91热爆

George Dawson is wrong to suggest that the civil partnership provisions in NI law consitute "persecution" of Christians. In fact, Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong need have no problems supporting gay and lesbian civil unions:

This is the type of society that the West wants to impose on the rest of the world.

no idea what robert means by that comment, but i heard the show and it brought all the usual nuts out of their cases. i thought the mother of the lesbian police woman was just great, she really did herself proud in the interview.

William's argument that the two worldviews can co-exist peacefully were rocked on air by the American chap who pointed out how faith schools and faith adoption agencies were threatened because they could not sign up to work with civil partnerships. He cited American examples he knew of personally.

Having said that William, an excellent piece of choreography. You selected your witnesses well in advance, had your script well written and controlled the situation 100 per cent.

You expertly pressed for the verdict you wanted at the end from your selected Presbyterian minister (whose views coincidentally almost mirror your own) and hit Dawson right between the eyes; who really noticed that your were having to feed the words into The Rev's mouth to do it?

But even this minister first of all applauded Dawson's convictions in his conclusion.
He also admitted that Presbyterian ministers generally feel they are being persecuted in relation to maintaining the traditional Christian position and are therefore unable to engage in reasonable discussions you say you support.

I would be more convinced of your bona fides if you could suggest how such ministers can be accomodated without prejudging that they must ultimately reject their position of conscience and faith. Are we to allow them to retain their beliefs with full freedom, but only to mutter them under their breath in private; thereby holding to their views 100 per cent but rendering themselves wretches broken by the politically correct mind bending machine.

Yes compassion is paramount in all this. But William you repeatedly appear to have prejudged that this compassion equals accepting homosexuality without debate or discussion.

But the majority of Presbyterian ministers are obviously holding to the scriptural view that they hold out a hand of love to all sinners and another to the God who died for them to make them whole.

Only a fundamentalist view will hold that it is absolutely right on this. I will admit to that much in this case, but will you admit that you hold your oppositie view also as a fundamentalist?

PB

PB- Where did William's treatment of this topic indicate that he was doing anything more than provoking debate?

I'm not sure that you understand the function of the presenter in a discussion like this, PB. You are speaking like a paranoid minority when, in actual fact, much of the NI population agrees with you on this issue. If anything, your beef is with producers who fail to put together a panel of commentators who adequately represent the majority of public opinion. But William was merely prodding the debate along and asking the relevant questions. Nowhere did he intend to make any of those questions statements of his own belief or opinion and they shouldn't be heard as such.

You've a point there, John. Not sure who PB is, but he is not only paranoid, he's illogical. First he says that the Presbyterian minister on the programme has views that mirror Williams (even though I didn't hear William reveal his own view), then he says the Presbyterian minister later agreed with Dawson's convictions. That doesn't make sense. Either he agrees or he doesn't. When I listened to the show today, I was surprised at how incredibly patient the presenter was with some of the people talking. He was more polite than I'd have been with the medieval throwbacks.

Marcus, given:

- the amount of airtime that William (and his producer) has given to 'discussing' topics related to homosexuality on Sunday Sequence and other programmes he is involved in

- that he often becomes a gay-rights contributer on his own shows

- his participation in this year's Gay Pride

- his very wide definition of homophobia in his blog

I would hazard a guess that his own views have already been revealed!

Ceejay- The amount of time given to discussion of gay issues on 91热爆 talk radio reflects the amount that gay issues affect current affairs and contemporary culture, nothing else. And if by 'participation' in Gay Pride Day you mean that William was involved in his capacity as a journalist, then there are a great many more 'participants' than you realise.

I have a discussion point of my own. Why is it that you and PB miraculously appear each and every time the word 'gay' is mentioned in this blog? Do you have something to confess?

Dear John

Quite interesting how the producers fail to put together a balanced panel on *every* occasion this subject is brought up ;-)

But dont take me for a fool, anyone can see that William advances this agenda at every opportunity and he is so well read on it in all regards he obviously has a passionate interest. No crime there but is it neutral?

As a libertarian John why do you have any problem whatsoever with how and when Ceejay and I choose to join a free debate? Have you a hierarchy of freedoms? This is a sign of things to come.

A Nazi peace treaty is says "peace" on the tin but it is intended as a tactic to get the victim's guard down while the planned extermination is advanced covertly. This is not to tar all gays with the same brush as the extreme lobby, but Ceejay has made a case to answer, above.

John, you can come back and tell me I am wrong when William selects and affirms an expert to come onto his show who says the gay rights lobby should not be able to infringe traditional religious freedom of expression.

And lastly, all accusations of paranoia are hereby refuted;

The latest NI office of first and deputy first minister gay rights consultation "getting equal" explicitly puts freedom of religious doctrine being taught in churches AND MOSQUES on the agenda. Its on the web, no disputes please.

Liberty Equality Freedom? France has civil partenships open to anyone, including gays and brothers and sisters for inheritance purposes. But our civil parternships deliberately discriminated against non-gays despite extensive lobbying and were designed to foist legitimacy of gay unions regardless of democratic opinion. Most of NI were opposed to it but it made no difference.

So, John, trample on freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the democratic will of Northern Ireland - and that is libertarian? I think you need a new brand name.

That is why Ceejay and I pop up when this subject is raised.

Over to you.

PB

PS John

The minister's view mirrored William's for the purposes of his agenda in this debate because he was very strongly pro-civil partnerships. That is a rare thing among NI presbyterian ministers, by his own admission (and motions carried at their last annual conference), and suggests he was not selected at random.

He was most certainly not selected because he was representative of his colleages. That is beyond dispute.

PB

Finally John

You regularly defend William's neutrality on this topic so here is an objective test.

I contend that William almost never asks a question which challenges the pro-gay lobby or its views.

I also contend that William asks many many questions which challenge the Christian lobby.

Most of his dialogue with the pro-gay lobby merely teases out views which he obviously agrees with.

If you want to prove me wrong here John go back through all William's numerous blogs on this topic and do a tally of the questions. Come back and let us know your findings.

PB

There is no such thing as homosexuality we are all human beings, it is a sinful man made phenomenon an acquired sinful disposition the result of a bankrupt conscience with no moral principles using sex in a self centred way, going against God鈥檚 purpose in creating us, which was to Glorify God and to enjoy him for ever, the moral principle in question is Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Man was made in the image of God with all God鈥檚 glory, but born into sinful tragedy as sexual creatures with sexual potential and sexual problems, but as believers we have no supreme right to dehumanise those who engage in such acts, but as Christians we should be helping those with their sexual problems overcome with Christian compassion and Christian love, I must say the perception at large is the Christian community has failed, though there are some individuals sharing God鈥檚 love to homosexuals in a real and loving way. However we may find homosexuality to be immoral behaviour in light of GOD鈥橲 Word. GOD alone is our supreme judge, but because a Christian holds such a view. the 鈥淐hristian conscience鈥� it should not be treated as moral persecution it is plainly obedience to Christ.

