大象传媒

Colin,

If I said

"I believe that engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful (be that homosexual intercourse or heterosexual intercourse)"

have I just made a homophobic statement?

rubberduckie,

It's not a homophobic statement if you permit gay people to get married.

If you don't allow gay people to get married then define their gay relationships as sinful, you are making gay relationships sinful BY DEFINITION.

Colin repeatedly mentions doctrine as the fundamental problem. I agree. One can go a long way toward making life much easier for gay people in church without addressing the basic issue: is homosexuality a sin? If it is, then no matter what measures the church takes, gay people will always be frowned upon (think any other things that are widely percieved as sinful such as drunkenness or smoking). Only when homosexuality is not regarded as sinful will gay people be accepted in church.

Colin,

I'm amazed, to be honest, at how kind you've managed to be in these comments. As a gay man, I am deeply offended by the report. It's not just that the report doesn't go far enough, I'm afraid. What's currently in the report is extremely hurtful to gay people and, if it were followed, would harm even more. The report refuses to even use the word "gay"!!!! It tries to argue that gay people don't even exist and that we should be given conversion counselling to stop us having gay feelings!!! I despaired when I read this report. You, Colin, are obviously trying very hard to be nice to these people and keep a connection, but your comments here don't even come close to saying why this report is abusive, offensive and dangerous. Call a spade a spade. This grubby document is homophobic and those behind it are anti-gay.

Gregory,

If you really believe this document to be homophobic, do you think its publication will constitute a homophobic incident?

What a long and rather convoluted response. It went off in a tangent whilst blindly ignoring the key issues at the heart of the report. More of the response seemed to deal with theological issues than the content of the actual report. For as long as any organisation, be it a church or secular grouping, can not bring itself even to recognise the existence of homosexuals then it is homophobic. The doctrine may be homophobic but so also are a lot of the people who believe in it and practice it.

Sorry Colin. You're missing the point. The presbyterian report not only fails because of what it fails to say, it fails because of what it DOES SAY. The report's authors can't even bring themselves to use the word "gay" ... that's because they refuse to accept that gay people exist as a sexual identity. They regard you as a heterosexual who is struggling with "same sex attraction". That's ridiculous. You are a gay man and you have nothing to apologise for in being a gay man. This report diminishes you. You are obviously a very decent person and very kind and since you are a former member of this church you are obviously trying to build bridges to the church. We need to call a spade a spade here: when a church report is open to conversion counselling to help people like you, Colin, to stop being who you are, that is HOMOPHOBIC.

CHRIS,

IF I BELIEVE IT IS A SIN FOR A MAN TO HAVE SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN, AM I A HOMOPHOBE? dOES THAT BELIEF MAKE ME A HOMOPHOBE?

iS MY BIBLE HOMOPHOBIC WHEN IT SAYS ITS AN AMBOMINATION FOR A MAN TO LIE WITH A MAN AS WITH A WOMAN?

Biblebelievingchristian- Please don't shout.

#8
YES

and

YES

Chris- just like dp says the answer to both your questions is YES!!!!!

Rubberduckie, I don't like to interpret "tone" online but your somments seem to be downplaying the seriousness of homophobia. That's a pity. This is a very serious business.

Samuel Be,

My comments aren't downplaying homophobia. I am however concerned that others are diluting the definition of the word.

For example, someone on the blog has called the report homophobic. If he means that the report is not supportive of homosexual lifestyles then he should say so, but he shouldn't use the term homophobic unless he really believes the report to be homophobic. If that was the case then surely he should report it to the police.

rubberduckie, let me explain something to you since you are either being wilfully difficult or simply not understanding this.

Homophobia is morally wrong but it is not always illegal. The same is true of sexism and racism. Some people believe women should be subordinate to men in church and society and that women have no right to speak in church. I regard that as sexist. But it's legal and I defend the right of those sexists to believe what they believe. It becomes illegal, on the other hand, if a company discriminates in non-religious employment against a candidate if that candidate is female.

