worth living? I expect most sufferers would say so. Yet it's a significant burden and life expectancy is significantly shorter than for people without it. By half or more, actually. As parents who are both carriers, is it fine to procreate given that there's a 1 in 4 chance that your child will have to go through it?

Those are rhetorical questions, really, and I'm sure I know how most here will answer at least one of them. It's a bit of a dilemma for me, in particular the eugenics issue.

Incidentally, pretty much the same thing applies to sickle cell anaemia. Except that sickle cell carriers in the UK are much more likely to be sub-saharan African immigrants and offspring, unlike cystic fibrosis carriers who are much more likely to be caucasian I think.

18 December 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0.So, what do we do? People can be very easily screened to see if they are a carrier but what do you do if you are a carrier and you fall in love with another carrier? Do you leave it in the hands of 'god' and have children anyway?

A strong post from you. The Inspector will just concentrate on this part. Where is it written that once a couple fall in love, sense goes out of the window. With todays screening, there should be NO sufferers born, yet there are. Surely, falling in love in this instance is just about the most selfish thing two people can do.

There was a time, before this man was around, when marriage was a contract as such. Love didn’t always come into it. You needed marriage, both sexes, because the alternative as a single person was not attractive. Most people ended up married because of this.

Anyway, the point is, people need to go into their life partnership with some damn common sense and a bit more responsibility. Might even see the divorce rates fall too.







18 December 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector,
There is no birth 'defect'. It's all a question of lifestyle choices. That’s why the more it has been promoted; the more it has been taken up. Precisely why its promotion in schools should be banned again because children are susceptible and vulnerable to teaching that encourages the rebellious side of the individual.

18 December 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

So bad genes are a problem for DanJo despite the fact that he is homosexual? Behold the divine providence. It gives him bad genes then stops him from passing them on.
If you put all DanJo's comments together you would have his entire life story including a lot of information about his ancestors. It may interest somebody I suppose.

18 December 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Integrity, sometimes you talk a load of rot, and then some. The actual lifestyle choice today is to remain celibate for the rest of one's life, or live one's life as much like everyone else as one's circumstances allow. You talk as though people wake up thinking: I know I'm straight but shall I try out being gay today in order to be a bit of a rebel? Isn't it better that people no longer hide in the priesthood or live in a dead marriage in order to be socially acceptable, and have sex with strangers passing like ships in the night in order to be physically satisfied?

18 December 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia: "So bad genes are a problem for DanJo despite the fact that he is homosexual? Behold the divine providence. It gives him bad genes then stops him from passing them on."

Ohhhh, there's a number of things to say about that in terms of religion. But hey, perhaps someone religious might like to take the mantle there?

Of course, I could pass my genes on fairly easily anyway. Perhaps I ought to donate to a sperm bank. :) Also, my relatives pass on a chunk of my genes anyway. That's the thing about genes, you know.

Would you care to put forward an answer to my rhetorical questions, Julia? I'm interested to see how someone like you approaches the dilemmas I've highlighted in my comments.

18 December 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Integrity old fellow. There is much to support that homosexuals enter this world as such. In the last century, this man read of the above normal incidence of homosexuality in the male Jewish community in the UK. The theory went that if a Jewish lad had not committed himself to marriage by his late twenties, their mothers would intervene and arrange a marriage for them from within the community. Such was the might of these matriarchs, you went ahead and submitted, if only for a quieter life. One must ask himself, on doing their bed duty, whether or not they were passing the condition down a generation.


Jack Sprat, if you are not who you say you are, and operate as a cover for another blogger, then the Archbishop does not allow this.

Advance Sir and be recognised...









18 December 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger Roy said...

I spent a bit of time in Glasgow about 50 years ago and attended a few services in St George's Tron and so I remember what an influential church it was.

There is an article in Wikipedia about Tom Allan, one of the Tron's outstanding leaders of that time. It is probably well worth reading irrespective of what branch of Christianity you belong to. In fact I think non-Christians should also read it.

Tom Allan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Allan

It is sad to think that the modern Church of Scotland would probably not be a denomination in which someone like Tom Allan would feel at home.

18 December 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 13.25, this communicant understands that the Catholic Church per se does not exist, at least not in a legal sense. There is no ultimate holding company, just a loose association of various trusts and orders pointing in the same general direction. The nature of 'Catholic property' is therefore moot.

This non-existence has implications with regard to the liability of the priesthood for various transgressions. How does an entity that does not exist exercise duty of care over its employees, the priests? Where is the liability? With the non-existent Church or with the priest?

In this context, what does the term One True Church mean? There is, it would seem, no such thing in a temporal sense.