For what ANTSY and Bill C Stated, I would like to say that the West [which glorifies imposing its will on the rest of the world] wants to impose something that the rest of the world does not want. The Rest of the World knows that "man and woman" are the keys to life. This is not fanaticism but what the Bible, Coran, and other books say. It is in this front that the West may lose to the Islamic World.

Talking of the miraculous, my last posting appears to have been removed.

I'm hoping this is a technology glitch rather than censorship...

...maybe it will miraculouly return. If not an explaination would be nice...

Hello. A very intense debate here, isn't it? Can I just add one comment, about the Reverend Bobby Little? He's the Presbyterian minister who took part in this discussion on the radio. I know of Bobby Little and he is a conservative evangelical within the Presbyterian Church. He is NOT a liberal, he is NOT ecumenical, he does NOT support the ordination of women to the ministry, he is committed to an expository preaching ministry, and he believes that homosexuality is a sin when people act on that sexual temptation. I don't for a minute recognise what this person PB is saying about Bobby Little. While he was on the radio, Bobby simply agreed that gay people should have rights protected by the law. You don't need to agree with someone in order to agree that their rights should be protected by the law, you know. That's where Bobby is coming from. I think he made a sensible point and I agree with it. Gay people deserve as many rights as the rest of us. I'm an evangelical Christian too, and I'm getting fed up with others giving evangelicalism a bad name by going out in public and sounding like dinosaurs or bigots. Bobby was a breath of fresh air and I thank him for taking the flak he's been taking for saying what he said.

Dear J

You raise valid points and concerns.

I dont dispute any of what you say about Bobby Little but factually speaking he is pro-civil partnership and I forgot to mention he was also critical of Dawson and his approach o the topic. That is more fully how he mirrored William's views. That much is factual and beyond dispute.

I maintain that is why he was chosen, despite appearing to be a "conservative evangelical".

Regarding being dinosaurs and bigots, I think these are emotive terms designed to close down debate and only serve to cloud it.

If all you have to say is that your views are good because they are new and mine are bad because they have endured for 6000 years then I think you have a very thin argument.

Abrahamic faiths have maintained traditional positions on sexuality for 6000 years. (Gay columnist and former Tory MP Matthew Parris is solidy opposed to this being challenged by law; that is my equivalent to William quoting Little, a tried and trusted tactic ;-)).

You may say your views are good because they are new. I could respond that historical milieus when homosexuality was particularly prominent have generally been associated with libertinism, excess and decline of said societies. Historical examples would be the failing days of the Greek and Roman Empires and of course biblical narratives in the time of Lot.

For the record, and I will have a guess that Ceejay agrees with me here, my primary concern is not about which laws are brought in.
My concern is the fact that freedom of speech is being dramatically curbed on this subject and that precedent has significant ramifications for our democracy, such as it is.

I am not in favour of theocracy, given its historical excesses but the means by which we are supposed to fairly legislate are here eroded; free and frank discussion and debate and in NI at least, "the will of the people".

eg, Politically Correct police remove Ceejay's post above, which according to this site, was approved by William himself in the first instance, so it can't have been too grave. It is not the first time it has happened on this blog.

Lastly, while I wouldnt give myself the label evangelical J, I think you are engaging in some serious revisionism there.

It is you that is out of step with the only ever position of Evangelical Christians with your stance on sexuality; they would more correctly argue that you are giving them a bad name.

If your main complaint is that the debate can be over-intense I can sympathise with it, but this is being seriously heightened by serious forms of censorship in almost all parts of the mainstrem media.

Sincerely
PB

Dear John Wright

ref your post 5

I think perhaps to read this post of yours in context it would only be fair if you declared a possible conflict of interest in always rallying to William's defence (without actually refuting the criticisms against him, I note).

To prove your indepdence may I ask how many referals your own blog gets from William's blog on average per month?

;-)

Cheers
PB

....John Wright and Marcus Bridges have suddenly gone very quiet in upholding their accusations of my paranoia.

Come on guys - have you read the NI Government "getting equal" discussion point on gagging churches and mosques in NI yet?

It is on the web guys, come on now....

PB

FOURTH TIME LUCKY IN SUBMITTING THIS PIECE, NOW WITH REVISIONS TO AVOID CENSORSHIP.

A few points that will help illustrate current mainstream censorship and disinformation, which is corroding the democratic legislative process in the UK.

If you are narrow minded and prejudiced on this issue you will refuse to consider them valid discussion points, please note.

First I affirm the point the last NI Presbyterian conference made, that everyone has a fallen sexuality and we cannot approach this as self-righteous; many Christians have failed on this and in showing compassion.

To continue;-

1) Just how fixed is sexuality?
2) An historical survey of psychological verdicts on homosexuality over the past 100 years
3)A discussion on the landmark case of why the American Psychiatric Assocition changed its views on homosexuality in 1970 under extreme outside influence and without any new scientific evidence.
4)An examination of the evidence for the gay gene.
3)A discussion on "internalised homophobia"; where did this term come from and how accurately does it portray the condition of those it purports to diagnose?
6)Why huge amounts of resources are poured into assisting people changing sexuality, but only so long as they are moving in one direction?
7)Censorship of certain groups of medical doctors, clergymen and mental health professionals when they raise valid professional questions or research on the subject.

I think many people who have concerns about homosexuality in society would feel much more comfortable about where we are going if there was freedom to discuss these factors in mainstream media. In NI exactly the opposite has happened and civil partnership were imposed against the will of the majority.

You think I am a crank? Many gay people, like Matthew Parris and Peter Tatchell, have gone on public record to voice their own grave concerns about such censorship. Parris defends the rights of Abramahic faiths to maintain their positions on it unfettered while Tatchell went to court (on grounds of freedom of speech) to oppose the prosecution of a street preacher for his public stance on homosexuality.

William, you asked for a civil debate, here is the gauntlet. I will know your bona fides when you allow these points FAIRLY onto your broadcast agenda WITH A BALANCED PANEL OF QUALIFIED EXPERTS.

sincerely

PB

William,

It appears that I am not the only one to lose a post on this 91热爆 blog recently. Please explain what is going on as people will not participate if they think you're not really interested in feedback to your articles. I was under the impression that as this is a 91热爆 blog that ALL views would be published as long as they were not offensive.

In response to Roberto Galloso, it is evident that the rest of the world doesn鈥檛 know that 鈥渕an and woman鈥� are the keys to the human race or we wouldn鈥檛 be having this debate.

In response to Roberto Galloso, it is evident that the rest of the world doesn鈥檛 know that 鈥渕an and woman鈥� are the keys to the human race or we wouldn鈥檛 be having this debate.

Just a comment on some of this continuing debate. And thanks to all of you for contributing your comments here.

Some of the points made about balance on panels and the Revd Bobby Little in particular merit a clarification.

