Oops!
These are the schismatics with whom I am most familiar. CANA slithers very close to home. I do not recognize them as Anglicans. I do, however, recognize duplicity, prevarication, and thievery when I see it. Don't miss the rest of the information on their website. But put on the whole armor of God before you do, because the odor of sulfur is quite strong. They'll pull you in with their "sweet love of Jesus" - right before they tear your guts out by damning you to hell. Theirs is the gospel of traumatization, and they must be stopped.
As I always say to the ConsEvs who claim to be gay-friendly, "I'm from Missouri."*
*For our international readers who may not be familiar with this expression, the motto of the state of Missouri is "Show Me!"
Hello Fr. Jake,
I really wish you would accurately represent what CANA is saying rather than skewer the message because you don't like it.
CANA is stating that they are "inclusive". Their definition of inclusive, is that ALL are welcome to the table with Christ. Absolutely everybody is welcome.
However, what CANA is not stating is that ALL behaviors are acceptable. A thief is more than welcome to the Anglican church, but he will be asked to stop theiving. The same goes for an adulterer, a polygamist, and yes, a homosexual.
What has everyone up in arms about is the notion that someone (Abp Akinola et al.) is telling a smaall portion of our society that their behavior is wrong. I too don't like it when my wife tells me that I engage in bad behavior (smoking) and I come up with all sorts of reasons for why my behavior can be justified. But in the end, I know that what I am doing is bad for me, my family, and my friends.
As for the language used, come on! The same sort of vilification occurs here but aimed at the conservatives. The language is strong and is by its nature, intended to inflame but make a point. But then so is calling a godly man homophobic and a bigot or making statements like CANA "slithers".
So, while the point of the post is to highlight the ridiculous claim that CANA is somehow inclusive, I beleive, despite the language to the contrary, it manages to point out that for the most part, there is nothing really inclusive about the Episcopal Church either.
Come on Clay, Saying that our LGBT brothers & sisters have to "repent" of their same-sex attractions is like saying African-Americans should repent of being black, or women repent of being female.
I heard the same sort of nonsense about racial minorities during the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960's, and about females during the women's ordination fracas of the 1970's. It was garbage theology then, and it's garbage theology now.
Oh, and for a great refutation of that odious "hate the sin, not the sinner" meme (also garbage theology), see Br. Tobias' Enough of Hate and the follow-up In Response to Rick.
When +Akinola et all are willing to share the eucharist with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, they will have a little credibility. Until then, it sounds like a lie repeated often enough will eventually be believed.
Clay,
This site does not represent TEC. Never has. This is my personal web log. And I am not inclusive. Never claimed to be. You must be confusing me with those inclusive purists. TEC strives to be inclusive. I don't always live up to that ideal. Oh well.
However, CANA does claim to be inclusive, and I am showing that such a claim is a lie, by offering direct quotes from their chosen spiritual leader.
As far as your attempted accusation, which seems to be on the level of the schoolyard taunt "You do it too!", nothing that has ever been said or done here comes close to the Church of Nigeria, and so CANA, attempting to throw all gays in jail.
That is an accurate description of CANA. Although your briefer one, bigots, also works for me.
Why do ConEvs continue to cling to the false, and demonstrably false, assumption that homosexuality is a deliberate behavior and not a natural orientation? This idea was proved false decades ago. It is as obsolete as Ptolemy's cosmology. This is a preconception that is contrary to the evidence of science, medicine, and above all, actual experience; the lives of lgbts, their families and friends.
It also defies common sense. Who in their right mind would deliberately choose a behavior accompanied by ostracism, legal penalties, and a constant threat of violence? (I can already hear the comparisons to drug-addiction, alcoholism, and compulsive theft being made, You know, people used to make similar analogies for being Black or a Jew; that it was everything from a disease to a physical disorder to a Divine Curse; see the Scriptures on the Curse of Ham).
This assumption is also an offense against Charity. Look at all the company ConEvs keep on this issue: the Phelps Clan (like them or not, face it, he's on YOUR side), the mad mullahs of fundamentalist Islam, and any number of extreme right wing and antisemitic groups in Eastern Europe among others. There are reasons why your position on this issue attracts such noxious company.
Jake: I think Clay's message can be condensed to "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." I think I've heard that before, somewhere. Proof of CANA's genuine acceptance of all is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in Don Armstrong's midnight changing of Grace Episcopal's locks.
Hello David,
"Come on Clay, Saying that our LGBT brothers & sisters have to "repent" of their same-sex attractions is like saying African-Americans should repent of being black, or women repent of being female."
This statement is not supported by science. There is no evidence that homosexuality is either geneic or biological. And as for the APA statement on homosexuality, if you are aware of the history, that was a political decision, not a medical one.
However, all of that is beside the point. If your premise is that for me or anyone else of my ilk to be considered "true and inclusive Christian", we must accet and affirm the above statement as being true, my question is who is being exclusive?
"There is no evidence that homosexuality is either geneic or biological. And as for the APA statement on homosexuality, if you are aware of the history, that was a political decision, not a medical one."
I call bullshit.
You folks have just been asleep for the last 50 years and your reading of the evidence is as selective as your reading of the Scripture.
Hello Wolfstan,
Please don't consider my statement to be anything other that what I stated. I know that I will not change any hearts or minds on this blog. It is neither my intention or desire.
I am simply stating, in a public way, that despite the conversations to the contrary, this site inaccurately reflects the views of most "neo-cons" in the current unpleasentness. (I do hope I did not just cross the line of our moderator).
I understand Bishop Lee's message but wonder: if these folks were children and the ABC or the Presiding Bishop, or event he church as a whole were the parent, what love would do in this crisis? Sometimes love has to say "NO," or "Knock it off" or "Time out for you." To enter into their arguments gives credibility to their statements and basically means that we enter into the game they create and manage and we ALWAYS lose. The 'niceness' and diplomacy sometimes makes me a bit nuts because it's never enough. We're talking about the integrity and survival of the church, not to mention the lives of countless LGBT folks who have suffered injustice long enough.
Sounds like CANA is sensitive to getting bad press and are making some effort to present themselves as somehow more tolerant and inclusive than they really are. American are, on the whole, a pretty tolerant bunch and it's hard to grow a church these days if you're driven by the kind of rhetoric +Peter Abuja puts out.
Oh well, I suppose everyone has a right to spin, even if all they're spinning are fresh steaming buckets of horse caca.
Hello Counterlight,
Can you point me to something I should read? I am particularly interested in papers that have held up to scientific peer reviews.
I am open-minded to a point, but right now, the majority of scientific evidence around genetics, biology, and behavioral sciences do not support the notion that folks "are born that way".
Clay,
Please stop trying to talk about me in objective scientific terms. Analyzing my sexual orientation in this way is death-dealing to me and establishes a wall of "non-communication" between us.
I'm with Clay on this one. As a man who used to self-identify as gay, and was 100% attracted to people of my own sex, but is now happily married and expecting my first child, I would LOVE to see the academic, peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that homosexuality is of biologic/genetic origin (and that therefore the astounding change I have seen in my orientation is just self-delusional). Since Counterlight has claimed that Clay's statement that there is no evidence is b******t (nice gentle Christlike language by the way), it would be nice to have a smidgeon of scientific research to support the contention.
Peter O | Homepage | 04.21.08 - 10:00 am |
Good for you, Peter. I'm sincerely happy for you. Just goes to show that human life is infinitely complex and mysterious. May your joy increase and your new family prosper.
Clay and Peter O -
If you think that same-gender sexual attraction isn't biologically wired, do you then consider it a mental illness that can be cured with techniques such as talk therapy?
I cannot proceed with my answer to your request for proof until you tell us what you feel is the underlying cause of same-sex attraction.
And Cal, PEter -
I have no personal stake in my replies. But just because I am a woman who is most decidedly attracted to men (and only heterosexual men), doesn't mean I consider those with other preferences as unnatural, "dirty," or mentally ill, or confused.
So be warned that I won't be fighting from emotional turf.
Inclusivity can be a graven image just like other things (scripture, orthodoxy) that try to hem God into a tiny box, conveniently labled with all of our preconceptions.
The science arguments aside, someone just needs to be a little theological with me and point out where and why homosexuals in committed, moral, monogamous relationships are sinning?
Homoesexuals who are not- who are bed-hopping, being promiscuous, self-destructive, etc. are, in fact, committing the same sin that heterosexual people are (namely, using other people for sexual pleasure and not respecting the sanctity of human sexuality). So, where they put it has little to do with why it is sin, don't you think?
As for our friend who has probably undergone reparative therapy and find it holding- good. A great number of people have taken that route to great detriment (suicide, depresssion, Ted Haggard) and there is little or no peer - reviewed paper or scientific evidence supporting that it works. So, let's call a truce on the science front.
I understand Akinola's being afraid of Gay people. He probably just doesn't know any of the loving, kind, beautiful folks I know who (like my friends with 4 children who happen to be two women - gay) live lives that repeatedly show the living Christ at work.
I'm done having this argument, anyway.
And no, I'm not terribly inclusive, either, cause I try not to get around hateful people (or read their blogs).
Well I didn't read every single thing on their website but the section on "Proximate Justice" is just gobbledygook. If anyone has made any sense out of that buzz phrase, please help me out.
Also I note that one must be "born again" in their very inclusive church to receive the Holy Spirit who will lead them to be the people God has chosen them to be. Which, of course, will be in accordance with their interpretation of scripture. Which leads me to this:
"So, while the point of the post is to highlight the ridiculous claim that CANA is somehow inclusive, I beleive, despite the language to the contrary, it manages to point out that for the most part, there is nothing really inclusive about the Episcopal Church either.
Clay | 04.21.08 - 9:12 am | # "
As one of them "wimmin" TEC is very inclusive in a way that CANA is not. No "wimmin" in positions of authority.
Timmah - thank you for your note, a fresh breeze going through a stuffy room.
Peter and Clay, I suspect that you will not be satisfied with any studies that are provided as proof (as if any proof is needed). Behavioral studies can be well-designed - or not; however, one cannot prove a null hypothesis is untrue in the same way as testing the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.
I cannot prove that God exists, yet I know it to be true. No one ever had to prove it to me - I always knew. All anyone ever did was give a name to Him. And I learned that name about the same time I started to understand names for everything, from "raindrop" to "pretty."
Sigh. As a professional geneticist (although not one who studies homosexuality; my gig is cancer research), and a professor who teaches the subject, may I point out YET AGAIN that someone does not understand genetics.
Almost no complex traits can be traced to a single gene. Okay? NONE. Not even blue eyes/brown eyes, although they are pretty close. Certainly nothing as complex as behavior.
Even in fruitflies.
Nothing complex is solely nature or nurture, but both. You may have the genes to be 7 feet tall but if you aren 't eating a good diet you won't get there.
There are plenty of studies showing that human sexuality exists on a continuum, not a binary. It's extremely complex.
However, there are also plenty of studies showing a very strong genetic component to homosexuality; it may not be the single gene absolute concordance that the conservatives want (see preceding) but it is vastly, vastly higher than chance.
Go read Pubmed if you want the citations. I'm' not wasting my time on this or you.
The VAST majority of medical and psychiatric opinion is clear on the subject. Can you find disagreement? Sure, a few. there is also still a flat earth society, and the Aryan nation hholds particular views about blacks. Nice to have good company.
(You compared us to thieves, adulterers and polygamists. Turn about is fair play).
Oh, and one more thing. Read counterlight and scott h's posts, and use your brains too. Not your knee-jerk conservativsm.
But if that were possible we wouldn't be having this conversation.
IT
Also under the section, "Our Bishops" there is a little more information on the "trade off" from Southern Cone to CANA under the information on Ames.
They have also posted an attack on the Seabury Church in Connecticut situation with Minns stating that the Episcopal Church has "chosen to leave."
Hello Scott,
I am not trying to analyze you in any way shape or form. I did not start the conversation around whether sexual attraction is genetically based or not, I simply responded to a statement that somehow sexual attraction is the same thing as the color of your skin. I countered that it is not. Hopefully that does not make me a "hater".
Lynn,
I hope I am not "fighting", but since you asked the question, I will not shy away from it. Your question was do I consider homosexuality a mental illness? First off, I am not a medical professional, but I have read a lot on this subject because I want to be honest in my opinion. I don't want to base my veiws solely on antidotal evidence.