18 December 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector said...

"Dodo, it’s very difficult to take anybody seriously who posts under that thing whatever it is..."

It's a Christmas Dodo, silly, in a party mood. Your avatar is rather more sombre and your views are becoming more extreme. Get back in civvies!

Did I misunderstand you? As I read your post you were suggesting the elimination of homosexuality by depriving "carriers" of the right to marry? Or perhaps the right to procreate?

As a Catholic, you will know a marriage is only valid if there is the ability to consummate the marriage and a prior intent to have children, so far as this is biologically possible.

DanJ0

The suggestion of voluntary pre-marital screening is an interesting one and, so far as I am aware, not prohibited provided childlessness, contraception or abortion were not seen as valid options.

Personally, I would marry the woman I loved, have children without tests and trust in God to give my wife and I the strength to raise our children with love and selflessness - whatever the genes produce.

HIV and AID's may be an exception.

18 December 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Personally, I would marry the woman I loved, have children without tests and trust in God to give my wife and I the strength to raise our children with love and selflessness - whatever the genes produce."

I'm not making a judgement on your choice here as I think that's fair enough. However, I don't think I'd want to take the 1 in 4 risk of giving my child a life with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anaemia. It's not the sacrifice I'd have to make to look after him or her as such, it's their experience of it that I'd want to avoid for their sake. The more contentious bit is that I'd probably want to abort the pregancy if I could do it early enough on the same basis. Yet someone with cystic fibrosis is as valuable as me of course. In fact, they deserve more love for having to endure the disease.

18 December 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The most difficult ethical bit of the cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia thing I've highlighted is the eugenics issue. I really don't know what the best thing is to do there. Who knows what positive things those genes might be carrying along with them? And is there a slippery slope from removing what might seem to be defects on the face of it, to choosing blue-eyed, blond-haired (and straight, I suppose people may shout) babies?

18 December 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

I understand your position but disagree and truly believe these are not choices we should be making.

For example, and in the face of much hostility from the medics involved, we opted not to have amniocentesis during the pregnancies of our children. It offered us no meaningful choice.

18 December 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

" I know I'm straight but shall I try out being gay today in order to be a bit of a rebel"

FACT

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There are no gay genes. You may wish it were otherwise, but if the gay gene was found and parents could screen for it, then the Inspector is correct.

See Family Research Council

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Before I get back a load of opinion or anecdotal experience. The booklet provides facts.

One of my kids has a slogan in their t shirt "The truth is not an opinion"

Very true

Phil





18 December 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Phil Roberts said...
"Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There are no gay genes. You may wish it were otherwise, but if the gay gene was found and parents could screen for it, then the Inspector is correct."

I'm assuming you're a Christian. If so, how can you justify the intervention of man to eliminate some attribute you regard as morally unacceptable? You're assuming the person will express choice in a way against God's plan. And where would you draw the line? Aggression? Atheism? Emotional intelligence? Physical and mental disabilities?

You think man can and should attempt to impose his will over God's?

18 December 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, one would rather not get involved with screening for homosexuality. The problem is that the suffers who attain significant recognition are now a real threat to our way of life. What to do ?

PS. Am warming to the Champaign swigging dodo bird avatar.

Phil Roberts. The Inspector monitors ‘Pink News’. You won’t find a bigger number of self pitying whingers in the blog universe, with the possible exception of Alcoholic and Gambling self help sites. Homosexuality a lifestyle choice ? Well yes in the idea that these fellows don’t want to be alone. But as for a lifestyle of their choosing, forget it. They would rush out of the room on being offered that...


18 December 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger Peter Denshaw said...

It amazes me that ‘Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK’ and yet has time for ministry given the wealth of posts and articles he splatters around the internet.

I do feel very sorry for the Revd Mann, as he seems beset by fears – we read: ‘If the Church of England gives in to politically correct pressure to celebrate gay marriage, then evangelical congregations and their ministers must expect this sort of treatment.’ But this can’t happen can it in England and Wales? The present government has listened to the fears of the likes Mann and has rightly (in my view) decided on a blanket ban on gay-marriage in Anglican churches. And indeed throughout much of the ‘discussion’ (a euphemistic use of the word...) on SSM the government has again and again reiterated its commitment to not allowing political will to redefine religious marriage. However again and again the likes of Mann have wallowed in a self-magnifying victimhood that can only be expressed via the subjunctive.

Oh how refreshing it would be to read the words of a clergyman who talked of the need for Christians to do some foot-washing, turning the other cheek, helping the widow, alien and orphan (and/or their modern equivalents). But perhaps this would be unpopular because it is challenging and hard work and perhaps Mann is wise enough to know his own flavour of Christian don’t want to hear about personally costly Christian fundamentals and so chooses to breed fear and discord with the use of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’ and hopes through this journey into the subjunctive to initiate the braying and bleating of like-minded souls eager to claim to be the righteous and upright just because they revel in a wrong (in the CofE at least) that hasn’t been committed....