This same distinction applies here. A particular person may have anti-gay and homophobic views. That person is entitled to believe those things. But if they yell abuse of a certain kind or physically attack gay people that is a homophobic incident that is also illegal.

I believe this presbyterian report is homophobic but the publication of the report does not break the law. The police dont need to be informed. It's like a church writing a report explaining why women are by nature inferior to men. That would be distasteful and sexist but in a free society it' also legal to publish that kind of nonsense.

Can you confirm, rubberduckie, that you now GET it?

Samuel Be,

Let's forget about your patronising tone.

A simple search on 'homophobic incident' returned the following from Nottinghamshire Police Website -

"Homophobic incidents

Harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is a crime. It is any incident perceived to be homophobic by the victim of the offence or any other person."

This is in keeping with what has happened in practice in recent UK cases (discussed in the past on this blog) where people have perceived that something has been said or written which was homophobic and have called the police to investigate the perceived homophobic incident.

I cannot see how this squares with what you have written.

If you can point me to UK legal/police documentation which states, as you do, that homophobia is not always illegal, that would help me 'get it', as you put it.

I think homophobia is one of those humptydumpty words (like many other phobias, the modern ones anyway).

Maybe Christianophobia, bibliophobia, evangelicalophobia, fundamentalophobia, should come into common usage and be applied to those who caricature, patronise and condemn people who hold a particular view. Therefore, we can make any debate about the rightness or wrongness of these views into a taboo.

Then eventually we can all have a phobia and still feel superior when denouncing another's view.

Are gays Presbyphobic?
I'm Conscious of the log and speck parable of Jesus. Why do so many of the responses here smack to me of the very bigotry and narrowmindedness they profess to abhor.

As a Christian I believe LOTS of things- including lots of things in me- are sinful (an aspect of the brokenness of our fallenness). It has never meant that when I come across them in other people I somehow treat those people badly or unequally.

Why? Because as a Christian I have experienced grace and I therefore try to display grace to all other people. Asking me to give up my convictions about homeosexual behaviour is surely as offensive as me asking gays to give up their convictions about their identity.

There has been a dreadful irony in so many of these posts- what is written about sincere Christians who are NOT homophobic - is a mirror image of the type of homophobia we all detest (stereotypes, misquotations, extreme examples). It is certainly more bigoted than anything in the report.

Let's keep the dialogue going please- if you really do care.

Presby,

I agree that some of those comments have an angry tone to them, probably because some gay people get angry when they are subjected to theological abuse of the kind sonservative Christians sometimes engage in.

Some gay people have been mistreated by the presbyterian church. It's not that thy are presbyphobic, it's that they are hurt at that mistreatment.

It's not the case that all gay people are presbyphobic. Some may be. Others are actually presbyterian church members like yourself and simply wisht the church to stop saying anti-gay things.

A conservative Christian is certainly entitled to believe that homosexual sex is a sin. Just as that person is entitled to believe, if he chooses, that women should not be ministers, divorced people should not remarry, and believers should not smoke or drink. People are entitled to hold those views if they choose.

I am also entitled to believe that a theology silencing women is sexist. And a theology condemning gay people is homophobic. You won't regard your view as homophobic. Nor will an opponent of women's ordination regard his view as sexist.

We'd be better to spend our time debating the issues themselves.

In particular, I'd like to know how a modern Christian can read the Bible literalistically or without an eye to scientific progress on, eg, the genesis of homosexuality.

I know some presbyterians who have changed their minds on the sinfullness of homosexuality and argue now for the full inclusion of gay people.

It would be a start if this presbyterian report (which is very badly written as much as anything else) would use less offensive language. Language granting the existence of gay people would be a start!

Thanks Presby for a good question. Let's try to keep the focus on civil exchanges everyone. I understand anger, but we have a real chance to learn from each other on this topic.