So, I do NOT consider homosexuality as a mental illness in the sense that we just need to discover some pill that will make things right. I think the strongest evidence supports that homosexuality, as is heterosexuality, is a learned behavior starting at birth. It is very complex and we cannot predict all the factors that determine someone orientation.
As for Transgendered folks, I do believe there is evidence for a yet undetermined biological (note not genetic) factor. However, in today's political climate, there is no will to study or determine what this may be.
Timmah,
Thank you for your honesty. I try very hard to keep my opinions civil, but yet still engage in the "listening" process. I do not beleive Abp Akinola is afraid of gay people, but rather he is afraid of the Gay Agenda. I too am concerned with it as it affects society at it's most basic roots. That conversation is perhaps way too off topic to entertain here however.
What is the "gay agenda"? To be allowed to have civil rights expected by all? To be allowed to live in peace with persons of their own choosing? To be considered families when children and partners are involved? To be as protected from violence as everyone else? To obtain appropriate employment without discrimination? How does the gay agenda differ from everyone else's agenda?
Hmm, several points to ponder. I have a question and then a reply. Hopefully, I'll make this brief:
++Akinola said, and I am directly quoting, "Homosexuality and lesbianism, like divorce, breed a society of single parents which gives rise to a generation of bastards. And in the context of much poverty and lack of education, this further produces an ill-bred generation of hooligans, portending much terror to the peace and stability of the society..." I don't understand how homosexuality creates single parents. His logic escapes me sometimes...
As to Peter O. I had a roommate at a Southern Baptist college who was a "saved, recovered homosexual" and professed to be completely straight. He was engaged to a very nice woman, who was also a friend of mine, and expected to be married that fall. I remember many nights of him crying on my shoulder because he "didn't want to be gay" and was "fighting to be straight," but was attracted to another straight male friend in our group of Treckies. I remember vividly the pain he went through to try to live up to the conservative command, "Don't be gay, Sparky. Don't be gay." I've lost touch with him since then, but the memories from those nights still haunt me. I am not going to ask my LGBT friends and family to go through that pain just to live up to what I believe is an outdated theology based on a tribe/race's need to survive. While you may have been able to change your orientation, I don't think that is true for everyone. The actuall success rates for programs to "cure" homosexuality is quite low, and "relapses" are common. Don't take this as doubting or discouragement, Peter, please. In the blogsphere we can only know what we read. I will accept that you have changed, and leave it at that. I will, however, also remember the pain of my brother in Christ struggling to be someone he wasn't and temper my own understanding with that. But then I'm just a redneck from the Ozarks, what do I know.
Are there any "ex" or "recovered" heterosexuals?
Hello IT,
I am sorry that you feel the "listening process" is a waste of your time. Also, I will certainly defer to your superior knowledge in genetics. As I stated, though I doubt you beleive, I am relatively open-minded on the subject. It there is a propondence of evidence that has met with peer approval, I would love to read it. Thank you for the reference to "pubmed" and I will spend some time there.
Finally, I did not compare homosexuality to any of the other three examples (I knew someone would hit on that). I was making the point that homosexuality is a behavior. You may be gay but it still requires a conscious choice to engage in the behavior. I am a hetrosexual, but I chose not to engage in adulterous behavior.
I am sorry that you felt it necessary to compare me my views with an Aryan dogma, but I think you did fabulously well in bringing my original point full circle.
I also notice that we're dancing around the quotations from ++Akinola posted by Jake.
Do you CANA folk and CANA sympathizers endorse them? Remember, ++Akinola is now your bishop and your spiritual leader.
I also notice that IT's post is being ignored.
I have a huge sense of ennui and déjà vu in this conversation because we have had it time and time again in this forum just with different people.
Go see 'For the Bible Tells Me So.' The clip of Jimmy Swaggart strutting across the stage saying he'd like to kill the gays (which subsequently was pulled from his website) is enough to make one sick.
I don't need well-intentioned people telling me that my partner and my (legally sanctioned) relationship of 18 years is contributing to the downfall of society. And thank you, I am not interested in becoming a happy het. Life is fine as it is.
Maybe it's the Vermont way, but just leave us in peace.
It's almost time (early on in this thread, no?) to throw in a recipe.
"I am a hetrosexual, but I chose not to engage in adulterous behavior."
This analogy is what causes any conversation to break down. I don't think people who throw this line in have any idea of how offensive it is to a faithful L/G couple.
My partner and I are not committing adultery. Our relationship is recognised by the state of Vermont and it has been blessed by God in the context of our faith community.
Please don't go on to say being gay is like alcoholism. We've heard that analogy, too, and it doesn't work either.
I will go with being gay is like being a left-handed person because I am and mercifully no one tried to make me be right handed.
(I do hope I did not just cross the line of our moderator).
Clay | 04.21.08 - 9:44 am | #
Oh Clay, no not you, not you with your carefully selected, and tiresome, sweetly engineered, hate-mongering speech turned low-volume trashing/excluding and DEMONIZING of fellow Christians/Anglicans/others. You, like shifty/greasy old Minns, are a creepy crowd, a crowd the wheels and deals with your own atrocisities to appear reasonable and intelligent...don't be silly, you are a used car salesman whistling in the darkness of eternity...if there is a Peter, I wish him well as he terrorizes the lives of his wife/family with his brainwashed and emotionally damaged "lifestyle" tangent/fakery...but, that's his disgusting problem...don't drag it into our lives "expecting a child" and color yourself up to be a miracle of husband/fatherhood for this upcoming innoncent person who will face a lifetime of being the child of a father who blathers on about his sexual conversion in public to defend exclusion and hate.
You are destructive people and you apparently don't even know the trouble you cause amongst fellow human beings with your illusions and playing of pretend.
Clay - also in the spirit of exchange (rather than battle), what type of situation do you think encourages sexual preference? Particularly in a child's early years, before the time of sexual awareness? Surely you know homosexuals people who have brothers and/or sisters who are heterosexual - And haven't been subjected to some sort of additional abuse, such as being raped by an adult authority figure (teacher coach, aunt/uncle, and other that won't be mentioned). And if you work from the premise that adults have caused this learned behavior - the sin lies with the adults who abused, not with the people you might name as victims.
Although you will consider this anecdotal, I offer this information: when I was a teenager, I was in a social sphere that included people with sexual preferences of all colors. The presence of homosexuals did not influence the preferences of the heterosexuals, and vice versa. Since I am 50-yo, "coming of age" wasn't at age 11, if you catch my drift. This was not an economical deprived or violent area, period. There were families with problems, of course, but most often they were due to violence within the family. Which resulted in some messed-up kids, but not particularly homosexual adults.
You didn't direct your comment about homosexuality affecting the fabric of society to me...but I don't see how it does. Unhappy marriages sure affect society, but committed heterosexual couples?
Clay,
I will concede that adulterous relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual are wrong. But the prejudice seems to be that all homosexuals are promiscuous. In my experience, having several friends on both sides of that fence, this is pointedly UNTRUE. One couple I know have been together for 12 years, and the only reason they aren't "married" is because the state of Arkansas just passed a constitutional ammendment against it. Another couple that attend our church have been together over 20 YEARS, are married (they moved here from Quebec) and have a 6 year old asian boy they adopted. In this case one of them was a Bishop in the Catholic church who left because he was tired of living a lie and having to hide his love. If two people are in a committed, loving relationship, I don't see the problem. As I said before, the ban on homosexuality in this case stems from an outdated theology from a time when the people of Isreal were fighting for their very existence. The only reason you can call LGBT relationships that are COMMITTED and MONOGAMOUS "sinful" is because they are not ALLOWED to marry by law and church custom. Remove that barier, and your argument begins to crumble.
Clay: You are all washed up and you know it. Leave the "cause" of homosexuality to those who have spent their entire lives researching it (like other gay people) or the experts.
Stop having a double standards like marriage for straights and hell for gays ... get off your self righteous ignorant but somehow "superior" ass and wake up to reality man.
Clay--"but rather he is afraid of the Gay Agenda. I too am concerned with it as it affects society at it's most basic roots. That conversation is perhaps way too off topic to entertain here however.
Clay | 04.21.08 - 10:46 am | #"
Clay--It might affect YOUR view of society and that is the only view you can speak to. And the term "Gay Agenda." What agenda would that be? And do rules that bar women from positions of authority also fall under "affects society at it's most basic roots"?
People keep spouting about the so-called "gay agenda," and the first use of that phrase is almost always by someone who is anti-gay in almost every sense.
Apart from the fact that they wish to be treated as human beings, just like anyone else, I'm not aware that there is such a thing as a "gay agenda." It is true that they have had to organize in order to end the pervasive abuse, but every group, including the Christian church, has had to organize in order to bring about change.
Frankly, I'm much more worried about the agenda of the neo-cons in regards to their apparent wishes to maintain a predominantly white, male, hetero, protestant Christian minority in the seats of power and authority - and the nonsense they use and have used since time immemorial to justify treating others as less than fully equal. Although I am a caucasian, heterosexual, protestant male, I totally reject and denounce this sort of behavior.
BTW, I noticed that Clay really sidestepped the question about whether gays have a choice about being gay. Some piffle about a "learned" behavior! I would really enjoy seeing some peer-reviewed papers supporting that claim! And isn't it amazing that, with all the cultures that exist in the world, how folks in these wildly different behavioral environments still end up in roughly the same place?
Anyhow, in my opinion the CANA claim of inclusiveness is just an out-and-out lie. An organization is not inclusive until all groups are welcome at all levels - not just being welcomed only if they know "their place." If CANA is inclusive, then the deep South of the Jim Crow and lynching years was also inclusive, as African-Americans had their place in that society.
Still waiting for the scientific research we were promised that demonstrates that homosexuality was naturally biological or genetic.
Actually, Clay, I do have a personal stake in this battle. It just doesn't have anything to do with my ability to marry in the eyes of the law or the church.
Have you ever been on a debate team? If so, you must know that it is possible to provide persuasive arguments for both sides of an issue. When I was in school, I won debates arguing for positions that were the opposite of my personal opinion. I was prepared with my own arguments, and I made a point of learning the information supporting the opposing viewpoint, too. But I didn't prove my assigned position was correct. Just that I was better prepared, and a little fearless about my presentation.
In that vein, I find the evidence that homosexuality is morally neutral to be more convincing than those that try to prove it is sinful behavior. I'm not going to make the case here, because others with a stronger theological and historical background have already done so.
My stake in this battle? To have homosexuals judged by people in the way they are judged by God. And that has to do with loving god, and trating your neighbors with love and dignity. It's not easy to love your neighbor all the time, but you can always treat them with dignity. We are commanded so to do by God. Homosexuals are not a threat to you, your family, or society; therefore, you cannot even put forward the excuse of self-defense in any of its forms.
BTW...I changed my Avetar...it's my Mom and I on the occassion of my 3rd Birthday Party...it seems, very appropriate/suitable to me for many reasons to have it "up" here for a couple of weeks...first, my Moms Birthday conincided (sometimes) with Mothers Day...those days are both coming soon and it seemed naturally that I ought celebrata them together (especially since my Mom has been gone for many years now) with my dear friends at Jake's Place.
Secondly, I came from a lovely, well-balanced family (mostly), that included prosperous and loving/hardworking parents, a lovely home, a beautiful/welcoming religion, non-violence/non-abuse, a older sister and a Cocker Spaniel named "Taffy"...my parents were, Republicans (in the Eisenhower sense however my Mom did vote for Kennedy and asked that I not "tell anyone")...things "appeared" to be perfect for our little family in our PioneerAmerican/Englishman combined reality...It seemed perfect at our house but for many years from childhood into adulthood I had a secret that made the outward appearences of family perfection different than what most people, including me, thought they ought(Fred) be.
God never left me.
Thanks be to God for helping me find my way into being and accepting the full fledged and authentic person/Christian that God intended for me to be...a Homosexual male.
Don't you dare try and exclude and shame me into thinking/beliving that God hasn't given me a life filled with love, charity and Grace...not one of you...take your dim smears back to that Nigeria Church where Anglican people are discriminated against and persecuted in Nigeria/beyond.
Turn your falseness away from me.
Stay out of my personal life/character and please attempt to keep focused on your own sinfilled behavior (which appear before us today in form of you "knowing better" the heart and true character of people like me).
Peter: why don't you start with a list of 1) studies you have read that disprove the argument that homosexuality is not an innate trait, and 2)that list the factors that have been scientifically proven to change innate heterosexual behavior to homosexual.