All rather sad that someone wastes so much time and effort on derying something that is a remote and unlikely possibility... You’d think an Anglican vicar would have better things to do with his time...

18 December 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger len said...

The' Liberal wing' of the church of Scotland (and anywhere else too)is abusing the Grace of God and making a mockery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by endorsing lifestyles in its Priests which are contrary to the Word of God.

The Grace of God is not licence to indulge in sin but to enable one to overcome sin.

If the World with its' value system' is allowed to control the Church then the church will cease to be' salt and light' to a dying world and compromise with 'the World system' will render it useless for the purposes of God which is the salvation of sinners entangled into bondage to sin.
God will bless the 'Tron' Church as it makes it stand against being forced to conform to a 'World Value and morality system which is directly opposed to God`s.

18 December 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger len said...

It would be far better to have a few uncompromising men preaching the unadulterated Word of God than a Church full of politically correct lackeys.

It is not love to tell people that God loves them regardless when he hates what they do.

God does love sinners but he loves then too much to leave them that way.

That is the reason for Calvary.... that is real love!.

18 December 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Imspector asked ...

"What to do?

Follow the teachings of the Church, be thankful for it, lead a good and upright life, pray, promote the Christian message and leave the rest to God.

"How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"

19 December 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"PS. Am warming to the Champaign swigging dodo bird avatar."

... hic ...

19 December 2012 at 00:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len

It is the season of Advent when we focus on the birth of Christ. A time of great hope, joy and celebration.

Tell me, do you celebrate Christmas on 25th December?

19 December 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Homosexuals should not have such inclusion. I am urging all to realize great-grandfathers ethic: discrimination.

19 December 2012 at 04:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There are no gay genes. You may wish it were otherwise, but if the gay gene was found and parents could screen for it, then the Inspector is correct."

I don't know whether a set of genes make one more likely to be homosexual if other things happen too. You don't either, I expect. Also, I don't wish there was a gay gene myself though it might shut up
those evil people who promote so-called 'gay conversions'.

You may be right about the eugenics option against homosexuality if a gay gene existed. Obviously, naturally having grandchildren might be a consideration in screening for such people. For me, whether homosexuals fare better or worse is just a prevailing social attitudes thing.

I've given up following your links because they usually point to places that are as dreadful as the BNP-oriented sites. You ought to apply some critical thinking once in a while, Phil, rather than swallow fringe-religious propaganda.

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, to act on it obviously is. However, I've realised I'm gay since about 9 when my sexuality started to assert itself. I've never had a choice over my orientation itself. Why would anyone choose to be gay (say) 30 years ago and put themselves through the hassle back then?

Some of the religious don't want there to be a gay gene, a set of genes tending to homosexuality, or environmental conditions in the womb which affect sexuality. They want it to be just a choice so it fits their view of morality better. That's wishful thinking, and wrong in both senses of the word.

19 December 2012 at 06:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In terms of eugenics, I wonder if potential parents would screen for aspergers syndrome if a test was found?

19 December 2012 at 06:24  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Since this perverts marriage issue is rippling to all parts of society,is it not time for the people to decide in a referendum,what THEY want,not the enemies of the English people who have the peculiar idea that they are our masters.

19 December 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Bless the 60 cross-bench Lords and MP's who put their names to the Daily Telegraph letter on Monday entitled "The Government has No Mandate to Redefine Marriage". I have been deeply moved by Joel chapter 2 and have summarised what we, the believing Church, need to do.

Joel chapter 2

1 Blow the Trumpets (being done)

2 Sanctify a fast (I have been fasting every alternate day since August for the state of this Nation and will continue to do so until this proposed legislation is dropped)

3 Call a solemn assembly (we have a core committed intercessory prayer cell dedicated to the sole purpose of setting decrees against this in the Heavenlies)

4 Sanctify the congregation (needs to be done)

5 Say, O LORD (To do)

5.1 Spare thy people

5.2 Give not thine heritage to reproach

5.3 Let not the heathen rule over us

5.4 Let it not be said "Where is their God ?"


God will bless Tron for their principled step.

19 December 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Corrigan

just copy and paste the bitly code but don't include the words nuns or congregation - just the code. I have checked and they both both work.

19 December 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger Roy said...

Further to my comment on the Tron Church in the 1960s, before Tom Allan took over as the minister of the church he had been one of the main figures in the Tell Scotland movement, a grass-roots evangelistic campaign.