The word homosphobic is difficult for some people. They want to say they are not homophobic, because their anti-gay views are based on the bible and they are very respectful of gay people in person.

Imagine me arguing that I am not racist, because my opposition to inter-racial marriage is based on my reading of the bible and I am always respectful of black people.

I bet most people would see through my attempt to disguise my racism. The same is true of homophobia. Some decent conservative christians will get angry at the comparison, but the comparison is accurate and I'd like to know how you can avoid the comparison.

I think some readers of this topic may be interested in what Roy Clements has written on the issues facing him (Roy was formerly a leading evangelical who was 'outed' as gay in 1999). I've found what Clements has to say utterly compelling. Going back to my good Presbyterian roots, I'll summarise Clements' position in three points, adding my own comments:

1) To assert that the bible condemns homosexuality is to assert something that's difficult to defend. As Clements points out, "The words used [in the widely cited texts of I Corinthians and I Timothy] in the Greek are 'arsenokoites' and 'malachoi'. Though often translated as 'homosexuals', they are in fact rare and uncertain in meaning. Many scholars feel their original reference is much narrower than 'homosexual'. For instance, it could be that they should be rendered instead as 'paedophiles' and 'male prostitutes'. The other frequently quoted text occurs in Roman 1. Its negative thrust reflects the close association between homosexual practice and idolatry in the ancient world."

Of course there are others too, and I agree with Clements that there is enough uncertainty about the correct exegesis of these texts to make any conclusions of such great pastoral significance. To my mind, a theological position which wants to hold to both (A) the authority of Scripture as the basis of all theology and (B) homosexuality as a sin is not entirely consistent, since the second must be established by the first, and it's dubious that it is.

2) Even if we grant that homosexuality is condemned in the bible, it does not mean that we should condemn homosexuality today. David (Oxford) mentions that we have a greater scientific understanding of "the genesis of homosexuality" in the human being today than we did when the bible was written. True. Clements (as an evangelical) would probably not go so far as to say that we should feel free to disagree with the authors of Scripture - in fact the reactions of evangelicals to that suggestion is something that brings a smile to my face - but he does say this: "Even if [a moral judgement condemning homosexuality is right], it does not follow that all gay relationships should be condemned by the Church. Sometimes in this fallen world, the 'ideal' or 'correct' solution to a problem just isn't available. For the sake of expediency and compassion, we have to settle instead for 'the lesser evil'. To use the term some writers prefer, we adopt an 'optimal ethic' approach. .... There is nothing necessarily 'unnatural' about such 'optimal' coping strategies. We don't consider it 'unnatural' to wear corrective spectacles when our eyes don't work 'as nature intended'. We don't consider it 'unnatural' to inject ourselves with insulin when our pancreas doesn't function 'normally'. We don't consider it 'unnatural' when straight couples engage in sexual activities that have nothing to do with making babies, but simply with their desire to share tenderness and intimacy. So why make such a fuss when gays develop their own coping strategies to deal with the hand that 'Nature' has dealt them?"

I suggest that his argument here is shattering to the positions of evangelical attitudes to gay people. He goes on to say, "At the very least [evangelicals] should allow that homosexuals have the right to sort out how they handle their sexuality according to their own consciences. They cause nobody any harm. They make no contribution to the 'breakdown of the family' unless they are forced by social pressure into marriages that they can't sustain. They ask for nothing except equal treatment under the law and to be left alone to manage their private lives."

3) If homosexuality is a sin, which (again) certainly hasn't been shown to be the case, it is not a sin with which evangelicals should be rationally occupied. Say we define two categories of sin: Category A which separate humans from God, and Category B which separate humans from God and are damaging to society. Category A includes homosexuality within the context of a loving, monogamous relationship like marriage. Category B includes murder, theft, rape, fraud, and all manner of other 'sins'. Wouldn't it be prudent of evangelicals, in the short span of time they have on earth to advance Christianity, to direct their outrage toward those sins which have greater impact upon our world? As Clements puts it, "There is plenty of far more obvious and damaging 'sin' around in our modern world. Why [are evangelicals] so obsessed with the gay issue? My judgement ... is that it is irrational - a manifestation of the homophobia which lies under the surface of many societies."