A common misunderstanding of radio programmes is that presenters choose the subjects, select the contibutors, and practically show the guests into the studio. In fact, this is far from the case. Producers decide content and invite contributors, and, in the case of a fast-moving news programme, sometimes items are developed and guests invited while the programme is on air.

The Revd Bobby Little was suggested to the programme by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, since he chairs their panel on a relevant subject. The producers were keen to include a view from Northern Ireland's largest Protestant denomination, and Mr Little was that denomination's spokesman on this occasion. (I've never actually discussed any of these matters with Mr Little on or off air previously; in fact, I'm not sure I've had any conversation with him previously.) He joined two other guests, and together the panel formed, I'd have thought, a very balanced perspective on the issues at hand: Seamus Close has voiced very publicly his opposition to any equivalence between civil partnerships and "marriage"; the third contributor is a gay man just about to enter a civil partnership; and Mr Little supports legal protection for gay couples while maintaining a traditionalist theological and moral perspective on the issue. I hope that clarification is slightly helpful. Thanks again to everyone for your robust debate and thoughtful comments.

Ceejay

ref post 20,

Before censorship, my post 19 was raising factually based assertions about sexuality that would stand in a court of law.

If you will notice, the implication that these had to be turned into neutral questions to get onto this blog upholds my assertions that there is very little chance of these points ever being fairly debated on the 91热爆 and mainstream media generally.

After all, police in GB are now "interviewing" even the highest religious public figures for making statements on whether sexuality is fixed or not.

I tried to submit homosexuality excerpts from Encyopaedia Brittanica on a previous William Crawley blog ref and it was continually blocked.

Now the NI Government is consulting on whether sexuality doctrine in in churches and mosques should be regulated (google; OFDFM Getting equal). Dangerous terrority, and incidentally, I dont understand how William Crawley denied this was the case ref this consultation in his radio show about the two policewomen. William?????

Lastly ref point 6 Marcus

My posting may have seemed illogical if you did not closely follow the broadcast.

Rev Little majored on his support for civil partnerships and his criticism of George Dawson's message about same. He minored on his assertion that homsexuality was sinful and that ministers felt very vulnerable in stating their positions publicly.

In this he made an ideal "quote" to stab at Dawson with; He could be described as a conservative evagelical which apparently gave him more credibility with which to undermine Dawson. Therefore he mirrored William's views for the purposed of his aim for that discussion.

However, to those that think opposing civil partnerships is giving Christians a bad name, what would you make of a minister publicly condemning a national leader for an adulterous relationship? Take it up with John the Baptist, J.

It would appear this was the constant role of the prophet throughout the bible, to challenge unrighteousness in the nation/Government, without ever actually seeking to become the Government. Many would hold the church has inherited this responsibility, though not that of actual Government or law making; you cannot condemn Christians for taking part in the legislative debate.

If you want an idea of "Evangelical" thought in this topic, suggest you google "Evangelical Alliance UK Civil Partnership". I believe is has a very substantial number of members, of which I am not one.

PB

William

Thank you for engaging.

I take and accept your point that presenters do not choose contributors.
But are you saying they have no input into the decision or the production process? Or that producers may not hold the same bias as a presenter?

It is hard to see you as objective on this subject for the points already raised in detail above, most of which remain hanging.

In my experience the 91热爆 NI coverage of homosexuality is very selective of which aspects of this topic it debates and would, I believe, strenously avoid an agenda focussing on points 1-7 in post 19.

Sincerely
PB

This guy pb is a strange one. Obsessed and paranoid about the whole gay thing, isn't he? I'm not surprised that people here seem to have given up responding to him - he'll never be persuaded on an point. What all that about? Look up the word "latent" in the dictionary, I'd say. He also seems to think that journalists should be "objective" about homophobia! That's like saying that journalists should be objective about racism or sexism. Imagine complaining that a 91热爆 presenter didn't challenge black people enough on the radio and put National Front arguments to them about whether they should leave the UK and return to Africa!!? We'd all say that was daft beyond words. Yet here's a guy who thinks it's the role of the 91热爆 presenter to put anti-gay arguments to gay people on the radio!! Madness. Whether he likes it or not, wanting to abuse the civil rights of gay people is an outrage, just as much an outrage as someone wanting to abuse the civil rights of black people, women, or other minority groups. Grow up.

Marcus,

One concern that some of us have regarding the changes in the law is that it will restrict the freedom of speech of those of us who hold to the historic Biblical teaching on such matters (as also adhered to by the Roman Catholic church, the majority of Protestant churches etc.). Whether or not you agree with those teachings surely you do not wish those who hold to them to be silenced?

If you do, then who do silence next - those who hold political opinions at variance with you?

PB- To answer your comment 17. Most of my readers did not find my blog through this one (you'll note that my blog has been around since 2003, which Will & Testament has not). I really do not know the exact number of referrals from W&T, nor do I see that as a relevant question: my base readership was established well before I began reading and contributing here.

I simply don't have the time or the willpower to discuss this issue in detail with you again, PB. You may want to re-read Marcus Bridges' comment 26; I agree with him entirely.

Well said, John Wright. PB is becoming a cyber pest, I'm afraid. Just be glad John that he isn't stalking your blog!

Reply to ceejay: I absolutely defend freedom of speech on even the most contentious issues. No one is telling Christians they can't express their religious and moral views about homosexuality. In fact Christians are never off the radio fdoign that! he traditionalist Christian lobby needs to stop pretending that it's the minority group being attacked here. When was the last time you heard a gay person arguing that Christians are evil, unnatural, sinful, or that they should be sent to therapy to have their head tested and their religion converted out of them; or even that they should be banned from marrying each other, or from holding certain jobs. Get real, guys.

Marcus,

I was verbally attacked and abused for walking into a church meeting hosted by the Christian Institute last year by gay-rights protestors including a very prominent member of the gay community.

I know personally one minister who was attacked for his views on homosexuality and was told by the thugs that this was why he was getting a beating.

In previous postings I have provided details of people who have been investigated by the police for voicing their beliefs on homosexuality.

Hopefully this answers your question.

ceejay, I've no evidence of you bein called names at a meeting of the Christian Institute - I just know that the Christian Institute have said some pretty nasty things about homosexuals and they are not exactly byond criticism themselves.

As for the minister taking a beating because of his views on homosexuality, I'd like to know more about that because it doesn't seem to have been reported in the press. Can you tell us who he is and whether he went to the police? What action was taken by the poice?

Marcus, John

ref post 26

Ref your repeated claims of paranoia, are you guys deliberatley ignoring the NI and (UK I believe) consultation that invites discussion on controllling doctrine and churches and mosques? None of you have responded to this, see post 18 .

You appear to have ignored that Rev Little, Ceejay and myself have all cited indisputable examples where people are afraid to express their views or have been picked up by the police for expressing their views on this in the UK. Marcus...are you really reading this blog?