You are the guest here, after all. You must prove your side first, as the people who visit here regularly are known to have done their homework. We don't know that you have, so far you are only stating opinions. If you have sound research to back up those opinions, give us the opportunity to review it. Do note, however, that many here are well-trained in sound research methodology on a variety of subjects, including the social sciences.
Peter - a side note: your personal life is in the category of anecdotal. One subject is a case study, and therefore cannot be generalized to the population as a whole.
I do hope you made full disclosure of your past sexual leanings to your wife. If not that is serious enough to be grounds for granting an annulment of a marriage (in the sacramental sense, not the legal one in your case - well, except maybe in Virginia, where almost all sex is illegal).
No Lynn - there was a direct claim that homosexuality was innate and natural, so I want the person who made that claim to produce one scientific paper that supports that conclusion.
If you want I can point you to numerous twin studies that indicate a very large nurture component in sexual development (you might want to start with the fabulously robust Bailey et al; 2000), but let's give the pro-nature argument time to prove its corner before I present the papers that show that it is not primarily genetic or biological.
One of the flaws I find in this line of discussion is the notion that;
IF: Homosexuals are accepted as Christians,(P)
THEN: Homosexual acts must be accepted as well.(Q)
Look folks, I’m an old-school mathematician with a bend to physics, not a geneticist nor a Doctor of Medicine. So while I won't attempt to argue with IT about Dr. Mendel, nor will I argue the merits, or lack thereof of the 1973 APA decisions. I will offer my thoughts vies a vie Formal Logic. I have long since given up any hope of discourse along the traditional Greek Construct of Logos, Ethos, Pathos as most discussions along these lines begin and end with Pathos, most times never even exploring the presumptive "first step" of Logos.
What we have evolving here today appear to be a fallacy of propositional logic in the form of "Similar Validating Form" (Contraposition). Here's how that works:
If p then q.
Therefore, if q then p.
If p then q.
Therefore, if not-q then not-p.
Example
If James was a bachelor, then he was unmarried.
Therefore, if James was unmarried, then he was a bachelor.
Counter-Example
If James was President, then he was over 35.
Therefore, if James was over 35, then he was President.
The mathematical usage and explanation of this particular theorem begins that there is an important linguistic caveat to the application of this fallacy, namely, that it is common mathematical practice to state definitions as conditional propositions, rather than biconditional propositions. For instance:
A vector space V is finite-dimensional if it has a finite basis.
It would not be mistaken to infer from this definition that if a vector space is finite-dimensional then it has a finite basis.
As an historical sidebar, this is one of Aristotle's thirteen fallacies, from the language-independent group, also known as the "Fallacy of the Consequent". The closely-related Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent is often attributed to Aristotle, but his description of the fallacy sounds closer to commuting a conditional than affirming its consequent:
The refutation which depends upon the consequent arises because people suppose that the relation of consequence is convertible. For whenever, suppose A is, B necessarily is, they then suppose also that if B is, A necessarily is. This is also the source of the deceptions that attend opinions based on sense-perception. For people often suppose bile to be honey because honey is attended by a yellow color: also, since after rain the ground is wet in consequence, we suppose that if the ground is wet, it has been raining; whereas that does not necessarily follow.
As Clay is asking for us show reliable evidence for our positions, I offer the following;
Paul Halmos, Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces, Springer-Verlag, 1958, p. 10.
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, 5. 167b1-8.
Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Second Edition) (2001), p. 316.
Thomas P. Kiernan (Editor), Aristotle Dictionary (Philosophical Library, 1962), see "Consequent, Fallacy of".
Oh my, would that be the same Bailey that has stated it would be morally acceptable to abort a fetus if pre-natal screening was available to determine sexual preference?
Since y'all are too lazy to go look it up on PubMed, I did your work for you:
An article on possible causes of sexual orientation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
book...o.box.4131#4133
And a long index of medical articles (close to 400) that deal in some way with the subject of what may or may not cause homosexuality, or even if the question matters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Enjoy.
Folks, we are trying to engage in discussion with someone who writes for Stand Firm and David Virtue. Methinks it's an exercise in futility.
Snarkiness about Bailey aside, twin studies are questionable. At the vary least, they cannot be generalized beyond the twin population. They are used best to indicate areas for further genome studies.
His statement about abortion goes to prove the intent of his studies - to prove his personal bias, rather than starting from at least a neutral position. Of course, starting from a neutral position isn't quite good enough for a good study; you start from the null hypothesis, pretty much trying to prove that you assumptions are incorrect.
Thank you Peter O and Clay,
You show up and you bring out the best in this group. So many people come forward in response to your opinions, and present intelligent, thoughtful views and arguments, some of them passionate, but always well articulated. I would recommend this thread to many, to help people who are reasonable, and who don't yet understand. It is truly good for us to think about our views and to have to present them in a reasonable manner, if again and again. Some will listen; some will try to learn; some never will.
Lee, of course it's an exercise in futility! But you can't always let misconceptions and falsehoods go unanswered.
Sometimes as a group, we have to show that we aren't uninformed, emotional nitwits. I, for one, am an informed one!
Counterlight, be prepared to explain the validity of PubMed! As an aside, I was once told that using PubMed was an unfair advantage, almost cheating. ROFL.
So let's summarise what we have so far on this thread:
i) A reference to one twin study (and more promised) that indicate very clearly that there is a low genetic component in homosexual attraction.
ii) A link to a scientific summary statement that says that to date there is little evidence to suggest a firm biological determinative basis to homosexuality.
iii) Abuse heaped on anybody who might question the notion that homosexuality is a strictly determined biological or genetic phenomena.
Hmmmmmm........ Makes me wonder what is truly questionable here and where the bias is actually coming from.
"So, let's call a truce on the science front."
I'd go even further and say let's abandon that battlefront; there's no profit in it.
I'm not tarring Clay personally, as I don't know what he believes, but how many of the con evos who condemn homosexuality are creationists? Scientific arguments are completely lost on them, as they they have themselves have shown that they would rather cling a narrow reading of the Bible even when it flies in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence. Their selective use of science, when they choose to, is a wholy self-serving attempt to bolster their preconceived notions, which flies in the face of the scientific method.
Clay says the APA's decision to depathologize homosexuality was "political." So what? All too often, science follows, or is used in the service of power, politics, and prevailing social norms. Science was, and occasionally still is, used to bolster racism, and to justify slavery, by "proving" that blacks are inferior to whites. Uppity women who didn't conform sufficiently to their gender roles were sometimes diagnosed by doctors, based on their "scientific" understanding, as "frigid" or "hysterical." Social Darwinism helped to make it OK for the rich to continue exploiting the poor. Sociobiology today sometimes plays a similar role, projecting on nature our own social expectations. That those scientific "truths" were accepted was political, and that they were abandoned was political. Politics cannot trump good science, but it often takes political struggle to uncover bad science, and point out biases of scientists who looked for the answers they wanted to find. Science may be objective, but scientists are no more objective, or no less human in their failings and prejudices than the rest of us. I was raised by two of them, and was surrounded by them since I was wee tot, so I know whereof I speak. So it took a bunch of activists, some of them scientists, to get psychiatrists to see past their prejudices. Well, good for them.
The use of science in this fight is a no win situation. First they'll say, as the good Bishop of Nigeria does, that "Even dogs don't do it." But if you convince them that homosexuality is "natural," they'll say, "But we're called to rise above our base animal instincts. Animals eat their young. And dogs eat poo. Surely you're not saying we should do the same cause they do?" They'll also make the argument, "Alcoholism and gambling have been shown to have a genetic basis. Should we 'accept' those behaviors too?"
Finally, I personally just hate the argument. It rings to close to saying, "Tolerate me, cause I can't help myself." I personally don't care why I'm gay; it doesn't need an explanation any more than heterosexuality does. I like being gay. I'm proud of being gay. I know I didn't have a choice in the matter, but there's a lot more to it than a mere pecadillo, a genetic accident, a burden, a cross to bear that I have to come to terms with, just as there's more to my race than my skin color. As the the gay liberationists said, "Gay is good," and as that overplayed torch song says, riffing on God to Moses, "I am what I am." As a Christian, I would add, "I am what I am because God made me who I am, in His image, and loves me as I am." Nothing short of that suffices, and the scientific argument, though sometimes tactically useful, won't get us there. It's when people come see us for who we are, and love us for who we are, in our full humanity, made in God's image and shining with the light of Christ, that hearts and minds truly change. I was raised to know and love the scientific method, but I also know it's limitations (Dawkins on God is a case in point). Science can't make them see, science can't make them love.
To those who claim that homosexuality is a sin. Outside of the few scriputres - which really do not speak about homosexuality as there was no such concept at the time - why is it a sin? What is it about homosexuality that makes it a sin?
On the other hand, if one goes by the text that "by their fruits you shall know them" one cannot define homosexuality as a whole as sinful. I think of those I know and their gracefilled lives, I cannot see where their sexual orientations enters into the discussion at all. Their lives being gracefilled obviously gives lie to the fact that homosexuality is sinful or not natural. There is also a text that states that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So, something which is wrong or unnatural cannot produce good. And as I look around me, I see much evidence that many who are homosexual (like many who are not) produce much good. I think that for me it is seeing the evidence around me through these lenses that has given me the confidence to stand where I do on the issue and to work for full inclusion.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Read all 400 articles cataloged in PubMed and come back. Personally, I found reading about 50 was enough, but I was trained to examine design flaws in studies of this nature. I only skimmed those with flawed methodology when I did my research on the topic, they were just points of interest.
"Bishop Akinola’s effort to establish CANA within the boundaries of The Episcopal Church has occurred without any invitation or authorization whatsoever and violates centuries of established Anglican heritage. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, CANA is not a branch of the Anglican Communion and does not have his encouragement." - +Peter Lee.
Big Pete Donatus of Abuja has no understanding of the catholicity of the Church centered on the sacramental order of EPISCOPE, the oversight of bishops as successors to the apostles. Under catholic polity, he has no legitimate EPISCOPE outside Nigeria. In the US he is nothing but a schismatic episcopus vagantis intent on stealing TECs assets. As "gun for hire" employed by the Christian Right in TEC, he has disgraced the episcopal office, and has shown that he is a cherry-picker with regard to God's Commandments. Fixated on sex, especially gay sex, he seems to be unaware that theft is also a violation of God's commendments.
May the Lord have mercy on his soul, a man of very low moral principles, engaged in nothing but a POWER grab.
On the issue of whether or not CANA is inclusive as they claim. The statement they make is misleading in the full. In today's climate on the issue of inclusion, the understanding of inclusion is that homosexuals are included fully in the full life of the church including ordination and blessing of marriages. To make the claim of being fully inclusive means that one is practicing full inclusion in a way which reflects the understanding of those who read or hear the claim. The fact that CANA is not makes the claim entirely misleading to the general public.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Peter O,
To use a childhood phrase, you show me yours, I'll show you mine. I have yet to see the difinitive arguement that proves or disproves whether or not homosexuality is learned or something you are born to. But unlike you, Clay, +Minns, ++Akinola and others I could name, I refuse to judge people on it, PERIOD. My limited human understanding simply can not make that sort of call. That is why I leave the judging to God, who I think can do a much better job than I. I can only go on what my own experiences from being outside the issue looking in can give me. I can see how the LGBT community is maligned, mistreated, abused, and hated, and I am sorely ashamed. I can see people like my friend I mentioned in my first post, who try desparately to be something they are not, and are miserable for it. I can see growing, loving, strong and stable relationships between two people who care about eachother and rejoyce in their love. I can see people who are afraid for some reason or another to allow LGBT people to have the same opportunities as others because they are afraid it is somehow contageous and am sickened by their stupidity (yes, stupidity, the ignorant can be taught). I see men and women who preach that allowing LGBT's equal love and acknowledging their right to exist will tear society apart while they rip their own communities to shreds, and fear for the religion I love. Before you try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye, take the 2x6 out of yours! When you judge someone on ANYTHING you are treading on God's turf. And especially on something as "hot buttoned" as this, where the scientific evidence could be taken either way, we humans are grossly unqualified to judge. And to use a biblical argument to support this discrimination, I must repeat, is bupkis. 100 years ago we oppressed women because the Bible and our churches taught that women were inferior to men. 160 years ago we held back an entire race and held them in bonds of slavery because we believed the Bible said they had the "mark of Cain" and were therefore inferior and that the Bible said slavery was ok. 1500 years ago we decided that Jews should be concidered less than human because the Bible said they were guilty of killing our Lord and Savior. 2000 (+/-) years ago we killed a man for preaching that caring for people was more important that strict observation of Jewish law. In every case, we later realized we were were wrong. Could this be the case in regards to our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ? I think so, and I pray we come to this realization before it is too late. But again, I'm just a redneck from the Ozarks, what do I know.