Thoughts? Comments? Arguments?

Presby, thanks for your comment. I'm glad to talk about this with you and others. I am gay and I used to be a member of the Presbyterian Church. I'm 25 now and have not been to a PCI church for 2 years. I have a boyfriend who never goes to church. His parents were very anti-gay (they are Presbyterians too) and they refuse to have anything to do with him because he is in a gay relationship. They say Light should have no fellowship with Darkness. That's very hurtful for a son to hear from his mother that he is darkness. They say their faith means making it clear that they oppose our "lifestyle". We dont have a lifestyle, we are gay and living our lives. There's a difference.

I am more open to church to be honest. I am a Christian and I know that Jesus accepts me. I have prayed and I continue to pray and I have experienced forgiveness for my sins because of Christ. I don't believe I need forgiveness for being who I am. I'm gay and that's the way I came into the world. Anyone who has a problem with that should take it up with the manufacturer Himself. God made me that way.

I had some very bad experiences in the Presbyterian Church. Youth club and youth fellowship leaders would make anti-gay comments while I was there. Jokes about people who were "faggots" and "big jessies". Once, in a youth club epilogue (this is about 8 years ago now) a guy called me a camp queen and the room laughed. No body told him that was wrong, the guy at the front just said, come on, quiet everyone, and continued with the talk. I could't have come out to church. The minister would preach about the "gay lobby" and how homosexuals were a danger to society because we brought disease and parents should be careful not to let their kids think they are gay because they play with the wrong toys! It was nutcase stuff. The church agreed with him though. The only time gays were mentioned in sermons it was an attack on a new gay right law or something. The minister called on the church to pray against the antichristian spirit that would giving more rights to those who commit abominations. He never asked the church to pray once for the young gay people who are committing suicide because they are told in our society that they are evil. I lost a friend to suicide. He was gay and he was a lovely guy. He had very religious parents and they came to the funeral. They hadn't talked to him for ages before he died. I remember seeing his boyfriend sitting in the middle of the church while his parents sat in the front pew. It made me feel sick.

I really want to join a church. It's part of me, basically, it's part of who i am. I love to worship and to learn from the Bible and still pray and my boyfriend shakes his head when he sees me reading my NIV! I have been lucky and met other gay christians who have given me good books to help me understand a lot of this. I think a lot of people who are anti-gay just havent read the books that are out there which show the new research and the new studies about the Bible.

A lot of those who are against me as a gay christian are also against women ministers. That helps me to realise that gay people and women have a lot in common, we've both been pushed out by the church.

People say, women have now got their rights. Well, they haven't. Most of the churches in Northern Ireland wouldn't have a woman preaching in their pulpit! But they've made a start in other places to ordain and accept women.

If the church an learn to read the bible in a way that opens up to women more, I have hope that churches will open more to gays too.

I wish there was a completely gay friendly church in belfast I could attend. I go to a church of ireland parish and the rector is supportive and very encouraging but the whole thing has to be very low-key. I wouldn't feel I could walk into church holding my boyfriend's hand and sit in the pew with others. When I can do that I'll know the church has a place for me.

Gavin #20 ...

I'm amazed and I feel ashamed that I have never spoken out against this kind of mistreatment at any level in church. God ony knows how many other stories there are like this.

Presby, I think that's the face of homophobia right there. I wish the entire General Assembly could hear that story from Gavin. Maybe someone will read it out in a speech or pass it around. This is the kind of story that we all need to know about. People matter to God. Gay and straight together, we all matter to God.