In those days the Church of Scotland, or at least a substantial part of it, knew what they wanted to tell Scotland. Does the modern Church of Scotland think that it has anything to tell Scotland, and if so what is it, I wonder?

19 December 2012 at 09:59  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector,
There is no birth 'defect'. It's all a question of lifestyle choices. That’s why the more it has been promoted; the more it has been taken up


Spot on! I have been saying the same thing to my long suffering wife for ages now.

19 December 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Right, now the Christmas tree is up I've got a free afternoon and I'm not sure whether to choose to be gay or straight. Being gay is so last year now that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and shagging blokes. I like to be different, you know.

19 December 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Before you do anything of a sexual nature - to yourself or others - you must be married. Now, you can't marry yourself or another man, so its celibacy or heterosexual marriage. That's the choice.

19 December 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Maturecheese. One is in no doubt there are men of a homosexual inclination who are successful married men. The secret being self discipline, a phrase that is foreign to much of our indulged population who demand instant gratification without responsibility…



19 December 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Before you do anything of a sexual nature - to yourself or others - you must be married. Now, you can't marry yourself or another man, so its celibacy or heterosexual marriage. That's the choice."

Only in the bizarre world of the religious, and only theoretically there too.

19 December 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dodo

"I'm assuming you're a Christian. If so, how can you justify the intervention of man to eliminate some attribute you regard as morally unacceptable? You're assuming the person will express choice in a way against God's plan. And where would you draw the line? Aggression? Atheism? Emotional intelligence? Physical and mental disabilities?"

I don't believe that there is a gay gene. That was my point. Sorry I perhaps should make my point in a straight forward way. If I had been serious about screening for a gay gene then I quite agree with your response.

However, if it becomes possible to screen for potential homosexuality then parents will opt for it. For millennia women have done this screening for us by refusing/(or taking steps to avoid) to have children by effeminate men, even if they were married to them.

I don't think women have really changed much. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary!

Phil

19 December 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

Phil @ 20.29 says, 'I don't believe that there is a gay gene.'

And this communicant believes you are completely wrong. There is just so much evidence to suggest that it is genetic, and therefore, incurable. One is tempted laugh at those who think that by subjecting homosexuals to various form of treatment they will change their orientation. At the margin, possibly, but for the majority of homosexuals, not possibly and it's unfair to try.

As a general observation it seems that human sexuality takes the form of shades of grey. Thus for those on the border-line, the bi-sexuals, it is possible to swing either side of the line. Where the current enthusiasm of the political elite for homosexuality is so dangerous is that the marginal cases have less incentive to stay in the hetero camp, so to speak. Ideally we need to dissuade capabable people from taking the route to genetic oblivion that is the inevitable result of homosexuality.

19 December 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The thing is, homosexuality is a sexual orientation. For a whole bunch of us, heterosexuality is simply not a choice. We're sexual beings and that drive is core. Heterosexuality and homosexuality to all intents and purposes implies a sex life. It's pretty unnatural to be celibate, and it's incredibly difficult to suppress one's sex drive. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, like leading a sedentary way of life, any more than heterosexuality is. It's not a fashion statement either. Nor is it like choosing to lead a life of crime. To act on one's sexual orientation is a moral choice, in as much as one's actions have consequences for others, but the orientation itself is not. That's true no matter how much some religious ostriches, speaking as heterosexuals who didn't choose their sexual orientation, would like to imagine a Sodom and Gomorra licentiousness and consequent judgement.

19 December 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "For millennia women have done this screening for us by refusing/(or taking steps to avoid) to have children by effeminate men, even if they were married to them."

I'm not at all effeminate and the majority of my gay friends aren't either. I also have fairly effeminate friends who are straight. You're propelling yourself along with a Gok Wan stereotype there.

19 December 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, far too early to say there is or isn’t a gay gene. It was only yesterday that geneticists found out that most of the DNA which they assumed was rubbish is in fact valuable. Stops the occasional baby being born with a tail apparently.

DanJ0. The Inspector validates what you say, as he has confirmed it in his research. We are rather fortunate to have you on this site.


19 December 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The effeminate gay people do seem to be that way naturally, though the 'volume' changes depending on who they hang around. I suspect they're homosexual via a different 'vector' to mine.

19 December 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"To act on one's sexual orientation is a moral choice, in as much as one's actions have consequences for others, but the orientation itself is not."

I agree about the moral choice - it's the same for heterosexuals or, indeed paedophiles. Whether homosexuality is imprinted during childhood or acquired from one's DNA doesn't really matter.

Now, what moral code do we follow? And, what morality do we pass onto our children? This is what matters.