Rolling back to Jake's general thrust - the intolerance of Peter Akinola.
He shows no mercy to those he sees as sinners. He supports ailing homosexuals in Nigeria, and this is not a moral alternative to a state-sponsored death penalty. They are not being sent to the equivalent of white-color spa prisons in the U.S. - they are being sentenced to hate crimes in a closed penal community.
Sorry, make that "Jailing" or "incarcerating" homosexuals. I have no idea how he feels about "ailing" homosexuals treatment under Nigerian law. I suppose it depends on what ails them.
I wonder if some who have had homosexual experiences for whatever reason were never attracted to people of the same sex, just the adventure or the feeling of community. That was a frequent situation in the college I attended. In that case "cured" is certainly not the correct description for people who are now "straight".
Let me comment briefly on the Arkansas Hillbilly's post. The issue at question (for me at least in this thread) is whether homosexuality is biologically or genetically determined or not. That's not a question to do with one's moral attitude towards those who have a homosexual orientation or who behave homosexually (not always the same people) but simply a question of scientific fact.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, NO evidence that homosexuality is entirely biological or genetic. If anybody can present a paper to deny that conjecture then please do so. However, a huge number of twin studies (i.e. Bailey et al; 2000, Wilson and Rahmen; 2005), path analyses (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith; 1970, Van Wyk and Geist; 1984) and even social anthropological studies (Gebhard; 1971, Herby; 1981) indicate that there is a large environmental (i.e. nurture) factor in homosexual attraction.
A large part of the TEC argument in their presentation to the 2005 AAC was that since homosexuality is a natural biological variation in humanity, it was a justice issue that a normal variation in humanity shouldn't be condemned. If however, the science shows this not to be the case, then what we have is in fact a deep-seated human behaviour, perhaps with genetic or biological predisposers but ultimately an environmentally produced phenomena, similar to other forms of human emotional response. This would then put it on the same category as things like kindness, anger, paedophilia, liking soft cheese, all human behaviours for which we recognise complicated patterns of formation.
Without the clear scientific evidence of biological/genetic causation the justice argument falls apart.
In regard to one being "cured": I think that what helps me in understanding this or at least not feeling somewhat threatened by the statements that one was homosexual and is not cured and in a heterosexual relationship is the understanding of human sexuality on a continuum. This also means that I really don't believe that it can be "cured". You have homosexuality on one end of the spectrum and heterosexuality on the other end. Most of us fall somewhere inbetween. Those of us closer to the centre will be more likely to feel that we have been "cured". Human sexuality is not a black or white proposition.
Instead of reducing me to a one-dimensional object of scientific investigation, why doesn't anyone from organizations like CANA ever ask me to account for the faith that is in me?
Why does no one ever ask me a question that will allow me to tell them that I have been redeemed and saved by the love of God in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, and that I no longer have any need to justify myself?
Why does no one ever ask me a question that will allow me to tell them that my life is hid with God in Christ and that in the ongoing process of sanctification God has never required a change in my sexual orientation; or that, as a matter of fact, God has used all of who I am including my sexual orientation to further God's mission in this world and that God has even used me to bring others to Christ? Why does no one ever ask me to tell them about the men in whom I have known the love of God and to whom I might even have been legally and sacramentally married before they died if it were not for a culture and a Church that reduces me to a one-dimensional object of scientific investigation instead of valuing the whole person that I am, created by God and called by God into God's service?
Am I a sinner? Of course. I am not so self-deceived as to believe otherwise. Are the members of CANA sinners? I'll let them answer for themselves. I would just ask that when it comes to taking inventories, I be allowed to take my own. I'll even try to let my adversaries to do the same. But when they demean my full humanity and try to assassinate my character by claiming that I am the unconscious victim of faulty nurturing, they will find out once again that I am a street-fighter on that subject and will defend myself, God being my helper.
PeterO: I have spent my entirte adult life defending my sexuality to people like you. I refuse to do it any more. If you don't like gay people or feel we are sinners fine. I think you are a sinner. Who really cares about your narrow God? I don't. Get lost.
Greg,
I'm not asking you to defend your sexuality. I'm asking others to defend their assertion that homosexuality is a biological/genetic phenomena.
I don't think that being gay is a sin so why caricature me as doing so?
What is required of us to be God’s people?
Is it to convert others to right thinking or action?
Is it to use words in a clever fashion?
To gain great numbers in our fold?
Are we called to winnow or weed?
While we engage in word play and discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the world suffers. God’s mission is thwarted.
Those who choose to deceive, will deceive. It doesn’t matter if we cross ourselves from left to right or right to left, or at all!
The church is trapped in a medieval artifice of communal rightness determined by the individual actions of its communicants. She plays a numbers game as if salvation were determined by a sacerdotal contest of red rover. My side has more numbers, my side has more years, my side has prettier buildings, we won more people with our arguments, my side is more pure, more right, on and on and on.
What a deception this all is.
It doesn’t matter one iota what our corporate beliefs are, it matters how you, the individual, relates to each circumstance that presents itself. We cannot save ourselves or anyone else, to believe so is to make ourselves gods in our own mind. There are no formulas, no magic words or actions, no secrets that can save us. No one person has more access to God than any other. Abuse of any part or member of creation is sin, especially if it is to use another for our own salvation.
What a lack of faith is portrayed by religion that markets itself like so much dish soap, trying to sell itself to the masses, “become ? It cuts the grease!” “use ? It makes you purer” “Our priests are higher” “our pews are closer to god”
Has Christian witness really become all about words?
Why do YOU care? Are you gay? If you aren't what differnece does it make to YOU?
Greg,
I used to be gay, so issues of causation of sexual attraction have a personal and pastoral concern. It matters crucially what the science says because that should be part of the shaping of our pastoral response. If science shows that homosexuality is genetic then telling people they can change is damaging. Conversely, if science shows that sexual attraction has a large environmental factor, then telling people "You were born that way, get used to it" is highly misleading.
OK here's a recipe:
"Death Chili"
(we call it this cause it has 1 pound of bacon in it but it is GOOD).
4 TBS ground cumin
4 TBS black pepper
1.5 TBS cinnamon
3 TBS seasoning salt
1 TBS tobacco
2 TBS Worstechire sauce
1 Pint beef stock
1 32 oz can of tomatoes- cut up
2 TBS maza for thickener
1 LB bacon, chopped
3 TBS cubed chuck roast
1.5 lbs chuck
4 TBS garlic
2 large onions
1 8 oz can of chopped chilis
3 fresh Serrano peppers
2 TBS chili peppers
fry bacon to a crisp
pour off fat in skillet
brown meat and garlic, set aside
- brown onions
- combine bacon, pepper spices, tomatoes, stock and peppers and simmer
cook for a couple of hours and then put in fridge overnight
I cannot emphasize enough how much better it is when you cook it a day ahead of time and put in fridge overnight. I have had men come to me like orphans in Oliver Twist with empty bowls, saying "Please, can I have some more" when I took this to chili parties.
The secret is the bacon. Bacon makes everything better.
timmah
PeterO: If you "used to be gay", then you likely still are but just don't act on it.
Is heterosexuality biological or genetic? Do I care? No! ... PeterO, take your confusion somewhere else.
"...claiming that I am the unconscious victim of faulty nurturing,..."
And, on the obverse, Scott, as those claims are false for you, those same claims would mean that I should have turned out a lesbian, and I'm not. I ask Scott's question again: why aren't folk like Akinola and the CANAites interested in his journey of faith? I'll tell you why. It's the same answer I got when I asked a Network guy, about to leave for the first Plano conference, to take at face value my story of my faith. He said I can't have a story of faith, since I am a woman in holy orders and therefore not a Christian and have no faith to hold.
It's an exercise in circular logic at which for some reason which passes understanding the CANAites, and Akinolites and Network types, etc. have decided to excel. Truthiness. That's what it is. For what purpose?
Lois
PeterO: "It matters crucially what the science says because that should be part of the shaping of our pastoral response."
Unless you espouse a double standard, you need to apply that same criteria to your "pastoral response" to heterosexuality.
Peter, I think you need to relax on the scientific data. Others are right, it isn't important. Everything to do with the human heart (and any related biological responses) just can't be proven. If this is really important to you, you must read all the studies, and not rely on summaries provided by others. You must analyze the background and biases of every researcher. You must also learn to spot design flaws and sloppiness.
I don't see how scientific proof by either side advances the Kingdom.
The rules are simple: love God, love your neighbor. When in doubt about the right course in any given situation, be guided by these two Great Commandments. For further detail, refer to all ten! But you won't break any of them if you follow the two great ones, it's impossible. It's also impossible to always follow those two, we are imperfect.
In your personal situation, I would suggest something. I'm taking your story at face value. You - just you, as an individual - found that some sort of social forces led you away from your innate heterosexual inclinations. You, as an individual, then proceeded to marry and start a family. A good way to lead your life, if you are a good husband and father. However, your situation is yours, not someone else's life. For those who truly love others of the same sex, along with only same-sex attraction in the mix - dabbling in marriage and a family would be sinning. Sinning against the spouse not married with a full and open heart.
In all kindness, did you come by your faith a bit later in life? Are you looking for set rules to guide you, as you gain in experience in how to read God's will in those gray-area situations? I'm afraid there are no rules for every situation. Except - love God, love your neighbor. Jesus taught us that those things are more important than specific codes, even the laws of his own faith, Judaism.
If you are turly searching, search for those signs from God to guide you. You'll never be able to prove what God has planted in your heart. You can't "prove" that God loves you, but HE does. You can't "prove" that your wife loves you, but you can know it in your heart - and work to keep that love and trust.
Now, if I were your wife, I'd prefer you spent all this energy on some nice, loving surprise for me! That's the sort of action that preserves marriages and families.
Are avowed heterosexuals born that way? Can heterosexuality be cured? What causes heterosexuality? Is it a sin to be a practicing heterosexual? We are taught to love the heterosexual but hate heterosexuality. If you are heterosexual you must not act on it for it is a mortal sin. But remember, we LOVE you (we just hate your heterosexuality)and will pray for your salvation. God hates HETEROSEXUALS!
Peter O., If I take your first post above, describing your personal situation, at face value then it seems fairly obvious what's going on for you. You're bisexual. ::shrugs::
Good for you. Nothing wrong with that per se. It's how you decide to act towards others with whom you're romantically involved that counts. If you're truly happy being married to a woman and fully intend to be faithful to her - that's great (really, no sarcasm here). But your one bit of anecdotal evidence does not account for every self-identified gay man out there.
As for the arguments that "no simple, easy genetic marker for 'gay' = 'gayness' must be a learned behavior" is utter nonsense. Go back and read IT's initial post RE: genetics.
Human behavior is complicated. IT discussed this from a geneticist's perspective, and I can certainly vouch for it from a psychological one (it's certainly one of the major things I got out of my graduate education in psychology). And if groups like the American Medical Assoc. and the American Psychological Assoc. don't classify being LGBT as an illness, maladaptive behavior, etc... then it's up to y'all to prove otherwise - not insist that they provide you with endless justifications simply because the facts don't square with your social/religious prejudices.
If you are heterosexual, is it possible to spend your entire life not ever acting on your heterosexuality?
It's ok, don't worry, I love heterosexuals anyway. It's the damn acting on it that we HATE. And so for that, we won't let you get married so you will have no choice but to go to hell and burn for eternity.
But, we LOVE you.
Okay, recipe time it is! Good thought.
Don't be deceived by the title of this, if you like bacon and cheese, you will like it even if you are a woman. No claims to being heart-healthy, however, in the biological sense! But it is good for the soul.
Bacon-Cheese Ring
(Catch-A-Man Dip)
• 1 package (12 ounces) bacon, cooked and crumbled
• 1 pound extra-sharp Cheddar cheese, shredded
• 1 bunch green onions, finely chopped
• 2 cups mayonnaise
• 1 teaspoon cayenne pepper
• 1/2 cup toasted, slivered almonds
• Strawberry preserves
• Crackers or French bread
Combine bacon, cheese, green onions, mayonnaise, and cayenne pepper in a medium bowl. Place almonds in the bottom of an oiled 7-cup ring mold, then press cheese mixture on top of the nuts. Cover and refrigerate overnight.