What does homosexuality have to do with Galileo and the second law of thermodynamics? Simple, it's exactly the same mistake religion always makes. They stake out an absolute position on something they know absolutely nothing about, from which they will never yield, argue it for centuries, and when scientific evidence proves them wrong, they are faced with an unacceptable choice. On one hand, they can hold fast to their dogma making themselves look not only foolish, even absurd to the point where they can't be taken seriously or they can admit they were wrong all along and call into question every other pronouncement they have ever made, putting their entire theology in doubt. Making these kinds of pronouncements may have been OK when nobody knew anything and the church had absolute power to drag heretics to the dungeons and put them on the rack or burn them at the stake but in this day and age there are penalties to them if they ever get caught doing that. The contradiction homophobia has with Christian theology of love and tolerance aside, we now have mounting scientific evidence that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, that it is not a matter of free will or choice, and that it is a fairly common and therefore normal variant of the human species. I thing it is believed that about 10% of all males and 1% of all females are homosexual. So this leaves religion out on a limb it has fairly well sawed off. They've had five hundred years since Galileo to think it over and escape this trap they've put themselves in but maybe it's inherent in the idea of religion itself...or just part of the mindset of those who practice it to fall into it every single time. Whichever it is, they have no way out. They look stupidest when the deny the science...just like Andy McIntosh and he Inquisition did.

Thanks guys for the conversation. Gavin et al- there's nothing I can say except that what you experienced was downright wrong and sinful. I would be ashamed if I thought anyone in my church would behave in such a way and I do think (with some authority) that most of teh General Assembly would also be equally appalled.

Also, David Oxford, I appreciate the source of the anger- but just wanted to make sure we were on an even playing field here- and that bashing of any sort- gay bashing or conervative presby bashing is unacceptable. I understand (as best I can) Gavin's plight of trying to develop the interaction between his sexuality and his spiritual life and am thankful that he has not just become part of the anti-God brigade.

Sometimes- including on this debate- evangelicals are accused of being obsessed by the sex issue. I would argue the opposite. We see the sex aspect as only one part of our identity, surely it is the "gay lobby" who is obsessed by it through claiming that it is what essentially defines you?

Work this busy weekend means I dont have time to say more at the moment- just let me finish with this. There are two problems I have with much of what comes out from the "gay lobby";
a) the belief that our sexuality is a fixed and unchanging thing- it may be for some or many- but surely not for all. There seems to be a refusal among the actif=vists to acknowledge that sexuality migt be fluid in ANYONE'S case (possibly because it would undermine a foundaiton of their argument that what you are you always will be- and what you are sexually defines you. J P Mills (not a conservative evangelical) in "Love COvenant and Meaning" subtitled "Why are Liberals and COnservatives conspiring to stop homosexual men marrying" argues interestingly that because faithfulness and fulfillment in marriage involves everyone (homo or hetero-) transcending natural sinful desires for the sake of covenant and fidelity- the struggle of a man, say, with homosexual desires and the struggle of a man with lustful heterosexual adulterous desires are both in need of god's grace to transcend these to form a fiathful covenant relationship of which the sexual is only one part.
He is not talking about a "cure" here- he speaks against such terminology- and neither would I ever use that language, but he is making an interesting addition to the debate by saying the presence of homosexual desire does not need to be a barrier to faithful heterosexual relationship. This is not suppression but transcendence for a greater good- that of covenant intimacy. Heterosexual people have similar struggels as the selfish desire for sex withourt love, sexual experimentation etc outside marriage will always "war against their souls" You may not agree with Mills but leaving raw emotion aside it would be good to take this debate off the base level of "This is who I am" (homo or hetero) and ask rather "Who does God want me to be regardless of my "sexuality"?"

b) which leads nicely into my second point. Some of the anger and resentment I hear here is understandible and justifiable, but some seems to fall into a different category- namely, anger and resentment at simply being told "You are a sinner". The problem with this is I don't like to be told that, but I have to admit it is true. The Christian gospel is about the universality of sin and the comprehensiveness of grace. Leaving aside the sexuality issue, if we have problems with the reality of sin in our lives we have problems with the Christian gospel - period!