19 December 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In the absence of compelling evidence of the existence of any of the versions of moral absolutism the different religious groups put forward, what matters here and now is social structure and the extent to which the State intrudes into the lives of individuals. It's a political issue.

20 December 2012 at 06:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

What on earth would constitute evidence for morality?

20 December 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The use of reason, observation and a consideration of natural law and its applicability across all cultures, is a good start!

Most faith groups share common moral imperatives. The differences are over how to apply them in given circumstances and how to respond to breaches in them.

Maybe not "compelling evidence" for those who, for whatever reason, have a more materialist world view.

20 December 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is that really any different from the arguments for some sort of fuzzy, human moral intuition that I have made in the past?

The religious versions of moral absolutism are completely dependent on a god hypothesis. They're just variants of divine command theory.

Without a belief in the god in question, and religionists clearly put forward different god hypotheses, they're nothing.

20 December 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yet we must still carry on.

20 December 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I don't know about a gay gene, but as with the stuff about being gay and demon possessed I would also say that being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' deserves a massive LOL.

20 December 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"I'm not at all effeminate and the majority of my gay friends aren't either. I also have fairly effeminate friends who are straight."

Appear straight. It takes me years to work it out if someone is or not. My wife can work it out in 5 min or so if a guy is gay.

Women seem to be able to spot this, hence the earlier comment.

Phil

20 December 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

"fuzzy, human moral intuition"? That comes from where? That cuts across time, cultures and is reflected in nature?

Of course it proves nothing on its own, merely the possibility of creative design and a deity or deities with a purpose. Combine it with a universal human belief in a God and some form of after-life, and it has greater significance. By using reason, one can see a moral order in the Universe (I believe).

Theistic religions believe God has revealed Himself and His purpose.

Bottom-line, I guess, is that it comes down to faith. Reason, observation and intuition provides one route to it.

20 December 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Appear straight. It takes me years to work it out if someone is or not. My wife can work it out in 5 min or so if a guy is gay. Women seem to be able to spot this, hence the earlier comment."

In some cases she probably does it much the same way I do: most men unconsciously stare too long at women's breasts and the like. Something similar happens with gay men that other gay men usually spot: there's often a 'double take' when eyes meet. There you go, some 'trade' secrets. I'm curious how she verifies her findings though, or does she just mentally label them as gay?

20 December 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: ""fuzzy, human moral intuition"? That comes from where? That cuts across time, cultures and is reflected in nature?"

Human nature, I'd say.

"Of course it proves nothing on its own, merely the possibility of creative design and a deity or deities with a purpose. Combine it with a universal human belief in a God and some form of after-life, and it has greater significance. By using reason, one can see a moral order in the Universe (I believe)."

We're rational, self-aware and mortal. That sort of stuff comes with all that, I'd say. With a wider understanding of science, I'd expect belief to decline as supersitition looks sillier. And so it has in places like the UK.

All of that is peripheral, really. The situation is that our society is diverse now and we have fingertip access to vast amounts of information about the rest of the world. The State can't easily control belief now like it did in the past so we need to live together as harmoniously as possible with a variety of beliefs.

20 December 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

"being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' deserves a massive LOL"

Here are some facts....

On the Born gay thing..

Twin’ studies indicate early life experiences are a major cause of homosexuality. In 1991, Bailey and Pillard claimed if one male identical twin was gay there was a 52% chance the other would be too, but later work showed it’s only about 11%.
A 2006 study of two million Danes1 states, ‘childhood family experiences are important determinants’ of the sex of the future spouse.
Leading researcher, EO Laumann, says the notion that homosexuality is analogous to certain ‘genetically or biologically based traits such as left-handedness’ is ‘exactly what we do not find’.

Being Gay is fixed issue...

Not so much for women so it seems

"Psychologist Lisa Diamond tracked a group of nonheterosexual women over a decade and found their sexual orientation changed. ‘All women reported declines in their ratio of same-sex to other-sex behavior over time’. More than half of those who experience same-sex attraction at age 16 no longer do so at age 17. Overall 67% changed over a 10 year period.

For many it is a lifestyle choice and for women at least, one that many get fed up with over time.

Phil

20 December 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I suppose I really ought to let the numerous religious scientists I know that their superstitious days are numbered.

I'll leave it till after Christmas though. Nobody likes that kind of thing in the holiday season.

20 December 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah

What Phil Roberts is alluding to is what is known as a ‘crush’. When a younger woman is aroused by older same. The good news is that gals grow out of it. Usually a year or so, but in extremis it could be years. You may yet get to the stage where you are happy to receive a man, and fulfil your destiny as a woman...







20 December 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Twin’ studies indicate early life experiences are a major cause of homosexuality."

Can you explain how that conclusion was reached, Phil? And was it by Bailey and Pillard?