Unmold cheese ring into serving dish. If desired, place a small custard cup filled with strawberry preserves in center of ring. Serve with crackers or French bread slices.
Yield: 20 to 25 servings
I think this recipe promotes sinful behavior on many fronts. Oops.
I love you PeterO ... we just won't act on it, ok?
Lynn, your recipe looks utterly sinful. :)
Peter O writes:
---
There is, to the best of my knowledge, NO evidence that homosexuality is entirely biological or genetic.
----
I’m not disputing this point. As IT pointed out, human sexuality is complex. Orientation is a mixture of both nature (genetics, biology) and nuture (behavioral factors). Several folks have pointed out that being gay is somewhat analogous to being left-handed. I think that this is a reasonable analogy.
Peter also writes:
---
A large part of the TEC argument in their presentation to the 2005 AAC was that since homosexuality is a natural biological variation in humanity, it was a justice issue that a normal variation in humanity shouldn't be condemned….Without the clear scientific evidence of biological/genetic causation the justice argument falls apart.
---
No, it doesn’t cause the argument to fall apart. To continue the analogy, Scripture has a bias towards the right-handed as opposed to the left-handed. (See the sheep and the goats in Matthew, the Son of God sitting at the right hand of the Father, etc.) There is a rich history of discriminating against the left handed and forcing lefties to use their right hands instead. But TEC (and most other churches) no longer considers left-handedness to be sinful.
Left-handedness is morally neutral, and TEC is arguing that homosexuality is morally neutral as well. Does this mean that all homosexual acts are allowed? Not at all; TEC has stated the expectation that all sexual relationships are supposed to be faithful, monogamous, committed, life giving and holy.
Peter, the Church has modified its point of view about a large number of issues as we gained better understanding. I have known gay couples who live in faithful, monogamous, committed, life giving and holy relationships. I’ve seen the fruits of the Spirit manifested in their lives, sometimes in ways that have made me jealous. Thirty years ago, I used to hold your point of view, but I can no longer ignore the outpouring of God’s love in the lives of these gay couples.
For me, the issue isn't whether you happen to be gay or straight. Instead, I'm more concerned about the type of relationship that you have with your partner and how your lives manifest God's love to the world.
Greg - I've been sitting here thinking I should find something equally tasty that's a bit healthier.
Nah, some other time. Feeling like a sinner today.
(Note: men really do tend to congregate round this cheese spread. You didn't hear it from me, clogging your arteries is sin enough on my part, tee hee).
PerterO is gay. The only one he is fooling is himself.
Well Greg, as one of those heterosexual wimmins, I personally wouldn't be makin' up that dip to lasso him in, fer sure.
I fully recognize there are a lot of sexual variations on the bell curve of sexual attraction. But I prefer to have "that type" of relationship with someone who is on my side of the curve. There's a big difference between who is invited for dinner, and who is invited to the bedroom, no?
I am sorry and I probably should stay out of the fracas. I am neither scientist nor psychologist but I do consider myself a Christian. The great commandment to me is to love my neighbor as myself. I like to think that I love God, I love myself and so I MUST love my neighbor. We pass the peace I hope in a meaningful way so that I come to the Eucharist in a right relationship with my God and my neighbor. I resolve my difficulties with my God in a personal and up front sort of way and I expect everyone else to do so as well. My prayer is that everyone else do so also. I am not threatened (at least I hope not) by women, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation, nor should I be.
I believe that Christ came to save the world and he is doing it one soul at a time. It is neither my place nor my duty to supplant my judgement for his.
Finally, I would rather have as many people as I can get under the big tent (yes, this includes Peter and Clay) and let God sort out the issues than to have left someone out and have God say to me, "Rememebr Fred, you saw me here, I looked like this, and you did nothing to help me." That is my biggest fear.
Note: The thing I find abhorent is when ++Aklinola hides behind the mincing of words. If you look at CANA's website the website leads you to a "transformation" page. I assume that means ... well, we all know what that means.
Thank you and now abracadabra *poof* gone.
It is interesting how easily we get side tracked (myself included) into defending our positions instead of speaking to the topic.
I think the topic was that CANA claims to be inclusive but its actions or words reflecting otherwise.
I find that anytime a topic has anything to do with actions we automatically go to ideology. We see that with the letter to GAFCON with concerns that the language people use in describing homosexuality leads to violence against homosexuals. Instead of addressing the concern, many have deflected the attention elsewhere. We're doing it Jake's post as well (once again, myself included).
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
By the way I am left-handed, maybe that is my problem!
Lynn: Your recipe sounds like it could come in handy for some of my house parties now that I am on my 7 week work sabbatical (that could account for my numerous posts lately). Thank you Lynn.
Anne-Marie, you are of course correct. It's hard to know when visitors should go unanswered. I guess about the time they keep repeating the same comments to a variety of thoughtful responses.
We've had a lot of quiet visitors here this afternoon - if we made any of them think in a more loving way, God's work has been done. If we have been too full of ourselves, well, then shame on us (read, shame on me).
Acceptance of gay people is long overdue! ... but what if you were a gay person who bought all of the typical standard lies up to this point and sought conversion therapy because of it, and now find that being gay is ok by the church. Now as a so called ex-gay, you might get married and find out that it was indeed ok to be who you oringinally were ... Wow, what a mess.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.
Peter O,
If you could clarify something for me... Is your need for scientific evidence based on honest curriosity, or are you trying to somehow justify the fact that you are not gay anymore? It has been said repeatedly that with current scientific understanding there is no way to prove one side of the argument or the other conclusively. There are too many variables in human behavior for us to understand it fully. That is why I erre on the side of non-judgement entirely. If greater minds than mine can't agree, what hope do I as a simple country bumpkin have in deciding properly. I'll leave that to the Creator. And I am fine with that. In doing so, that means I treat the person next to me the same regardless of their orientation. I will not tell them they were born the way they are or that they chose to be the way they are. Not an issue. What is the issue is that God loves them regardless, and I can do no better. Anything as far as their personal relationship with Christ is between them and Christ. In the end you have made your decision, based on your understanding of Christ and what you believe he truely wants for you, and I wish you joy. Your set of circumstances are different from, say Leonardo's or Greg's. If they do not feel their sexuality is a concern to Christ, then who am I to say it is? It's not my call. My call is to accept them as brothers in Christ and love them is if I were them and they were me. This is the challenge of Christianity. To love all, to serve God by serving all. Christianity, I believe, should be less about "piety" and more about love and service. This was the sin of the Pharases. They loved the Law more than the people, and therefore more than God. Our problem today is too much focus on individualism and personal piety and not enough on the community and communal piety. Capitalism has crept too far into our churches, but that is a subject for another post.
Fred, +PeterA should have hit your left hand with a ruler when you tried to use it, then it wouldn't be a problem for you (-: After all, if you're to be let into his all inclusive church, you should first eliminate any behavior he mifht find offensive.
As you note, PeterO's take is simply a red herring. The issue isn't some are born gay or lesbian. The issue is that homosexual behavior does occur in nature, and nothing shows it is destructive or in any way demeaning for two adults of the same sex to love one another, and act on their love. Unless something destructive or demeaning can be shown, what people do is simply none of my business as an American, and that was the TEC stance I grew up with in the early 60s. The "reassurters" assert nothing that was in my episcopalian experience. No one contended the Bible was to be taken liberally, or that God was entirely clear, or that first century A.D. had a all encompassing grasp upon science.
Since then people in some same sex unions have asked, if parishes and communicants make an issue out of supporting civil unions, why don't they support gay/lesbian ones; are we somehow less worthy in God's eye? I cannot find any argument with that. The worst I can find is that the irrational response, the question elicited from some people, made it too uncomfortable for some older gay episcos to remain. However, most of those people are gone, and there's little we can do to bring them back except the radical welcome (or whatever Jake called it)
Since when have conservatives been so intrested in scientific evidence. I thought we (people of faith) were more intrested in pesonal testimonies.
But I guess when someone's testimony offends our world view then we need find 'scientific' evidence.
I don't dismiss Peter O's testimony, If Christ has transformed you someway that has made your life better, so be it. However, I will not dismiss either, the testimonies of those Homosexuals that have had their life transformed in tangible ways by the Christ and yet are still gay. Nor will I dismiss the clear testimony of God's love working in them when they form life long loving relationships with one another.
Further, If God calls someone to the ordained ministry, then God has called that person. It is not for us to criticize God's choices but to learn from them.
Some may say this is a dangerous disregard of the Bible. I believe it is a dangerous leap of faith, but all leaps of faith come with the risk of failure and falling. I, however, would rather go to the judgement seat of Christ having erred on the side of Grace, rather than the side of caution. After all, it is love that shall make us bold and cast out fear, not the correctness of our doctrine (read 1John for details).
Just my two cents
ah that would be the bible was "not to be taken LITERALLY," not "liberally."
If that was a freudian slip, I'm deeply ashamed. (-:
I find it sad that Peter O is on a path to ruin the lives of his wife and family by being a gay man pretending to be straight.
I don't agree with that David. I don't know anything about PeterO. However, his take on homosexality and science (or sociological situation) are simply irrelevant to what is going on in TEC. It doesn't matter if, or how, someone is gay. Only that he/she be able to love him/herself as God loves him/her, and we are to do the same.
All of us, gay or straight, "issues" with accomplishing that. And that's why this "issue" is so darn (-: annoying. It's simply a distraction from God's work.
PeterO has his own path to walk. I hope he can love himself and others. Perhaps TEC and help, perhaps not.
David,
I can't say whether he is or not. That's between him and God. I would, however say he could use our prayers, as could we all. May God grant us the Love of Eternal Christ and the Peace that passes all understanding. Amen.
CANA has a lot more shortcomings than just its rejection of LGBT's. Can't we get off our hobbyhorse now that we've talked this aspect to death, and look at other features of CANA?
Since I do not do recipes I thought I would bring a little music into the discussion.
Noel Paul Stookey
Promise of Love
This is a song
about a Love that lives forever.
And, though I know we've heard it before,
it's a sign of the times.
It's got rhythm and rhyme
that keeps reminding me I'm
fillin' my heart with the promise of Love.
Takin' a chance that the answer is still mine (oh, I'm)
Fillin' my heart with the promise of Love.
Takin' that first step into the rest of my life...
How many teardrops does it take
to make a rainbow?
How many angels fit on a pin?
It used to matter to me but now I think you'll agree,
it's more important to be
fillin' your heart with the promise of Love.
Takin' a chance on the answer,
fillin' your heart with the promise of Love.
Takin' that first step into the rest of your life...
Big.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
LPR
Better.
Witness.
Alive.
Than.
Dead.
Beautiful, Leonardo. And even better because it's true.
Pax,
Doxy
Two of my (private evangelical Christian) college friends married men who told them they had been "healed" of homosexuality. Their lives were devastated in those marriages -- unequally yoked with men who could never fully, truly love them. Both ultimately ended in divorce, with heartbroken children in the mix to boot. One of the men subsequently committed suicide, further traumatizing everyone involved. He literally could not live with who he was.
I have heard similar stories over and over and over (that's what I get for having so many ConsEv and ex-ConsEv friends, I guess). How many people are being so needlessly and wrongfully hurt by the actions of self-hating GL individuals who attempt to "go straight" because they believe God hates them as they are? It is sad beyond description.
And God's heart must break as well....
FWIW
If you have not yet been to the CANA website I encourgae everyone to take a quick look. The discussion centers on the Bishop Seabury Church in Groton,CT. (Scott, is this what you have been hinting at?).
"We've amicably tried to settle this matter..." is the quote from CANA. I wonder if they got that line from another great man in history that said "Shortly after he signed the Munich Agreement in September 1938, Adolf Hitler privately complained to members of his SS bodyguard, "That fellow Chamberlain spoiled my entrance into Prague."
OCICBW
A good summary of the research on biological roots for homosexuality is found on the CBC show "Quirks and Quarks"
CBC Radio One: November 26, 2005 Quirks and Quarks: "The Search for a Gay Gene"
For the record, Peter O is no doubt aware of the website Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin as he has posted in the comments there.