There are some things as a churchman that are well within my control- doing my best to ensure the absence of genuine homopobia in any church I am part of; renouncing any of the stuff that Gavin spoke of earlier; but there are some things that are outside of my control- the reality of sin, the possibility of being able to live with our brokenness and be transformed by the renewing grace of God. I would never tell gays they have to change,any more than I tell myself that I have to change.

(and yes Gavin I would love you to walk into my church with your boyfriend- and I would guarantee no sideswipes from the pulpit- i would want you both to be as welcome as the co-habiting couple, the guy with his mistress and the couple in the youth fellowship who are sleeping together but think no-one knows. But we come to church to learn and yes to be changed by god as we put everything including our sexuality under his lordship. I can't say that that requirement is only for heterosexuals!

This turned out longer than I expected- off to do some work- and thanks for the dialogue.

Preby - can you stop talking about "the gay lobby". It's insulting and derogatory of gay people.

The language we use to describe each other is important and putting all gay people in one box (the gay lobby) isn't accurate and it gives the impression that the person using the term is being disdainful (even if they're not).

I learned this lesson from a gay friend when I used the term without meaning to offend. I now see WHY the term is not helpful. Just a word to the wise. If you're interested in talking to gay people without offending them, this is a phrase to leave at home.

REPLY TO 24

Presby I appreciate that you are trying to be more sensitive in your reply that harrowing story from Gavin, but you just compared Gavin and his boyfriend to a man with his mistress walking into your church. I had tears in my eyes when I read what Gavin said here. You say you are a clergyman, I am a mother. God help anyone who would mistreat my son the way Gavin has been mistreated.

Whats very clear in this discussion - conservative Christians have trouble talking to gay people without being offensive. There's a reason for that: conservative christians dont meet and share friendships with gays and lesbians. Its like the northern ireland separation of catholics and protestants - we end up accidentally offending each other because we dont know where the trip wires are! We dont know how to avoid offending each other unless we become friends.

This is the real disgrace of christianity in norhern ireland, when conservative christians dont have friendships with gay people, its like white people not having friends who are black or catholics not having friends who are protestand. We need to change so badly dont we?

This debate is getting interesting guys and it's interesting to see how the language is working and how we dont pay much attention to each other at times.

Presby's point (a) makes an equation between "the struggle of a man with homosexual desires" and "the struggle of a man with lustful heterosexual adulterous desires".

Why assume that gay men are "struggling" with their sexuality? Maybe we should talk about the heterosexuals who are struggling with other people's desires?

A gay friend of mine said last week to a conservative who was essentially condemning him to hell: I'm not struggling with my sexuality, YOU are struggling with my sexuality.

If I was gay I would be furious that someone put my love for my partner in the same category as a married man's adulterous lust. That's crazy.

Thanks to everyone, there are some really good points here. I agree that all sides of this debate need to learn to understand each other better. We need to feel safe in other's company, which is a problem for some gay people who have experience nothing but judgment.

Presby's comments have upset some straight people here! That's progress too! I'm just used to those kind of comments guys so I'm not as offended as some of you. I know that conservatives think my love for my boyfriend is nothing better than sleazy lust, like a man's lust for a prostitute. It's easy to say that sort of thing when you don't have to look me in the eye when you write off my feelings that way. But, hey! Nothing new there because the

conservatives who say they love me never want to get to know me. It's easier to throw theology around than it is to build a friendship.

What I really want to focus on is not the language and the insults but the idea that I am not interested in what God wants for my life. That's another one of Presby's conclusions about me, even though we have never met.

I have certainly asked, and prayed, "What does God want me to be regardless of my sexuality". I do not regard being gay as the defining part of my identity. I am a christian and that is much more imortant to me than my height or colour or education or salary or class or gender or sexuality. "I, yet not I, but Christ" is the motto I try to live up to (and fail most of the time)

I didn't decide to just go out and have sex with a man one day. My story is too complicated to explain here but I was celebate in my life until I came to believe, through study and prayer and discussion, that my sexuality is not an offence to God. If you want to know what I believe the answer to the question is (what does God want me to be), it's this.