And Marcus, "I will never be persuaded" you say? That is a fundamentalist position, that purports to hold absolute truth on a matter and therefore refuses to consider discussion or compromise, contrary to the purpose of this blog entry. You imply that my only moral course of action is to be persuaded by you.

This therefore supports my post 9 that there will can never be any real meaningful discussions between the two sides on this; both sides would enter discussions equally determined to hold to their own views.

And Marcus if you read my writing again you will find I have never, EVER condemned a gay person as being any better or worse than myself, because I just don't believe that.
You are falling into the trap of stereotyping me with your prejudicial views of some Christians.

WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR IS FREEDOM OF INFORMATIOM. I would not support pressing gay people into any sort of treatment or conversion, but I strongly argue that they should have free access to all the facts about homosexuality to make up their own minds. Who could argue against that. I suggest it is a grave disservice to such people to do otherwise. What is there to fear?

You are also mispresenting my points as homophobia when there is not an ounce of hatred or fear in them. I challenge you to prove me wrong on that.

And you are telling me a 91热爆 presenter cannot host a show where the scientific DNA evidence for homosexuality can be discussed?

Do you really mean that? Have you misunderstood what you are saying or do you really understand the implications of this?

What qualifies you to outlaw pschologists, medical doctors and theologians from putting forward research that supports views held for 1000s/100s of years? Just because you class them as "homophobic", a word with very dubious origins, I may add.

I strongly second Ceejay's concerns over civil liberties in post 27.

Also guys, an awful lof pejorative and emotive language being thrown around and a lot of evasivness on points you find tricky. I would sincerely hope for more for this to be in any way worthwhile.

As William says, a robust discussion, dont take it personally guys, it isnt.
PB

ref post 29

Dear Pauly

Thank for your your thoughful and insightful contribution to the issues under discussion.

;-)

PB

Marcus,

I am interested to know how you can assert you support freedom of speech "on the most contentious issues" but have a problem with a public discussion on how fixed sexuality is.

Peter Tatchell, for example, asserts it is not fixed because he knows so many people who have switched from gay to straight, including a previous partner of his.

Would it really be homophobic to have a civil discussion about this?

Genuinely interested to understand how you reconcile these two points.

PB

PS A few words used to describe me and/or other Christians on this blog;-

"Nuts, paranoid, illogical, medieval throwbacks, dinsoaurs, bigots, obsessed, homophobic".

Come on guys, step up to the mark with something more than harsh adjectives designed to close down debate.....engage!

You will notice neither Ceejay or I are stooping to this behaviour.

...I neglected to mention two other insults;-

"cyber pest and stalker"....

I thought through every word of it, PB.

Robust? Downright agressive, guys. Wayyyyyyyy too much testosterone in these comments. So let's see if I can bring a little femine gentility to the proceedings.

I'm interested in the free speech issue. I don't know of any Christian in the UK who has been arrested or persecuted for simply preaching the Gospel or stating their own views on homosexuality. I hear Christians all the time saying things like, Homosexuality is a sin, quoting the Bible verses about abomination etc. That's legal. People don't have to agree with it, but nobody's planning to make those views ILLEGAL in the UK. I'd be the first to defend any religious believer's right to state their views publicly.

There's a difference, however, between all of that and those people who state their viws with such nastiness and hatred that their comments break the law - we have incitement laws for very good reason in this country.

We all need to live together in one country so I approve of laws that limit the kind of language we can use - we SHOULD ban the kind of language that incites violence or breeds hatred. I believe every Christian, Jew, Muslim or other believer is free to practice their faith and state ther views on homosexuality respectfully and within the law. When they step over the line, they should be prosecuted. Mind you, it says more about some Christians that it takes a law to prevent them speaking words of hatred. What would Jesus make of that?

Helen,

Please look at the following - these few examples may help in illustrating what exactly is at stake.

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

Do gays suffer from poverty; unemployment; powerlessness; and social exclusion.If not they are not oppressed they have more rights than what hetrosexuals have because there is no laws to protect the hetrosexual compared to the positive discrimantion in favour of the homosexual.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Marcus,

I'm keen to find out what 'nasty things' (as you put it) the Christian Institute say about homosexuals. They claim to be defending Biblical teaching on moral issues. They publish their material online so it should not be difficult to illustrate your point...

Regards my experience and the attack on the minister. I am not going to elaborate further in a public forum (my guess is the 91热爆 would bar this anyway and I couldn't blame them). Its up to you if you think I'd fabricate such claims. I can assure you that these are accurate.

See posting 39 for evidence of investigations on people for just stating their views.

Bill don't be silly. You reduce your own arguments when you try to say that gay people have more rights than straight people. Really, this is all getting ver stupid.

Helen- I believe the mistake you make here is to assume that the people who show up to 'tackle' this issue such as PB and Ceejay are capable of rational discussion. Just hunt back into the archives of this blog to see what I'm talking about. Scan for the word "gay".

John,

Please highlight where my postings are not rational.

Is it a sign of great debate when you resort to ad hominem remarks?

I may not agree with everything you post (and I don't) but I don't resort to name calling.

I've checked out the examples given by ceejay in (39). They certainly don't add up to persecution of Christians for their religious views. Three of the four cases involved a visit from the police after a report (which is what they have to do when they have a report of an alleged homophobic incident) with no further action being taken from the police or other authorities.

The Hammond case was a conviction under incitement legislation. He was not, as suggested here, arrested for holding up a placard that said homosexuality is wrong. If he'd done that, he'd have been in the clear - and there's a christian group who have a 30 feet banner saying homosexuality is sinful on display at every gay pride parade in belfast. Hammond's placard said "Stop Homosexuality". The court took this to be an incitement to others to act in a way that could endanger gay people. Imagine if he'd a banner reading STOP JUDAISM. Or STOP ISLAM. These too would have been judged illegal for the same reason and under the same legislation. Christians are free to preach their views on these issues in churches across the land, and they do. They are free to stand on street corners with loud hailers telling the rest of us that we are going to hell, that Catholics aren't saved, that the world was made in 6 days, and that gay people are an abomination before God. All this they do, and nobody is stopping them doing it. If I WANTED to stop Chistians doing what they do, and if I stood on Oxford Street with a sign saying STOP CHRISTIANITY, I would be arrested and the sign removed in case it incited some idiot to actually bomb a church (or, in the case of homosexuality, bomb a bar, like the Admiral Duncan in London which was bombed just a few years ago by a homophobe).

Helen,

Persecution is a strong word and not used by me.

These cases show that free speech is being curtailed via the threat of police investigation.

You talk of a visit from the police in very matter-of-fact terms. How would you feel if the police arrived at your door because of the generalisations you've made in your post about 'Christians'? If you were investigated, would you feel as confident about stating your opinions in public?