He is aware that they have posted numerous articles by the mainstream scientific community that point to a biological/genetic root to sexual orientation and the ongoing failures of "exgay" and "post-gay" ministries to work for their participants over the long term.
Okay, let's talk about left-handedness. It's a very useful analogy in many ways.
As a behavior, it's much much less complex than sexuality, but still exists on a continuum, with a few people being truly ambidetrous, and most being either strongly left or strongly right in their preference. The rate of lefthandedness are low, and reasonably constant across popuulations as best as can be told (although given the strictures against it this isn't completely clear).
Handedness also occurs in animals, by the way, with some species of flatfish preferring to go on their right side, some on their left. most parrots are left-footed when they hold food to eat, but again, there are exceptions.
There has been traditionally a strong bias against lefthandedness, and still is in some cultures. we know in our own culture, people were punished for being left handed, and forbidden from using their left hands, which in many cases caused severe sequelae. For example, stuttering was often associated with enforcing right-handed usage on a left-handed child.
Thankfully, this forcible "reprogramming" has been rejected by the medical profession and doesn't happen in the west any more.
However, there are still strong social strictures against left handed usage in many other cultures, so it seems prudent to expect abuses still continue.
Second, there is no "gene" for left handedness. the inheritance pattern does not clearly follow simple genetics. Although there is an inherited tendency, with some families having a high frequency of lefties, lefthanders also arise spontaneously in otherwise right handed families. but it doesn't follow a binary left-right inheritance pattern of a simple trait.
One intriguing speculation to explain the frequency of lefthanders and the inheritance pattern is that there IS a gene for right handedness. However, if you do not inherit this trait, you are not necessarily left handed. Rather, your handedness is randomly assgined, so you may end up either right or left. So the phenotypic choices are right handed, or random. The preponderance of right handedness in the population represents the allelic frequency of that right-handed allele.
Now, add to that the complications of human genetics including multi-factorial traits, epigenetics, variance in expressivity, penetrance, enhancers, and suppressors, and you may get a small idea of why simplistic views of genetics simple can't work.
BTW, may I just add that while I as a lesbian am used to being insulted by conservative yahoos, I find it beyond the pale that they are now insulting my loving, wonderful parents who raised me in a healthy, wholesome family environment. Aint nothing "wrong" in MY upbringing and absolutely nothing inappropriate ever happened.
These insulting conservatives owe my Mom and Dad an apology.
Fred Schwartz | 04.21.08 - 4:20 pm
Yes, that's the one.
Peter O,
I've read your blog, articles, and comments for several years and there is something unclear to me. You state that you were once gay (in the sense that you identified with that term and felt same-sex attraction), but did you ever act/live from that identity? Were you ever involved in an ongoing same-sex relationship that expressed itself physically? Did you ever live as an "out" gay man in a visible relationship?
Please accept my apologies for asking so directly. My interest isn't prurient and I'm not seeking names, dates, and details. But since personal experience forms a significant portion of your argument, I'd appreciate a bit more clarity.
... and they owe my wonderful parents an apology as well.
IT, great comment! As the father of a lesbian daughter, I thank you for it. No one is ever the perfect parent, but most of us try hard to do a good job.
Now, to run out to the store and buy plenty 'o bacon to make some yummy stuff. BTW, bacon lovers might want to take a look at the book, "Seduced by Bacon." One of those wonderful, one-in-a-while treats!
Last thought - Prayers, please, for my mother-in-law, who broke her hip this weekend. My wife is enroute to WV to se her parents, while I am holding down the fort and taking care of the pets.
In regards to the recipes offered in this thread, I believe the Bible is very clear about the consumption of pork and of combining meat and dairy. Here we are in Pesach and people are advocating the eating of forbidden foods. You might as well just offer that stuff to an idol and go all out in your wicked, un-Biblical ways, ya buncha heretics!!!
Padre "Just-that-much-holier-than-thou" Mickey
Thank you, IT, for doing the usual on behalf of genetic education.
It is good that Peter discovered his inner bisexual and is satisfied with his current situation. This doesn't happen with everybody, and often the attempt to force the situation by marrying and then hoping for change turns into a mess.
I am more interested in seeing the fruits of a given relationship, whether that be mutual support , kindness toward others, children, service.
I object to use of reparative therapy, due to its unproven and unstudied nature. All there is are a bunch of anecdotes, from those who thought it helped them to those who thought it hurt them severely. The help side includes those who still have the attraction but have learned some other things about themselves, and those who claim complete reversal of orientation. Many or most of the latter either fall off the wagon or are "professional ex-gays" who make a living on the lecture circuit or working for a religious - political organization like Focus on the Family. I have seen many people who resented losing time and money on the reparative therapy and ex-gay ministry, some of whom have been very depressed. However, all of these are anecdotes - there are no long follow-up outcome studies.
yep - bacon and cheese dip during Pesach - can't get much more treyf than that! There's nothing wrong with artichoke-cheese dip or some of the other veggie dips.
By now, the CANA had perfected the art of stealing neighboring territory. They would start by encouraging political unrest inside the area. At the same time, they would wage a propaganda campaign citing real or imagined wrongs committed against local Epsicopalians. When neighboring TEC leaders finally came to see to CANA to resolve the ongoing crisis, they would be offered help in the form of an Anglican covenant to "restore order."
Sound scarily familiar see:
http://www.historyplace.com/worl...ph/tr-
czech.htm
And, this ain't the Chapman Memo!
NancyP: It's not just you that objects to "reparative therapy".
Below is a direct cut and paste from The American Psychological Association:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
Another of the Most Holy Primates of the Global South is up to his favorite activities. Read this at Madpriest's.
Padre Mickey--What a great letter! Perhaps our PB should do likewise if she has not done so already.
Also, there is a lot subtle brainwashing going on on the CANA website that Jake has linked to here. Maybe we should start picking that apart. Starting with the Minns statement that Seabury Church left the Episcopal Church.
I also have to correct one more falsehood of Clay's (hopefully he will read this):
And as for the APA statement on homosexuality, if you are aware of the history, that was a political decision, not a medical one.
This is a common charge by the religious right but historically and factually inaccurate.
The reevaluation of homosexuality was done by a scientific committee of the APA which was chaired by Robert Spitzer, M.D. The committee looked at early psychoanalytic claims that homosexuality was an illness (i.e., Rado, 1940; Bieber et al, 1962, Socarides, 1968) and weighed them against studies that argued that homosexuality was not an illness (i.e., Kinsey et al, 1948, 1953; Ford and Beach, 1951; Hooker, 1957; Marmor, 1965). It was the weighing of the scientific evidence, and not political pressure that led to the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual.
There was intense lobbying by both gay activists and the religious right over the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality off the list of mental disorders. But the religious groups which ranged from the Roman Catholic and Mormon Churches to evangelical groups coalesced in a group called "The Ad-Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from
DSM-II" chaired by Charles Socarides (who recently passed away) and Irving Bieber which strongly lobbied to keep it in place.
Clay's assertion also ignores the fact that this decision has been reaffirmed in no less that 20 subsequent resolutions by the American Psychological Association.
It also ignores the fact that this same position has been taken by other psychological, psychiatric and medical associations in the United States, including the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers in the United States.
It is also the position taken by psychological and psychiatric groups in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, western Europe, the World Health Organization and most recently, China.
So it wasn't a political decision, though it became politicized. It wasn't a one time decision by one organization borne out of pressure. And, 30 years later, it remains the position throughout the industrialized world, whether Clay wants to accept it or not.
All: While am fully in favor of pointing out any CANA duplicity, I am NOT fully in favor of demonizing those who at the very least have some questions about whether homosexual activity is a sin or not. Clay has raised some good questions, and has been essentially tarred and feathered for even presuming to suggest that there might be anything but a hard-wired basis (nurture or nature, it doesn't much matter) to homosexual orientation.
It is very easy lump people into "them" and equate Clay's points with the ultra-conservative hateful viewpoint. As someone who has attempted to be a centrist, to remain on the fence (and have the 'splinters' to prove it!), and to state that sexuality is NOT a core doctrine of the faith and should not be a cause of schism, I find both conservative and liberal points to be less than compelling when accompanied by insinuations that the other side is not merely misinformed, but actively hateful or evil.
I am not into demonizing anyone, but I can understand that people get frustrated when they tell people that we experience our sexuality as innate and this is supported by mainstream psychology around the world to people just don't want to listen to you.
It hurts and people say things they shouldn't. I have lost it a few times and regretted it later. It doesn't make it right, but we are all human. For some this is an abstract argument. For others, it goes to the heart of our being and brings out very intense emotions.
Tom, when people come here looking for information, they do not take the attitude of "prove that you're right, and I'm wrong." They ask for places to find more information, and some more personal stories. When those people keep asking questions, I don't see any anger around here. But sometimes the questions turn into stubbornness, and a refusal to accept we aren't changing our minds now (or for me, EVER).
This has become a big issue, and never mind on fault, or who started what when the egg became a chicken. I have eralized that I must either make my views known, or stay out of the conversation.
I understand why this is an important issue to those living outside the heterosexual lifestyle. I understand people like me - heterosexual, with a close friend of 25 years who has lived through all the hatred.
What I don't understand is people who only know what they read from like-minded individuals, and refusing to entertain other views. I don't understand people who don't err on the side of being kind on a controversial issue.
And I absolutely do not understand the concept of God as some supreme being who has nothing better to do than checking up on peoples sexual preferences and behavior. Ditto with a God who just generally thinks sex is, well, dirty.
I find that the other side yells loud and clear about something hateful. How else can you react but to be plain about the other side? Sweeping it all under the carpet for unity is what got us into this mess.
I am expressing a strong opinion about what I feel I must do, after years of "can't we all get along" on many, many topics religious. The answer seems to be - no. Sure, I've had milder days on the topic, but not today. I wouldn't dream of going to SF or VO and spouting off on my views...but I would hope I could ask questions. I do read what they write over there, and it makes me ill sometimes, particularly when they claim that a "loving" God backs them up.
More power to ya if you can stay neutral. And I will apologize in advance, this is a hit-and-run comment, I have a little deadline to meet.
Tom,
Clay and Peter have attempted to divert the conversation from the topic of the false representation CANA has made of themselves.
They are both quite aware that this site is visited by Christians who will be offendedby their statements, which is their intention. Engage us emotionally on another topic, and so derail the discussion.
They have no desire to discuss if it is moral or not to refer to gay and lesbian Christians as "Satanic," attempt to have them all put in prison, and then have the audacity to claim the label of being "radically inclusive." Instead, they want to discuss for the thousandth time if certain sex acts are moral or not.
It's a desperate ploy, which goes to show that even the extreme conservatives can find no rational defense for the false statements being made by CANA, and so must resort to stirring the sex pot to divert the conversation.
Shorter APA re: reparative therapy:
It's quackery.
The cat was let out of the bag when a sociologist, Evelyn Hooker, started doing surveys and observation of non-hospitalized, non-therapy-using gay men in L.A., apparently inspired by a gay neighbor. The non-medicalized gays were doing just as well as their straight peers on various measures of life and career adjustment and function.
Bieber, Socarides, et al dealt solely with a population of gay men seeking or being sent for treatment, or with institutionalized gay men, and then generalized to the entire gay population. Bad science. If all I knew about male Homo sapiens was from a prison population, I would consider "men" to be pathologic too. Socarides also had another motive, his son was gay and was a gay activist.
It's extraordinarily ego-centric to expect one's experience to be the norm for everyone else in the world in similar circumstances -- to the point that anyone who claims to have had a different experience is accused of being untruthful and any organization that says one's experience is in fact not normative is accused of being political.
One of things that is supposed to happen in Christian conversion is the realization that the universe does not revolve around ME, ME, ME.
It's usual to note in these kinds of situations that persons like this should concetrate on their own planks than others' specks. But, really, what's the point?
There comes a point in time when refusal to admit certain truths (gay is not a choice, therapy can not change one's sexual orientation etc)is no longer based upon ignorance but comes from bigotry. That time is now.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
Jake: Good point. Sticking to the point of the post would be good, and a diversion is just that--a diversion. I just find that many people, myself included, allow ourselves to be sucked into the accusations and counter-accusations game too easily, which makes for much heat and precious little light.
Thanks for the corrective, Jake. This centrist is an avid fan of your site.