20 December 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"With a wider understanding of science, I'd expect belief to decline as supersitition looks sillier."

I see no contradiction between science and belief in a God. Indeed, it seems to me, the more we learn about the wonder and complexity of our Universe the more it points to a deity.

"The State can't easily control belief now like it did in the past so we need to live together as harmoniously as possible with a variety of beliefs."

This is a good thing, I agree. Freedom to choose between a variety of faiths, or none, does not rule out the authenticity of one over another. And living together harmoniously surely means seeking and adopting a set of values that 'work'; that are sustainable and promote harmony.

20 December 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well I have a twin sister and she is straight and we were raised together. So I still don't buy the lifestyle choice bit.

20 December 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

"Well I have a twin sister and she is straight and we were raised together. So I still don't buy the lifestyle choice bit"

Why not your experience seems to be in line with the evidence

Phil

21 December 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DAnjo

"I'm curious how she verifies her findings though, or does she just mentally label them as gay?"

I work in an organization with large numbers of professional staff and also a large turn over of staff.

When we meet up at staff socials she says he is gay etc. 90% of time she is right. I usually had no idea they were gay at all!

I'm sure I can find out who did the twin studies, but I suspect that was not the point of your post

Phil

21 December 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

OK I see what you mean how do they find out if they actually are gay?

Lots of little questions, because they are women, the data is shared, discussed and soon a detailed picture emerges.

I really could not be bothered. But then I am not female

Phil

21 December 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "I'm sure I can find out who did the twin studies, but I suspect that was not the point of your post"

Correct. I was testing if you actually understood what you were copy and pasting, and whether you had even seen any of the primary literature.

21 December 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil

Because if being gay was about choice and environment only then surely I would be straight and/or my sister would be gay as well? Besides which we were bought up together and not apart.

Finally there is still a lot of anti-gay feeling out there, in some quarters , just as there is anti-Jewish stuff; why would anyone 'choose' to take that flak if it were a lifestyle choice?

Makes perfect sense to me.

In any case I think you are confused and Danjo summarised matters well earlier on :

"To act on one's sexual orientation is a moral choice, in as much as one's actions have consequences for others, but the orientation itself is not. "

To me I am by orientation 'gay'. But my 'moral' choice is not to be sexually active because of my religious beliefs.

This does not mean, however, that I would force other gays to be celibate nor say I don't agree with civil partnerships.

I don't agree with same sex marriage to be imposed upon religions either though...

and the opt in/out/ban it flip flopping of the government isn't much good either.

Thinking out aloud, we British like to compromise, so perhaps there needs to be a clear distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage for all religions. If the religions do/do not want to conduct gay marriage let that be their choice.

Then everyone is happy.

21 December 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

When you read a report. Nobody looks at all the data that has been presented. It is not possible. You look at the summary and what conclusions people with more time (and brains) than me have drawn from the data.

This is true whether you are buying a baby seat for the car or indeed if you are looking at twin studies on homosexuals.

Just because I have not read the full report, does not make the conclusions wrong. We tend to use the word trust.

Do you trust DanJo? Or is everyone out to get you?

Phil

21 December 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Do you trust DanJo? Or is everyone out to get you?"

Yes, and certainly not.

You've been copy and pasting from fringe-Christian propaganda sites, and your barking "FACT" before the text doesn't make it so. It's worth digging out the primary literature and checking whether things has been selectively used and whether the conclusions have been fluffed up by the people writing your stuff. You don't need to digest and understand the whole lot. Also, it's worth checking what peer-reviewers say and whether there are meta-analyses of multiple studies. Otherwise, you're in danger of buying into the equivalent of the cosmetics industry's use of scientific language to promote their shampoos and face creams.

21 December 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Pains me to say it but good points, DanJ0.

Shame about the 'edge' in the comment though. Somewhat passive-aggressive, I'd say, and neither "unemotional" nor "mature".

One senses a fight may be developing. So near to Christmas too.

21 December 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The monozygotic twins thing is certainly useful and interesting because it pretty much tells us there isn't a single gay gene otherwise if one twin were gay then the other would mostly likely be gay too.

Monozygotic twin babies nominally share the same DNA but they are not necessarily carbon copies because there may be somatic mutations during foetal development. We assume that they're carbon copies in DNA terms for convenience.

There's also epigenetic effects to consider. Whilst twin foetuses share the same environment, their 'experience' of it may not be the same. Once born, their micro-environment will be different even if their macro-environment is not.

There's more too to do with their upbringing. How they are treated in terms of gender may influence their psycho-sexual development too. Maturation into adults involves changes to the brain so psycho-sexual development may not be changeable.