God wants me to be myself, the person He created and loves. He wants me to accept myself as he created me. I believe (you may disagree but this is my answer!) that God made me gay just like he made me male and white. God wants me to live a faithful life, faithful to Him and faithful to my partner. God wants me to work for His kingdom, to work for justice and peace, to make friends with others, to share with others what I have discovered. I have discovered that God is so much bigger than my homophobic church told me! God is not sectarian, not racist, not sexist, not homophobic. God cares about the poor and the broken. God cares about the rich and those who think they're not broken. I believe God loves Presby every bit as much as He loves me, even though Presby and I will probably never agree on whether I need therapy to help me find a good woman.

That whole idea that a gay man can learn to overcome his gay feelings and settle down with a woman, that's crazy and dangerous. How many of us know gay men who tried and tried and tried to live as heterosexuals. They're separated or divorced now and it's not fair to women to treat them like sexuality experiments. I would never suggest to a gay man that he could lose those feelings. Yes, he might be able to bury those feelings for a few months or years, but they will resurface and ruin that marriage. Ask Ted Haggard. Ask the many leaders of so-called "ex-gay" groups who have been seen in gay bars trying to hook up with men even though they're supposed to have been heterosexual stugglers.

I'm sure that there is a fluidity to sexuality and desire and some gay people here have said they believe that's true. Maybe some straigt men will start having gay thoughts later in life. No big deal. If you are married you should try to be faithful whether you are gay or straight. No need to be hung up about those feelings.

If a straight man starts to have feelings for men and he is not married, i'd say he is free to see where those feelings lead. Stay safe. Stay responsible. Don't treat other men as sex candy. Remember we are all human beings looking for love in this life. You are not obliged to act on those new feelings. You are free to go on a date if you meet someone who prompts those feelings. Does God disapprove?

I don't read the Bible the way Presby does. That's obvious. Those Bible texts that are regularly rolled out need to be read in the context of their time. I've read some really good books by theologians who are pro-gay and if anyone is concerned about those bible passages I recommend that you take a look at these books.

Here's a link to those boks:

That is a very useful website. I see that John Wright has written a comment on the blog about Roy Clements and his website. That's very good too. He is an evangelical Bible-believing Christian who is gat and he shows you how the bible has been kidnapped by fundamentalists on this issue. If you are gay and want to find a good guide to reading the bible I recommend www.royclements.co.uk.

thanks Gavin for replying without resorting to name-calling. I apologise if my language or vocabulary was insensitive. We are all learning in this debate. I do have gay friends although they are as different in their views on this issue as heterosexuals are.

Just for clarification I never implied you need therapy to find a good woman, and i never meant to imply that you are not interested in what God has for your life- On the contrary I acknowledged your clear spirituality.
What I was trying to keep at he forefront of the debate was a) that to say to a guy who has feelings for a nother guy 'That's who you are - period' and label him as 'gay' is as fundamentalistic as any Christian fundamentalist.

And b)to acknowledge that we are all sinners. The path of CHristian discipleship does involve self-denial and self-control- Jesus taught that much. This has implications for my single heterosexual friends and my gay friends just as it has implications for me in marriage. I don't believe all gay people are "struggling with their sexuality", but I do believe we all struggle with the implicaitons of Christ's lordship over our sexuality. I don't accept the lifestyle of many of my friends whom i love dearly; I don't accept my own lifestyle at times!
Gay people have had to endure much culturally and personally and Gavin's story is just one of many. But others struggle too and that's ok- "WHo shall rescue me from this body of death?" Romans 7:21-24.