I don't share your confidence in explicitly anti-Christian statements being followed up by the police. An example is the "In the Name of The Father" add placed in the media and billboards by a gay-rights organisation. This wasn't met with by immediate police investigation.

Helen: point 44

I am not silly or stupid; my argument is based on solid facts, for instance the Government is at present preparing the Sexual Orientation Regulations for legislation in Northern Ireland which gives rights to gays but discriminates at the expense of Christians who hold traditional heterosexual beliefs based on God鈥檚 Word, this means that gays have more rights than heterosexuals, for example it will be against the law not to provide homosexuals a room at a B&B and the Government has made it quite clear that it wants to ban B&Bs from refusing to give homosexuals a double bed (page 18 of the consultation document), I ask you then who has more rights in this case, because if you hold to a heterosexual ethos and practise it in your business you have no rights, Christians in such situations will be forced to accept immorality in their own home, where Christian conscience is directly violated lines have to be drawn. I ask you, who has more rights in this case. I believe that my argument is rock solid.

Helen,

Not sure where you got your facts from regarding Harry Hammond.

The case did not involve 'incitement legislation' but the Public Order Act of 1986.

Ceejay- It's not the sign of a great debate, no, it's the sign of a non-debate. (And I didn't call you any names.)

John,

Apologies - I mistook your comment:

"I believe the mistake you make here is to assume that the people who show up to 'tackle' this issue such as PB and Ceejay are capable of rational discussion."

as name calling and ad hominem. My mistake...its nothing of the sort ... is it?

Helen's nailed ceejay's exaggerations here, fair and square. The four cases he mentioned involved only one prosecution and that was reviewed on appeal, yet even then the courts upheld the conviction. Come on ceejay, yur protesting too much mate. As for the other three examples - if I'd said what those people said, Id expect a police visit.

The elderly couple inb one of those cases wrote a letter to the local council that was so offensive that the council called in the police to investigate. Wisely, the police gave the couple some advice and left the matter there. Interestingly, the letter they wrote has never been published, so we don't know just how homophobic and offensive it was. But it's a sad day for Christianity when a Christian couple needs to be told by the police to moderate their verbal attacks on people. What would jesus make of that?

Pauly,

I'm truely amazed at your post.

Your comment:

"As for the other three examples - if I'd said what those people said, Id expect a police visit."

is staggering.

We clearly have a very different view of freedom of expression and of speech.

Ceejay- What name did I call you?

John,

Definition: Name Calling (n) Verbal abuse; insulting language

You resorted to this in stating:

"I believe the mistake you make here is to assume that the people who show up to 'tackle' this issue such as PB and Ceejay are capable of rational discussion."

Helen,

Funny how you and others who are so keen to show how 'tolerant' you are, seem not to be able to demonstrate this when others disagree with you.

Regards your insults - as you put it - what would Jesus say?

William,

Perhaps you should just have a fan club site as those who express opinions other than those you hold appear not to get a fair hearing.

That ceejay guy is hilarious. Nice one, Helen - the free speech argument just turned around and smacked ceejay on the back of the head ;-)

Poor ceejay, taking all this intolerant abuse for merely expressing his view. Tut tut. What is the world coming to? It wasn't like this in Noah's day. Bring back the ark, I want to get back on.

Helen:

RE:

Point 49 the facts speak for themselves

Helen and Pauly,

You guys still don't get it do you?

Even with John's comment and your abuse, I believe that our society is better when people can express ideas, opinions and beliefs without the thought police descending on the doorstep.

So even though I don't appreciate the insults I wouldn't want to stop you expressing your opinions.

Helen, you comment about my desire to "defend your [my] own freedom to throw insults and abuse at gay people". This is ridiculous. I have never and have no desire now to start to throw insults or abuse at anyone. You do yourself no favours resorting to this sort of childish approach to debating someone.

Finally, Helen and Pauly. If you look through this blog you will see that you have both insulted several people in the duration of this 'discussion'. It may be worth reflecting that those of us who hold a different opinion have not resorted to this tactic.

Bill - ur crazy. You restate your "facts" in point 49 - but thats where you get upset about the government's new law which prevents B&B's from banning gay people! I support that new law. Can you imagine anyone defending a hotel's right to exclude black or Jewish customers? That would be intolerable. Yet here is Bill wanting to defend a hotel's "right" to exclude gay customers just because they happen to be gay! That's just plain prejudice. If Bill thinks that's a Christian attitude, I don't know which Bible he's reading.

Helen:

The Bible I read is God's word which can be checked out at point 42; which is plain and simple if your Bible read different you have a perverted bible which is not God's word, and if you can't comprehend that I feel sorry for you that you can't understand that Christians have a conscience which is consistant with Christian truth told in the Word of God.

Ceejay- In comment 58 you say that you don't believe PB and you have had a fair hearing here.

Yet 13 out of 63 comments so far are yours, and 15 are PB's (some of which he made four times in a row). That means that almost FORTY-FOUR PERCENT of the comments here, so far, are from the two people that you claim haven't had a fair hearing.

Perhaps this will help demonstrate the observation I made in comment 45: I've simply given up on such rational conversations.

Bill C -

Not sure if you followed Helen's point there - she's asking what part of the BIBLE commands you to turn gay people away from hotels and B&Bs. The point is that people like you, who are defending discrimination against gay people in goods and services, are acting un-Christianly.

John,

A 'fair hearing' implies that one treats others and their views with a certain amount of respect and does not resort to ad hominem remarks and insults.

You certainly have engaged in ad hominem remarks. (I'll not use 'Name Calling' as you don't appear to recognise this phrase).

Is this typical of your approach in Libertarian Reason?

I hoped that I would find some adult debate on this blog not just a fan club made up of college students.

Clearly I was wrong.

RE: Helen & Pauly

The part of the Bible which is quiet clear about letting gays into your home is,

Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance; shut the door after him,

This is were Helen construes the facts and twist my argument on which her argument flounders on this point, we're not talking about Hotels we are talking about private homes which are being used for B&Bs, so that the owners have the right to protect their Christian conscience from being violated.

Ceejay is right on all counts

By the way John, I have to refute your post number one, ie that Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong need have no problem supporting CPs.

In Romans one Paul condemns a list of sins, of which homosexuality is one, and also condemns those who support others committing them also.
He also warns Christians about partaking in anothers sins eslewhere.
In Revelation John warns Christians to come out from among sinners lest they be condemned for their sins.
In a court of law this would be called aiding and abetting. And note Christians believe we will all stand before a final court of judgement.

What you are suggesting John is your own interpretation of what Christianity should be like. Correct me if I am wrong, but would you actively take action to make it easier for people to carry out a course of action which you believed to be morally wrong? Or have you perhaps discarded a traditional definition of right and wrong?

PB

PS All the naysayers here still ignoring the NI Govt consultation considering views on clamping down on reading abrahamic scriptures in churches, mosques etc?
"Getting Equal OFMDFM"

HOMOSEXUALITY; A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL

Ok, so we have had some fairly broad ranging discussions over the issues in abstract.
Here is what I would propose practically.