The church is still obsessed with homosexuality and has been for a long time. It's not going to be easy to get around that obsession. While the rest of society has moved on, the church remains the last hold out of this prejudice, for it was born in the church.
RE: "Surely you know homosexuals people who have brothers and/or sisters who are heterosexual..."
:raises hand:
I sure do.
Joe has 5 younger siblings.
Two of them are twins - a boy named Mark and a girl named Ruth.
Both Mark and Ruth are gay.
All 4 of the other kids (Joe, Martha, Alvin and Marie) are straight.
And...where did Ruth and Mark come from?
Straight parents. O.O
You do the math.
If anyone is interested in research into the so-called 'ex-gay' movement, there is some out there. Here's an excerpt.
As shown in the work of Michael Schroeder and Ariel Shidlo, a scientific measure of success arrives at very different results [than those reported by religious-based proponents of sexual orientation change] Out of a sample of 202 people who met the criteria laid down (that they were initially primarily gay), the following facts emerged:
1) Many of the therapists were behaving unethically. For example 1/4 of those who had been through the treatments had been pressured into joining, almost none of those who felt it wasn't working were given advice on alternative counseling, and most were misled about the position of the APAs and about the supposed success rates of 'ex-gay' treatments. See Responses of US professional bodies to 'ex-gay' treatments.
2) Most patients go through an initial 'honeymoon' with the 'ex-gay' movement, followed later by isillusion.
3)Because of the hostility and lack of support by most 'ex-gay' therapists to 'failures', most patients continued to lie to their therapists about their progress. This is almost certainly the reason why Exodus and Narth therapists continue to claim 30-50% success rates, when outsiders find much less.
4) Based on self-reporting by the patients to Schroeder and Shidlo, 14% did manage long-term to either greatly reduce or completely stop homosexual practices. Of these, 5% were 'struggling'. Another 5% reported being reasonably happy (almost all of this group were celibate).
5) Only 4% (i.e. 8 patients) reported a shift in sexual orientation from 5 or more to 3 or less on a 1-7 scale of hetero/homosexual balance. Of these - the only ones who could perhaps be classified as 'ex-gays' - 7 out of 8 put down as occupation that they were 'ex-gay' counselors. The eighth person refused a follow-up interview.
Obviously there is a serious conflict of interest/secondary gain issue among this group.
References:
A.Shidlo and M.Schroeder (2002): 'Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report'. Professional Psychology, Records and Practice 2002 vol 33 248-259
M.Schroeder and A.Shidlo (2001): 'Ethical Issues in Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapies: An Empirical Study for Consumers'. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 5(3/4), 2001. Haworth Press
.
Tracie ...
In my family of 6 siblings, 3 are gay, 3 are straight ... All raised in the same manner by the same heterosexual parents.
IT & Greg: same goes for Joe's mother being offered an apology. She raised 6 wonderful kids by herself on public aid. Yup, for quite some time, she was a single mother.
This is why Joe is 110% convinced that ANY woman with two or more kids should be SAINTED.
I should amend that:
...on public aid and a waitress' earnings. And whatever Joe could bring home from his first full-time job at a recycling plant, where he worked after school. I do not want to paint a picture of someone just sucking in welfare and living off the state. She's now completed her master's degree in computer science (and is considering going for her doctorate) and is teaching at one of the reservation high schools out in Arizona.
Sorry for the derail there. Just wanted to clarify some things.
As far as the CANA statement goes, they certainly need to find a new PR firm!
That's probably one of the most pathetic attempts at damage control I've ever seen.
.
I have one brother. He's straight, and he's married.
I'm gay as a handbag full of rainbows.
"handbag full of rainbows"
Oohh ... nice image.
.
I love it when the homophobes piss all over our parents.
I would just like to say that if we each spent as much time looking after ourselves as we do looking out for everyone else we would not need to have these discussions. Would we?
I love it when the homophobes piss all over our parents.
Counterlight
The really interesting part is the pissers ought take aim on themselves...the situation with these lazyminded/feardriven folks is they are living in denial and pretend and don't want to face real or seperate it from "selective" beliving...they don't want to know up from down or left from right or right from wrong and prefer to listen/suckup to abusive/crude sloppy and dangerous preaching that reassures them and gives them the ongoing shallowness and make believe security so they can have their JOLLIES on the backs of fellow Christians/others:
"Homosexual behavior is considered so offensive to God that those who engage in it and do not repent will not enter his kingdom" Matt Kennedy
Talk about arrogant mouthing off/grandstanding and generating religious exclusion and hate.
Fr. Jake,
You wrote "Clay and Peter have attempted to divert the conversation from the topic of the false representation CANA has made of themselves."
Are you serious?
The point of my post was to say that I disagreed with your representation of CANA's statement of incusivity and called into question the notion that the Episcopal Church is somehow holding the highground. I did not intend not start the conversation homesexuality and genetics and I noted it earlier. I simply responded to a snark off topic comment by David H.
The point that I was trying to make and I think this thread captures it remarkably well, is that the both sides are equally full of hate and are equally blinded by that hate.
I know that you have never claimed to be a fair or gracious moderator (your ball, your rules), but your hipocrocy is astounding. I comment on this blog for one purpose and one purpose only. I know that I am not going to convince anyone of my position however, I would like to tone down the rhetoric. You have stated to me in the past that you do not tolerate on your blog, the very hateful language you accuse the neo-cons of using (satanic, cancerous elements, hooligans, etc) and yet you tolerate, justify and allow the following (and others) from the very poetic Leonardo:
"tiresome, sweetly engineered, hate-mongering speech turned low-volume trashing/excluding and DEMONIZING of fellow Christians/Anglicans/others. You, like shifty/greasy old Minns, are a creepy crowd, a crowd the wheels and deals with your own atrocisities to appear reasonable and intelligent...don't be silly, you are a used car salesman whistling in the darkness of eternity."
Please do not shy away from this and strike my post because it is difficult. I am very intersted in knowing how the hatred that permates your heart as well as is the common theme of this blog is ANY different than what you accuse Abp Akinola et al of?
And here I thought the full moon was past: I go away for the day, but the lunatic trolls are here at Jake's in full force! :-0
That said: PeterO, just don't give your wife an STD (when you almost inevitably fall off the wagon) and Do As Ye Will, OK?
is ANY different than what you accuse Abp Akinola et al of?
Clay | 04.21.08 - 10:53 pm | #
Listen you silly unfocused, dangerous human who indulges in pretend...people can be arrested and murdered because of the junktalk of akinola/orombi and their US groupies that slip money under their crooked mitres...forget me, I'm just angry because you have the bad manners, arrogance and nerve to come here and defend bigotry and pretend you are simply "concerne" about sisterly/brotherly Christian love.
Oh, about my "Day Away" (not that anyone asked but we're family right?):
1) Off in my new (to me) car. After 2 months, housebound no more: Yay!
2) Visiting our favorite Benedictine, Prior Aelred. Though his cast is (FINALLY) off his ankle, it still hasn't healed properly---so keep him in your prayers?
[Billcat52: prayers for your mother-in-law's healing]
Leonardo, you do make me wonder.
Leonardo has the wit and courage to stand up against pretenders. One has to admit that he is very good at that.
Gracious...I spend all day in committee meetings, and look what I find online!
Jake, would you consider setting up a permanent post regarding all the research everyone has cited? For that matter, could you set up a permanent link to this set of responses? That way, when trolls come out to play, those of us who wish to move on can cite the link, and get going with the REAL conversation.
Scott - Rec'd the book you recommended. My sweetie wants to know why I'm reading it...
Leonardo - Everything you said: {{{{{yes}}}}}
Goodnight all!
Leonardo:
BTW, loved the pic of you and your Mom. This is the first Mother's Day without mine. I'm going to get out all my pictures of her and put them all over the house...Thx.
Clay,
First of all, there is no hate in my heart for anyone. You'll have to simply accept that, unless you have discovered a mirror into my soul.
Second of all, I will do whatever I can to thwart the attempt by a small group of clerics to destroy TEC. I've known what they were up to for over a decade now, and decided it was time to do my small part to expose them for the scoundrels that they are.
In that effort, I learned of Abp. Akinola. I believe him to have played a role in the deaths of over 600 people in Yelwa. I believe him to be a very dangerous man in desperate need to professional help. I feel obligated to alert other people of this man's actions. I will continue to sound that alarm until he is no longer in a position to victimize the innocent.
I use strong rhetoric intentionally. The extreme conservatives have gotten away with too much in years past because they had the erroneous impression that those who disagreed with them were just a bunch of "liberal wimps." They are now just beginning to understand how wrong they have been. Their continual threats of violence and ugly rhetoric is not going to be quickly forgotten by some of us. And some of us believe that "playing nice" is not a luxury we can any longer afford.
You can disagree all you want, but when I post direct quotes, I fail to see how you can justify a blatant lie by pointing to my rhetoric. I am not in a position of power. Abp. Akinola is. I am not claiming to be inclusive, but CANA is.
The point of this post was two-fold...to make it clear, I'll be blunt:
Whoever wrote that blurb on the CANA site is a liar, and Abp. Akinola is a bigoted thief who needs to be restrained before he does more harm.
Anyone who takes an objective look at the facts will come to a similar conclusion, although if they are "nice Episcopalians" they won't say it as bluntly as I have.
So I'm not nice. One of my growing edges, I suppose.
This is the first Mother's Day without mine.
Me too, Dr. Val. Memories, memories, memories... :-/
Good evening Jakites!
I am truely sorry for getting you guys and girls all worked up. When I initially posted, I had no intent to get things headed down the path this thread took, despite Fr. Jake's insistence to the contrary.
As repentance, I will refrain from visiting (well, I will visit, but I will not post) for at least 3 months. During this time, I will read the "pubmed" and the various other peices of liturature offerred up so graciously.
Good night and I am off to Compline.
PS. You make me wonder too Fr. Jake.
Clay,
Let me remind you that Leonardo is as exactly as he posits. I do not think you would ever have to worry about Leonardo. He calls it as he sees it. You certainly do not have to wonder what's on his mind. And keep in mind that there is such a thing as righteous indignation. That doesn't mean mean, it means honest.
This is the first Mother's Day without mine. JCF
Come on everyone, let's post pictures with our Mom's...it's good to know we are loved and say thank you.
Good night and I am off to Compline.
Dear Clay,
I love a well placed pause/message for self-righteousness...I see you have received your reward already.
Plan ahead.
(Fred, help, I'm not allowed "righteous indignation" can't I just be indignate, right or wrong?)
Why bother with Clay?
Why be afraid to be called non-inclusive?
While we may welcome such people to the table, we cannot allow their fatal and sinful message to be proclaimed without challenge.
The simple fact is, regardless of any claims to open-mindedness or regard for fellow humans, it is simply not there in people like Clay. We've experienced it, and know what's there. Don't let yourself be pulled back in to his world. Realize that his adamantine will not to listen to us precludes him - by his choice - from our fellowship, and, like the prodigal, he must be allowed to go away and find out for himself. You cannot make him a better person.
Let the dead bury the dead, and God will do the Resurrecting. Some sinners are beyond our help.
Clay, re this:
"Please do not shy away from this and strike my post because it is difficult. I am very intersted in knowing how the hatred that permates your heart as well as is the common theme of this blog is ANY different than what you accuse Abp Akinola et al of?" [sic]
Why thank you for asking, and yes, it is different. I don't hate him, number one, but I do believe he should be pulled from clergy in the Anglican Communion.
I have not advocated that he go to jail for being straight. In fact, in my communications with various communion/church leaders, I maintained the point that it is NEVER right for clergy to advocate jail for a "class" of people, something he unquestionably HAS done, despite Minns' cowardly lie stating the contrary.
I happen to be female and straight. I'm sure he appreciates the latter, but not the former, when considering my equality under God.
His verbage, if used on any class of people other than glbt persons, would be deemed as monsterous verbal and spiritual violence which, given his position, is clearly inappropriate. It is inappropriate coming from ANY Anglican/TEC clergy referencing anyone or any group.
I do not hate him, Clay. But I certainly don't think he exemplifies, in any respect, the standard we deserve.
There is no evidence here of hate against Clay (so stop whining, Clay.) Anger, yes, of course. The anger that comes from fighting the same battles over and over. Dislike, certainly. And some disrespect, which was earned.