Where I am going with this is that "environmental factors", in utero and afterwards, may be responsible for sexual orientation. There may be multiple vectors, including some with genetic components, to becoming homosexual too. That doesn't mean homosexuality is chosen or a "lifestyle choice" though.

21 December 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hence, the lifestyle choice for at least some of us is to act on our sexual orientation, or to be celibate. The question I'd immediately ask is why on earth should one not act on one's sexual orientation like anyone else if it is consensual and it doesn't cause significant harm? The answer for a religious person may be: because my beliefs prohibit it. However, for the rest of us the harm to ourselves by not acting on it seems enormous just so that some religious people can feel more comfortable with the world.

21 December 2012 at 15:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Well I am just a simple man and don't really understand multiple vectors and epigenetic effects. All I know is that my sister is my sister and she isn't a bad person. I don't think that she can help being gay. But that is this humble Joos opinion. I'll leave it to the three psychologists, Phil,Danjo and Dodo to discuss the broader points.

Shabbat Shalom.

21 December 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "One senses a fight may be developing. So near to Christmas too."

Are you hoping for one of your so-called drama triangles to develop given your rescuing here?

21 December 2012 at 15:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Interesting comments, again DanJ0. You've obviously given this some serious thought.

However, the 'hard-wiring' of the brain during early childhood can be ameliorated to some extent so this comment isn't entirely accurate:

"That doesn't mean homosexuality is chosen or a "lifestyle choice" though."

It does mean human agency is involved rather than DNA which is why, for people of faith, the proper moral development of children is seen as critical.

And how can you assert:

" ... why on earth should one not act on one's sexual orientation like anyone else if it is consensual and it doesn't cause significant harm?"

Homosexuality is harmful for those individuals who listen to their consciences regardless of whether they follow a religion. It is also harmful to wider society in that it is part of the wider "sexual revolution" that associates sex with pleasure and breaks the links between life-long monogamy for the purposes of raising children.

Ps
And no, I'm not hoping for any such thing. Just keeping an eye on you given your 'tactical' capacity to bring out the worst in people.

21 December 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"sexual orientation like anyone else if it is consensual and it doesn't cause significant harm?"

The evidence is that it does cause significant harm. However, you would not like the references I give you or you would dispute their interpretation and I have not personally checked every dot and comma in the primary sources.

Shame on me I know.

Phil

21 December 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

"Because if being gay was about choice and environment only then surely I would be straight and/or my sister would be gay as well? Besides which we were bought up together and not apart"

Thank you for this. I must admit that I have no idea why outcomes would be different. None of my children are twins but I do know that they are all very different. Many people have told us that they all look and act so similarly that they can tell that they are from the same family. But for us there are huge differences. We do have 7 kids so this is not based on a particularly small sample!

I do see that for us as parents are relatively trivial things can have a lasting impact with one child and not bother another at all.

My guess for orientation is experience/nurture, but I am no expert!

Phil

21 December 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David K

No one here (Certainly not me -- and I apologize if I gave that impression) is saying your sister is a bad person.

Why on earth should we say that?

Phil

21 December 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "The evidence is that it does cause significant harm."

Harm to oneself in a properly liberal society [1] doesn't really count if that's what your sources are about. Passing STDs onto others would count but heterosexual behaviour can also do that. Also, I've never had an STD in my life and I'm pretty healthy too.

[1] What counts as significant harm in any calculation of rights and behaviour is difficult in liberal political philosophy but we use the notion anyway in many areas.

21 December 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It does mean human agency is involved rather than DNA which is why, for people of faith, the proper moral development of children is seen as critical."

None of us is a complete slave to our DNA so there's no great revelation there whether or not there is a gay gene, set of gay genes, or a genetic component to it.

"Homosexuality is harmful for those individuals who [do not?] listen to their consciences regardless of whether they follow a religion."

If I've understood that then be assured that I listen very closely to my conscience and it doesn't trouble me at all about my homosexual behaviour. That is, you may think it is a moral fault because of your beliefs but I do not and my conscience works fine in other areas.

"It is also harmful to wider society in that it is part of the wider "sexual revolution" that associates sex with pleasure and breaks the links between life-long monogamy for the purposes of raising children."

That's an assertion of course. I counter-assert that freedom of the individual is a social good and that it must be balanced against other considerations. As an example, road deaths are a Bad Thing and could be significantly reduced every year if we all drove at 10mph. However, if we all did that then there would be consequences which we probably would not accept either.

21 December 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0.Also, I've never had an STD in my life and I'm pretty healthy too.

Anyone who follows our man’s posts would conclude that DanJ0 is a decent man. Not that far removed from the rest of us. And the Inspector agrees. But note this, on Pink News you will come across men who will admit to having had SIXTY partners. And you will come across men who do not not take precautions with their ‘regular’.