Note; I am not hereby advocating any pressure of any sort on gay people to change, or casting aspirations on anyone鈥檚 standing before God or advocating any changes in any laws, just freedom of information and choice.

I believe that the pro-gay lobby are issuing broad and severely damaging prejudices against one significant constituency of the gay community. That section is the people who see themselves as homosexual but are very unhappy with this. Now, there is plenty of hard evidence that this group of people exists.

鈥淎ll I am proposing is that we accept publicly that a significant proportion of gay people wish to change their sexuality and that a significant proportion of that community do so, with no outside intervention鈥�. Following from this, I would propose that broadcasters such as the 91热爆 acknowledge and not airbrush/ignore these facts. 91热爆 Radio ulster staff regularly state that people are born gay and allow others to say so when in fact the evidence does not support this at all.

William has previously spoken of what he calls 鈥渋nternalised homophobia鈥� but I understand the origins of this term are from gay lobbyists, not academic psychological diagnosis.
As William defines it, it means those gays who have taken on board negative views of homosexuality and have yet to come to embrace and welcome it an immutable part of their being. Problem is, the research does not show people are born gay. We do not deny people coming out of straight marriage into homosexuality the right to be dissatisfied with their previous sexuality. Nor do we deny people the right to have outright sex changes. So why do we deny these adult, intelligent people the right to express and hold their own views about their own sexuality?

Therefore I argue it is doing a grave disservice to use this blanket stereotype for any gay person unhappy with their sexuality; I would argue it is in fact prejudging their condition with a very blunt prejudice, denying their freedom of expression and denying their freedom of choice in sexuality.
I argue that wherever the term 鈥渋nternalised homophobia鈥� is used to deny the very existence of this constituency within the gay community, then this is an attempt to narrow minds, close down free debate and promote prejudice and stereotyping of one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

You may say; 鈥淭hey have been brainwashed by anti-gay propaganda鈥�. But my first assertion is that while many on this blog will be tempted to jump to this conclusion, I doubt any of you are actually qualified to do it. Neither am I, so I am calling for open discussion on the matter in the media that restores to these people the dignity of being heard in their own words and treated as intelligent human beings with the right to make their own choices. Otherwise, it could be argued we are sacrificing the welfare of these people on the altar of some type of gay ideology.

I am sure that much is in line with their basic human rights and cannot begin to threaten anyone else鈥檚.
PB

Pauly
ref post 37
I really doubt you did think through every word of it. It might be more accurate to say you allowed your emotions to react, rather than believing that you actually thought about it.

You dont demonstrate any understanding at all of the connection between freedom of speech, civil liberties and democratic freedoms nor the weight that legal precdents carry for a whole society in these issues. Prove me wrong, please!

PB

pb says that "internalised homophobia" is a term that comes from the gay rights lobby rather than the academic psychological world. He's wrong (he often is - it's easy to through about prejudice dressed up as fact). I googled the term and this is one of MANY academic sites dealing with the topic:

How about an apology there pb for misleading people? I'm not holding my breath!

(By the way, the term lobby is such an insulting term (eg Gay Lobby) - how would you like to be called the God lobby?)

Pb says gay people choose to be gay rather than have a gay nature. I don't agree. I have a friend who is gay and he has attempted suicide twice, has been in therapy trying to stop feeling the way he does, and has even been to prayer healing meetings seeking to have his nature changed. He finally came to see that his sexuality is a big part of who he is and he has come to terms with that and is not in a very loving relationship with another man. They are happy. My friend is alive - and that's no thanks to those who messed up his head with unnecessary guilt and self-loathing for years. I really think those who write and talk so unlovingly and often so hatefully about gay people need to accept that they share some responsibily every time a young gay man takes his own life. It really is as serious as that. This isn't just an argument, it's a life and death issue.

Im a christian and ive been reading this debate for a while before deciding to write. im ashamed. pb and ceejay have made me feel ashamed because of he nasty agression in their way of approaching a really sensitive subject. When you talk about homosexuality like it's just a debating point and forget that real people are involved you do no service to the christian message. There's no gospel grace in your writing. so please stop misusing the bible and jesus to peddle your prejudice and agression.

Pauly

Sincere thanks, I appreciate you discussing this with me.

But reference internalised homophobia, what I actually said was that the ORIGINS of the term were from the gay lobby's political motivation, not psyschiatric research.

(note: If anyone suggests another sensible term alternbative to "the gay lobby" I will be glad to oblige).

Note I never suggested that academic studies had never been done on "internalised homophobia".

My point is that since the APA decision in the 1970s, the momentum for discussion in this whole area was political and not scientific and that the science has largely been corrupted by political motivations.

This is a huge area and cannot be analysed with one google search, but I applaud you for making a start.

Anyone can put a "research" paper on the internet, but who supervised the research and what were the peer reviews of the paper like, if it has ever been submitted for them?

I guess a fundemental question undergirding this all is "what is homosexuality?".

Thanks Pauly
PB

Hi Marcus

You often seem to pick me up very wrongly.

In an earlier posting you said I had called for William to engage in anti-gay questioning on air, which I clearly never did. I am calling for the gay-lobby not to be given a free run on air (nobody, but nobody should get this if journalists are doing their jobs) and for obvious inconsistencies or holes in their rationale to be explored in a civil manner.

And here in post 73 you claim that I said that people choose to be gay, again a complete mistake, if you check. I never did. I said the evidence does not show people are born gay; factual statement - no emotion or hatred involved!

I actually don't believe that to be true in our normal understanding of the term "choose", at least for a very significant portion if not the majority of the gay population.

Again, I note it was me that advocated that this very group of people be not ignored and be given a free voice on the media to be heard. Post 70, Remember?

I am fully aware this is a life and death issue and that is why I am talking about it. But no later than last Sunday did I read an interview in the Sunday Times with a gay man who was surprised to fall in love with a woman and is now in a happy relationship with her.

Peter Tatchell does not believe that people are born gay because he knows so many gays that have turned straight.

And Andy Comiskey is a Christian who left behind a gay lifestyle and now helps many others do the same (google his name).

He says it is a very, very, very challenging journey and I fully respect and accept the anguish your friend has gone through.

If you note, I said in post 70 I did not advocate pressurising people like your friend precisely because of the concerns you have raised.

But all of this leaves us with one very important question. Why do some people go from gay to straight for no explicable reason and how can others like Andy Comiskey do so on a structured programme?

If we could openly talk about this without condemning anyone and if secular mental health professionals and secular medical doctors and theologians could also engage in this without fear of professional penalty I firmly believe it would only progress knowledge and assist people in clearer understanding of the issues, but with no pressure on anyone to change one way or the other. Freedom of information and freedom of choice, remember?