But not hate. No one would advocate throwing Clay in prison, or a concentration camp, or an asylum, or performing a lobotomy or ECT because of his attitude. Or depriving him of civil rights, security, or pension. Or using the law to persecute him, or deny him his family, or separate him from his children. Or leaping back in horror rather than shake his hand. Or beating him up because he dares to be "different", or snarling hate-filled threats in the dark, following him down the street in menace. None of that. No battery, no murder. We know of those things, Clay. We have experienced them--and Leonardo more than most. We do not advocate them, even to those who speak in sweet tones to justify their cruelty.
Still, Clay has fulfilled his function as a "concern troll" acting "holier than thou". Notice he hasn't engaged anything of substance. Trolling accomplished.
So, here's a recipe for a Nightcap cocktail
Quantities for one drink:
* 1 oz Kahlua
* 1 Dash Nutmeg
* 6 oz Milk
* 1 tsp Powdered Sugar
Blending Instructions:
* Heat milk
* Add sugar
* Add Kahlua
* Nutmeg on top
* Sleep tight
... Or the, "Hey faggot I hope you die of AIDS!!" as was yelled to me after having been slugged numerous times by a gang of about 8 young men. And, that was my 2nd anti-gay beating.
We have probably all been attacked either verbally or physically or both.
"The really interesting part is the pissers ought take aim on themselves"
What a lovely thought! I think I will just dwell on that image as I fall asleep.
Thanks Leonardo!
So I'm not nice. One of my growing edges, I suppose/
conceded without reservation, brother.
"... Or the, "Hey faggot I hope you die of AIDS!!" as was yelled to me after having been slugged numerous times by a gang of about 8 young men. And, that was my 2nd anti-gay beating."
A lot of us have walked that Via Dolorosa in a far more direct and literal way than any of our detractors. The Stations of the Cross are all too real for us.
This is why the whine of persecution from the segregationists really sticks in my craw.
"Nice" is Compassion's evil twin.
People like Clay are the ones who wonder how something like Matthew Shepard could have happened - and usually, it's one of their own kids who is guilty of the crime.
Either they IGNORE it, or they just don't GET it.
And yes. Dr. Akinola is a complete psycho. I really wonder if he's mentally stable.
Jake says, "although if they are "nice Episcopalians" they won't say it as bluntly as I have."
"Nice" is too often a facade worn by the passively agressive. This thread provides a number of examples of how hatred and spiritual violence are cloaked with "nice."
I'm sure Rowan Williams was very "nice" to Jeffrey Johns as he stabbed him in the back. I'm quite sure his letter telling Bishop Robinson he can't come to tea at Lambeth was very "nice" too.
And just look at the "nice" invitation from the Nigerians and their supporters for GLBT people to join then ... if they'll renounce their humanity.
And then right here in this thread is the very "nice" apology and offer of penance from a gentleman who spends his time trying to justify, of all things, the spiritual violence of Peter Akinola while bashing the parents of GLBT people at the same time.
How "nice."
.
Clay makes the outrageous claim: "And as for the APA statement on homosexuality, if you are aware of the history, that was a political decision, not a medical one."
My dear Clay, I am very much aware of the history of that decision. Further I am very much aware of how the lie you have just referenced has been promulgated.
I'm providing you some more reading for your "penance period". I caution you, however, once you read this material you will have to abandon that lie. The choice to do so, of course, is entirely yours. The politics surrounding this issue started with Socarides and Beiber and has been continued by anti-gay activists such as yourself for the past 40 years. You're not fooling anyone, you know.
Here's a small exerpt of the linked article:
Amazingly, those who accused the APA of capitulating to political pressure were now themselves forcing a political maneuver and using a loophole in a provision for non-scientific matters to accomplish their end. They obtained 200 signatures on their petition. After much discussion and criticism of the unseemly political maneuvering of Socarides' committee, the association decided to let them have their way. Ballots were mailed out during April, 1974. Of those responding, only 37% were opposed to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-II. It was a clear endorsement for the change. (Bayer, pp. 141-144)
.
"Niceness is the enemy of fairness" --Hendrick Hertzberg
"gay as a handbag full if rainbows " thanks for making me laugh this morning. I should know better than to post a recipe with pork and dairy. I
mean, I've just finished a year of Hebrew and of and you think I'd have learned something. Ok later on I will post my veggie
chili recipe as well- it is just as good but no bacon or dairy.
Off topic- please pray for the soul of a dear old friend who died unexpectedly yesterday- john herndon. We're all very sad today. He was a bright light.
Timmah
::rolls eyes::
Yeah, pointing out bigotry and injustice is so snarky. Not a nice thing to do at all... :P
Heh. Really tho', if the likes of Clay and Peter consider me "snarky" I must be doing sumthin' right ;)
IT commented, "These insulting conservatives owe my Mom and Dad an apology."
Of course they do. But they won't.
Because they don't see you as a person. You're a thing to them, an abstract example of "sin," a talking point - that's all.
timmah--Prayers for your friend.
Grace and perhaps some others probably think I was being too negative about Matt Kennedy+ in a couple of comments I made on the Falls Church Episcopal thread over the weekend. You might be interested in the sermon he preached on Sunday (two days ago), and to be found in "the usual place." It is all about the evils of homosexuality and how his courageous attacks upon it have cost his congregation their church facilities. Of especial interest, I thought, was a disquisition upon Leviticus which included this statement: "When you study Old Testament law you discover that together, if followed perfectly, the levitical laws serve to undo the effects of the fall, to restore a state of being like that which existed in the Garden of Eden prior to the first sin. The precincts of the tabernacle, in fact, recreate the Garden, the place where God and man enjoyed sweet communion and fellowship." David Handy then made some long comments attacking scientific "justifications."
As a footnote to my preceding comment: President John F. Kennedy was often photographed sitting in his rocker. Matt Kennedy+ may well be permanently off his.
Honestly, I think discussions over whether homosexuality is "natural" / biologically based are beside the point. There are plenty of biologically-based conditions and behaviors and impulses that we do not approve of just because they're "natural."
The question is, instead, does the behavior of a homosexual person in a relationship with another reflect God's love for us. I find it to do so as often as I see it in heterosexual couples. Which leads me to place Biblical condemnations about the matter alongside dietary laws and women covering their heads in church.
The real question, as Jake introduced it, is whether CANA can claim, not just inclusivity (since even Jesus invited folks to the table whose behavior he did not approve of) but that "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us" -- claim it in the face of the "diminishment" proclaimed again and again by their chosen archbishop.
I don't think so.
Check this out to see how Christians love one another:
http://thebiggerissueorg.blogspo...tter-
still.html
Well, no thanks for that link, Lee, which started my day with a dose of bile! ;-)
Glad that the first commenter took the author to task as a "Christian" for wishing Gene Robinson to drop dead.
Ugh, you Christians--what part of "the greatest of these is love" are such people missing?
Catching up:
Congrats to JCF on new wheels.
Sorry to hear that Aelred is having troubles with his broken ankle.
Condolences to Timmah for the loss of his friend.
Wolfstan, does this mean that Matt Kennedy eschews football and mixed fibers? Would sell his youngest daughter into slavery? Oh, and can I have his allotment of oysters?
IT: I think it means that "uppity wimmen" are to be stoned for any identifiable reason!
Whats up with this?
http://www.changingattitude.org....item.asp?
ID=355
Lee,
Apparently, Albion peddles some kind of paper called "The Big Issue" in central London. He was previously a homeless person, suggesting that there is a good chance that he is a person "with issues."
Not that that excuses his wish that Bp. Robinson drop dead. But, it does suggest the guy is most likely just another crackpot. Of course, it is such crackpots that can be the most dangerous, so I hope someone has alerted the authorities.
Left of Center,
That's a strange story. Thinking Anglicans is attempting to keep up on it. It seems that there were some attacks and death threats against members of Changing Attitudes - Nigeria right around Easter. The point was made that by not condemning such attacks on members of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and by instead continuing with their "less than human" rhetoric in regards to gays and lesbians, the Church shared responsibility for those attacks.
The response to the press releases were twofold; the Church of Nigeria denied any direct involvement in the attacks (meaning they completely missed the point) and one of the more popular conservative sites started demanding evidence, claiming that the attacks never happened (obviously, they also missed the point).
Changing Attitude appears to be playing their game (which I personally think is a mistake) by trying to produce "evidence" many weeks after those events occurred.
Those who attempt to continue to victimize the victims are not people of good faith, and need to be ignored, I'd say. My suggestion is that Changing Attitude stop the defensive stance and help the police in their investigation so that they can arrest the criminals.
Our previous discussion of the matter can be found here.
If Peter Ould is still reading this thread, I'd like to politely, but persisently repeat my request that he describe more fully what constituted his self-described "gay" life before the conversion process that led him to be (again, in his own words) "postgay".
Since personal experience forms the bulk of his argument, candor about the nature of the lifestyle from which he was delivered (within, of course, the bounds of respectful good taste) would bolster his testimony, it seems to me.
Thank you.
Politeness makes me refrain from asking whether a certain clergy couple refrain from sex on her "uncleanness" (menses) and until after the mikvah (ritual cleansing bath after menses).
I am curious, however, whether they employ a shabbat goy to turn lights and ovens on and off. And that isn't a rude question.
The business about adhering to all 613 laws seems to fit in with some of the more bizarre Reconstructionist sects, not with mainstream Christianity.
Please stop being polite, NancyP, and ask that "certain clergy couple" those questions...then sit back and watch 'em squirm.
When did I say anything about "attacking"? I think you should step back and calm down a bit, at least until you can tell the difference between "polite" and "attack".
I don't really care whether the clergy couple obeys all 613 laws, but it is the sign of either a Christian Reconstructionist or a Messianic Jew to claim both Christianity and strict adherence to Torah / halacha. The Reconstructionists are loonies that want to abolish civil government and have government run by "Biblical Law". I guess the minor lawbreakers, those that don't get executed but instead are enslaved, get to be the Shabbat goys.
I thought Paul straightened out all this Jew vs. Gentile stuff 1950 years ago...
We'll assume that the clergy couple just haven't thought all this out...
NancyP, if the KEnnedy's ideas on Christianity take off, let's start a franchise business. Sort of like the Maid Brigade, but for shabbat goyim. "We'll turn the light out for you."
Lest I offend the wrong group - I'm not making fun of Orthodox Jews. They observe the Law as part of a rich culture of faith, one that is much more than the Law.
You can come after me for making fun of the Kennedys, however.
john herndon. We're all very sad today. He was a bright light.
I send you my love, john herndon, aka "bright light"...with a name like that I think I'll address my prayer/greeting to the first star I see tonight.
Jake et al,
My memory is faulty but here is the website for those interested:
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia...arcic-
info.html
The Last Word:
Same sex relationships are as healthy as opposite sex relationships.
OT
Leonardo
When and where were you in LA? Do you know my favorite Quaker hometown?
I'm glad I was too busy to see this thread.
Yes, same-sex relationships are as healthy as opposite sex relationships and they both must be treated equally, and that includes the option of a civil marriage.
Fred (| 04.22.08 - 9:04 pm |),
The issue is always the issue of "immediate jurisdiction" of the pope. I don't think we can live with it.
Scott,
It is sometimes nice to think about everyone coming together under one HUGE tent. Sure lots to give up a but jsut think of how much we could all gain.
:-)
Fred,
I am always attracted to idealism, Fred, as you clearly know. But the idea of a centralized authority calling the shots in previously autonomous dioceses just doesn't cut it for me. Where'd your marxist idealism disappear to all of a sudden, eh?
chuckles,
Scott,
I do not support any type of central authority -- I need to think about the rest. I would have thought an epsicopal base would serve but I am not too crazy about that right now. The mis-application of that principle by the global south bothers me greatly.
Fred,
Yep. That's a precise illustration of the problem. ('niters; early appointment tomorrow).
Best,
if Abp Akinola really thinks animals don't do it, then he hasn't been paying attention. We used to breed fancy guppies -- little fish with enormous, rainbow colored tails. In each tank there would always be at least one male who constantly swam after the other males and ignored the females. Hard to call that a lifestyle choice, isn't it?
I'm sure the guppies in question had smothering mothers and distant fathers, NightOwl. ;-p
I'm sure the guppies in question had smothering mothers and distant fathers, NightOwl. ;-p
JCF | 04.24.08 - 1:29 am |
LMGAO! ! !
Oh... and don't forget the predator snails trying for A~sexualization ..O my Goodness!!
The Thought!
JCF: ROFL!
Commenting by HaloScan