So, forget about DanJ0 and his quest to put across the acceptable gay picture, and bear in mind someone like Spencer Scott. A keen ‘rights’ man, he recently died from ‘AIDS complications’. He was just 44.



21 December 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "None of my children are twins but I do know that they are all very different."

Because they've all got a different mix of DNA from you and your partner, even though each has 50% for you and 50% from their mother. Most of that will be the same from both of you of course. Only, it's more complicated than that because of the chromosomes. Your Y chromosome is shared by all your sons and yourself but the X chromosome from their mother is different between all of them. Your children actually get more DNA from their mother than you, despite the 50-50% thing. They also get a copy of their mother's mitochondrial DNA but not yours. At least I think I've got all that right anyway.

21 December 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "But note this, on Pink News you will come across men who will admit to having had SIXTY partners. And you will come across men who do not not take precautions with their ‘regular’."

This tends to happen more on what is called "The Scene". I rather hope The Scene will largely disappear as homosexual acceptance influences the new generations. Also, by the way, there are plenty of heterosexuals who go to the "Meat Market" night clubs who do much the same thing in their youth, both the many partners thing and the lack of condoms. However, biology tends to turn that off for most heterosexual people by around 30yo in my experience. Not so on The Scene despite the glamourising youth thing you mention at times.

21 December 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'd actually be less inclined to push for homosexual acceptance if I thought things would stay the same for homosexual relations as they were in the 1980s. I reckon that the lack of acceptance in the modern past has created a bit of a monster there, encouraging ships-in-the-night sex and special places to meet etc.

21 December 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"I counter-assert that freedom of the individual is a social good and that it must be balanced against other considerations."

And how "free" do you really believe people are? Without the guidance of a real and objective moral code, which we all have, imagine the world.

Of course there are those with "intrinsic disorders" across all areas of human activity who believe right is wrong and vice versa. And such activity, at the very least, has to be understood for what it is. It can be tolerated, to some extent, but shouldn't be promoted or normalised.

Just as in your example, the cost of such freedom might prove unacceptably high.

21 December 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And how "free" do you really believe people are? Without the guidance of a real and objective moral code, which we all have, imagine the world."

We're a lot freer than (say) people in England 500 years ago and I think we're in a much better place now. The "real and objective" moral code is just a moral code the Roman Catholic Church holds, cherishes, and asserts. It's real and objective because it has been defined that way and published. If our planet was actually destroyed today in a cosmic accident then I expect the moral code would cease to exist along with us.

21 December 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0.Yes the club/scene types. Frequently derided by many commentators on Pink News, in fact a favourite tag for them is ‘whores’ who give being gay a bad name. But as you know, you have to appreciate the whole gay package, the rough as well as the smooth.

Predictable of you to throw in the heterosexual meat market as you put it. But glad you did. Health professionals are well aware of the phenomenon of the meat market and until late have been somewhat mystified as to why the clubs are not awash with STD. So, a bit of conjecture from the Inspector who has his ‘ear to the ground’ in the city of Gloucester.

He puts it to you thus. The same group of randy lads screw the same group of moral-less women. This can be explained by the low intellect man being a lazy beast who will not invest half an evening chatting up a new woman and risking ultimate rejection when he can invest his time and money on a sure fire thing. More conjecture, if disease hits the group, plenty of frantic phone calls to identify the source of infection, with the guilty party NOT thrown out, but readmitted after successful medical treatment.

The Inspector informed you only the other day that diseased gays are immediately ostracised from the scene by their fellows, and even forced to move far away if they wish to continue ‘living their club dream’

Such is the pattern of the spreading of sexual disease...







21 December 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 December 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There were something like 427000 new cases of STIs reported in 2011, you know. With the highest numbers in the 20-24 year old age range.

21 December 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0. One cannot help but to blame feminism for the reluctance of young women to pair off with a man, and instead lead a soulless life which used to be associated with unstable and frequently alcoholic men...

The secular dream do you think ?





21 December 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

One final point for today


It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave.

—John Bunyan

Think about it. This is exactly what is happening with Christians in the UK and elsewhere.

Our "freedom" is increasingly an illusion, progress?

Phil

22 December 2012 at 06:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,

I don't think you think I am a bad person, so no offence taken.

My sister might look like me, but is very different in personality. She is more confident and outgoing than me and louder, but she always looks after me.

22 December 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Phil Roberts,

Rest assured, I didn't think that you thought my sister was a bad person.

Compliments of the season to you.

23 December 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 December 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi John Magee

I have a twin sister called Rachel you see, one of 6 other siblings.

24 December 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 December 2012 at 22:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older