I agree with Peter Tatchell on this much, human sexuality is very complex and we do not fully understand it yet.

I have raised important and valid questions in this posting which are generally not considered acceptable conversation on 91热爆 Radio Ulster. But I argue that a fuller understanding of these issues would benefit us all.

I repeat what I said in post 70; I am not calling for any pressure on anyone to change sexuality or casting aspirtions on anyone's standing before God when I propose this.

And I can assure you my motive in saying this could not be further from that of hatred or prejudice.

It is the opposite of prejudice (preconceived opinion), it is calling for fuller and more open and informative discussion.

And this I do because I care about people who are hurting.

PB

Jayne
I hear your concerns and am certainly open to learn from you.

If you could express a brief understanding of what you believe the bible would say to homosexuals, and the manner in which it would say it, perhaps I could understand you better and learn something.

However, I have to draw your attention to my posting number 70 which is precisely motivated by my concerns for the most vulnerable people in this discussion, ie people who commit suicide.

The reason I wrote this posting was precisely because I could see all the insults being slung (all against Christians, and all of whom were responding with grace, I note!)

I wanted to draw the energies into doing something positive for these people.

I have to say, Christ and Paul used plenty of straight talking on many occasions when it was required in order to shake people out of their dangerous misconceptions. And this they always did out of love.

I also question your use of the term prejudice, for reasons outlined in post 69.

Look forward to hearing from you on this.
PB

Marcus, Pauly

PS ref internalised homophobia

I just want to add, I am not an expert on this subject and am interested to learn more.

But it has just occured to me that the very term carries an implicit assumption that sexuality is fixed. But again the evidence does not show this.

My understanding is that the consensus of psychological opinion at the end of the 20th century was that people are born without any sexuality at all.

Furthermore, according to Kinsey in his landmark work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), in a study of 5,300 males;-
* Approximately 50 percent had a same-sex genital experience before puberty.
* Twenty-five percent had more than incidental homosexual experience for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55 years
* And 37 percent had at least one homosexual experience leading to orgasm after puberty.
* Ten percent were exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.

Note Kinsey's work is still THE reference point for all similar research, although nobody pretends it is flawless, it is still THE landmark text.
Its findings were upheld more recently by the Institute for Sex Research and the breakdowns were found to have been unaffected by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

BUT NOTE HOW FLEXIBLE WAS THE SEXUALITY FOR MANY OF THESE 5,300 MEN!

Peter Tatchell and Andy Comiskey both found that sexuality is not fixed, through personal first hand experience. I see many other high profile cases in the media that support their views.

A reasonable way forward in this discussion is to take the following four conflicting perspectives as true and to ask how they can all be true; What logic can bring them all together, and if they are all true, there MUST be such a logic. The four viewpoints are;

1) Marcus' friend who suffered serious trauma and guilt in his experience with "internalised homophobia".
2) Peter Tatchell, who says he knows many gays who have gone straight.
3) Andy Comiskey, who has gone from gay to straight and now assists others who wish to do likewise.
4) Alfred Kinsey, who found that 10 per cent of men were exclusively homosexual for at least 3 years of their adult lives, among other findings.

Guys, I most certainly do not have all the answers but I do know I have some helpful questions.

Sincerely
PB

Helen

ref your post 38

I think you have presented a very fair summary of how freedom of speech can be protected while drawing the line at incitement. Though I believe that all people in the UK were protected from incitement without the need for legislation which specifies individual target groups.

However on one factual point I have to pull you up. You say nobody is planning to make religious views on homosexuality illegal in the UK. Why is nobody picking this up here, this must be the 6th time I've said it;-

The NI consultation from the OFMDFM "Getting Equal" is currently canvassing public opinion on just that. It is there in black and white on the OFMDFM website. So while it is not a concrete plan just yet it is explicitly testing the water for how acceptable one might be.

And this NI consultation is based on the GB one that has already closed. I believe some GLB groups submitted views to that consultation saying that such religious views should be severely restricted.

Incidentally, I am not sure how comfortable I am with your sexist intro to that posting 38;- Testosterone is not sinful, just as alcohol or bullets are not sinful. They are all morally neutral; only human sin is sinful.

It is not very tolerant of you, and I am sure you would not take too kindly to equivalent anti-women sexist comments. And rightly so.

PB

William, Marcus

ref equality

It seems to me that we have jumped to the conclusion that homosexuality is worthy to be given equal status to race, sex, age, disability etc.

But it appears to me that this has been done on grounds of sentiment and without any proper discussion of what homosexuality is or what brings it about.

I think we have already estabilshed here that sexuality is not fixed and not set before birth, unlike many of its suggested "close cousins".

And certainly there are significant numbers of women, minority races, disabled, all ages and minority religions who do not feel at all comfortable to being given "equal status" to those describing themselves as homosexual.

I am not calling for discrimination for gay people, just pointing out that when questions raised on homosexuality are equated to racism or sexism it appears to be very shaky intellectual ground and primarily an emotional reaction.

If I look through Hansard I would be surprised if any of these issues were properly considered when any gay-related legislation was changed or passed through parliament. More likely they were leapfrogged over, I am guessing. That would not be responsible legislating, in my opinion.

PB

Pauly

I just had a look at your hyperlink ref on internalized homophobia.

It makes copius use of materials from the APA, which was infiltrated by the gay lobby and changed its position on homosexuality under intimidation the early 1970s with no new evidence or research. It bears no name or date and it is not clear to me, at least, what conclusions it reached.

Internalized homophobia is based on a circular argumnent and not evidence; some gay people feel badly about being gay therefore they have swallowed anti-gay propaganda - some gay people have swallowed anti-gay propaganda therefore they feel bad about being gay.

As of the mid-1990s there had not been ANY research done which found that the main stresses felt by depressed gay people were due to society's perceptions of their sexuality. Has anyone heard of any such research done since then?

However other definite potenital depression factors have been found which have a higher than expected appearance rate with gay people.

I also understand that serious depression among gays is no less serious in liberal countries where homosexuality is acceptable compared to those others where it is not.

PB

Marcus Bridges (post No. 30). You ask when was the last time you heard a gay person calling Christians evil calling for them to have their religion converted out of them. It happens all the time! Take a look at mediawatchwatch.org.uk for example. It is sheer nastiness. To compare George Dawson's merely political remarks with this kind of malice says more about you than about George Dawson.

PB just posted EIGHT TIMES in a row. Is this really a conversation anymore PB?

A friend of mine emailed me this information. PB and Ceejay might be interested in going along. You might want to consider the arguments on the other side ...

Public Lecture: "EXPLORING THEOLOGY AND SEXUALITY"

A public lectures (with question and answer session) by Dr Paul Middleton, theologian from the University of Wales at Lampeter, on the 鈥榙ifficult texts鈥� in the Bible that are often used in the context of discussions about sexuality and sexual orientation. Apparently Dr Middleton will make a pro-gay case - and he is a Christian minister. The event takes place on MONDAY 16TH OCTOBER 2006, from 7.30-9.30PM, at the presbyterian chaplaincy's CAFE KHAYA, 12-14 ELMWOOD AVENUE, BELFAST.

Thanks Jayne ... not sure i can make it, but sounds interesting. Things must be changing when the presbyterian church in Northern ireland is hosting a lecture defending gay rights! It won't be long before the Free Presbyterian Church hosts one, at this rate!

i dont think that cafe is a presbyterian cafe - they are still quite closed-minded about debaing sexuality, aren't they? Let aone inviting a lecturer to come and argue in favour of it! I checked on google too, cant get any details. anyone any wiser?

Ben - or are you PB under a pseudonymn!? - what a ridicuous account of theology and history. You've succeeded in making me want to attend that event!

just to clarify a few things:

this event is being hosted by the zero28 project, a belfast-based initiative that explores issues of faith and justice, and seeks to resource conversation about theology and life. the presbyterian church is not involved in hosting the event; the room in the cafe is being hired by the zero28 project as an independent group; many other groups do the same.

the event is not a 'homosexual rally'; it is a serious academic lecture and opportunity for public conversation about theology and sexuality.

the speaker is an ordained church of scotland minister and academic theologian at the university of wales.

Aye, right.

Dear Jayne
ref post 85
Only read this the day after your invitation to unable to attend.
However the easiest way to dismiss the entire traditional biblical teachings on homosexuality is to say that civil partnerships between committed same-sex couples were not known by the biblical writers and none of the biblical prohibitions therefore apply to them. Strictly speaking this is true, but it is far, far removed from the full biblical picture on sexuality.

One of the major sins that gay people and I have in common (along with everyone else) is idolatry, I have been reminded this week.
We make idols out of our ideal relationships where we envisage finding complete acceptance, understanding, affirmation, fulfillment and affection.

But I was reminded by Andy Comiskey's excellent book, 'Pursuing Sexual Wholeness' this week that it was my conclusion that these could only be truly found in Christ that brought me to him, his peace and intimacy.

Jayne, as I have suggested, I think I am fairly up to speed with most pro-gay biblical arguments but I feel disapointed you do not discuss the issues with me but direct me to someone you view as an expert. This suggests you have not really examined the issues for yourself but are speaking on the basis of preconceived opinions (ie 'prejudice').

I am not perfect and have no doubts I can be overly sharp, but I am neither naive enough to be blinded to the fact that Elijah, Christ and Paul faced willful self-deception head on.

I am troubled by sin in my life just as much as Andy Comiskey and his wards are, but I get hope forgiveness and grace to go on through Christ.

sincerely
PB

PS guys;-

OFMDFM Getting Equal consultation questions which float the idea of restricting church activities in NI;-

Q12. Do you consider that an exemption should be provided from the regulations for some of the activities of religious organisations?

Q13. Do you agree that these exemptions should be restricted to activities that are primarily doctrinal? If there are any other activities that you consider should be covered by an exemption, what are these and why do you consider that the need to be exempted?

Dear John Wright

ref post 84

No it is not really a conversation because it would appear you have yet to seriously engage your brain in this whole discussion. You are mainly resorting to silly personal comments and refuse to engage with serious questions about proper research and evidence.

Remember, William called for "a responsible and informed discussion" above.

How have you and your colleagues measured up John, when you review the comments above?

PB

Helen

ref your post 87

You say the Presbyterian Church is still closed about debating sexuality.

How do you square this with points raised in post 19? It appears to me that most pro-gay contributors to this site are very closed minded to discuss the matter.

The whole research history of homosexuality has suffered violent revisionism and it is now risking police intervention to discuss this.

PB

Pb, just a quick comment on the consultations point. Those questions you list seem entirely appropriate in a government consultation on goods and services. How else will the government ascertain the interests involved? Most people would consider it reasonable that religious organisations be granted exemptions on doctrinal grounds. For example, the sex discrimination legislation does not apply to the recruitment for clergy positions - churches are free to follow their conscience on that. I'd expect the same exemptions to apply to churches with doctrinal views on homosexuality. Churches shouldn't feel threatened by these consultations; and I'm glad to see so many mainline churches accepting that the consultations are sensible.

Hi David

I know we have had words before and while I know we wont agree on this I would just like to say how much I appreciate you addressing some of the real issues head on in a rational way here on this blog. Hats off to you.

On the face of it what you say seems reasonable. But if we stand back what we actually have is the Government opening a debate on exactly how much faith and practise in Abrahamic faiths should be curtailed in the UK.

The Government is inviting public opinion to direct it (or inviting an excuse!) to curtail religious practise and belief that is 6000 years old. I am fairly sure that does not sit easily with the UN charter for freedom of religion, but am willing to be corrected.

What if the national answer given to question 12 is "No" and the same to question 13. If the supplementary answer to question 13, then for example requests that any "homophobic" action word, deed or attitude be made a criminal offence we could be in serious straits. Especially if "homophobia" is then legally defined as reading out/discussion of Jewish, Muslim or Christian texts that describe homosexuality as sinful or voicing an opinion on same.
Or for example if any such believer expresses distress in the workplace if they are asked to take a course of action they believe amounts to endorsing homosexuality. eg a council employee or B&B manager participating in a civil partnership or giving them bed and board.

The Government expressly rejected the French model of civil partnership that accomodated siblings living together for legal and tax benefits in favour of the discriminatory same-sex version; it would appear it is determined to make political points by imposing homosexuality, and perhaps it is no less happy if those most opposed may feel it the most sharply??? You see could potential evidence of such a widepread feeling in the angry but prejudiced postings above.

You say most people would consider it reasonable if religious groups are given exclusions on doctrinal grounds, but it appears you are missing the main point; the Government is hereby plainly offering to reject the position of "most reasonable people" according to this consultation.

You speak easily about how the law allows churches freedom on recruitment and doctrine but again seem to be missing the point that the whole point of this consultation is to potentially cause a total shake up of current law.

I understand Gay rights groups have pressed for the maximum restrictions against faith groups in the GB getting equal consultation and I know some religious groups have addressed this in lobbying.

I am not clear where you get your information that so many "mainline" churches accept the consultation is reasonable??? Can you say???

I imagine you would be wrong on that in NI but would be interested to see if you prove me wrong.

And lastly, "mainline" churches are really representative of a certain group of people and their thinking at a period of time in history; this does not make them savvy, logical, perceptive or biblical. They can appear to add weight to an argument, but I have more respect for people who can put the argument to me and then defend it themselves, rather than those to suggest I am wrong because someone else said so.

Good to hear from you again.
regards
PB

PS The Government's willingness to
suspend habeas corpus in controlling suspected terrorists is one example that demonstrates widepread civil liberty concerns that are not just among the faith communities and regarding homosexuality.