I guess I want to be able to get to the point in this debate where I know I can say "I cannot accept homosexual relationships as a valid alternative to monogomous heterosexual marriage" without being branded a homophobe by people who don't know me, and who can accept that although I have said that it does not affect how I treat them. Then we might have made progress. Otherwise we're back to the mirror image "I'll only accept you if you change"

At least come heaven this debate will be irrelevant.

Hi to Presby. I see where you're coming from, I think. You want to hold onto your traditional reading of the bible and say that homosexual sex (rather than orientation) is sinful and homosexual relationships are not acceptable to God if they involve sex.

But you also want to DENY that you are being homophobic when maintaining that view.

I think your position is a bit like someone who want to argue from the Bible that Catholics are not Christians but wants to DENY that they are sectarian.

That's a difficult circle to square and, increasingly as society has changed on lots of these issues I think you will find more and more people who regard your view as "theological homophobia" just as they will regard that other view as "theological sectarianism".

But let's not lose the plot in all of this. The best way someone with your view can avoid being described as a Homophobe is to engage in ACTION that is supportive of gay and lesbian people.

1. Stand up and speak out against legal discrimination against gays.

2. Recognise that gay people have had trouble forming monogamous relationships in our culture because laws and practices have prevented them from doing so. Gay marriage would be progress. Your church will never accept the relationship as equal to a hetero-marriage but thats neither here nor there. Gay people in our society deserve the right to form legal relationships.

3. Get your church to support the Sexual Orientation Regulations - these laws are for gay people in the UK what civil rights legislation was for black people in the US in the 60s. It criminalises a cafe owner who wants to evict a customer because she has held the han of her girlfriend on Valentines Day!

4. Get your church to start an initiative to deal with young gay suicide. Whether you like it or not, your church's anti-gay message has contributed to that problem. I will change my mind about PCI the day they startto engage in these kind of social justice commitments.

5. Get your general assembly to make a statment of apology and repentance in June. Not one of those nonsense apologies ("If we have done anything homophobic ... we're sorry...") but a real apology: "We are sorry. Members of our church have abused gay people. We regret that, we repent of it and we call on church members to reach out in love to gay and lesbian people across our society.

6. You are very obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person and from what you've written I think I would like you as a person (don't worry, I'm straight!), but if even you get in trouble with language while addrssing this, it's clear that the PCI ministers in general need to learn how NOT to speak about homosexuality. We've made progress in NI on how Catholics and Protestants shouldn't speak to or of each other. It's time to do the same for gay people. What will PCI do to change the record? Train your ministers with courses and begin a scheme to train churches. The church of ireland (to which I belong) has a "Hard Gospel" report and programmes with a programme director. Why doesn't PCI do the same?

There are hundreds of other ways to show in ACTION that you are not as homophobic as you might appear with your traditional view. Without clear action, all we have to judge you by are your words. (I'm sounding like Paisley talking to SF now - sorry!) You know what I'm saying: an avalanche of grace from PCI is what's needed to prove to gay people (and straights like me) that you are not homophobes.

This report is a start, I suppose. It's appalling at so many levels and is miles behind other church reports (I've ben involved in producing one of those reports and we did an enormous research project before getting into this, in order to avoid the pitfalls the PCI report has stumbed into). If I was at the assembly, I'd have about 20 amendments to put to this report. It can be fixed. recognise that gay people exist for a start and remove any notion of conversion therapy from the report; that would fix about 20 per cent of the problems. Frankly, it could do with an editor too, but that's anoher question entirely. The report is a attempted compromise (which is why, as has been pointed out in the other post, the report involves logical inconsistencies). If you like, we ca talk more about how this report could be fixed in such as way that people of good faith, like Presby, would be happy with it - while people who ae gay would not be offended by it.

I hop that long rant was of some help. Good discussion guys.

Thanks Richard. You make a lot of points worth considering although the parallel with sectarianism was invalid and only clouds the issue.

You still however seem determined to label a particular theological position (based not just on issues of sexuality but also on a theology of the Fall, discipleship, sin grace and forgiveness) as 'homophobic'. Why introduce this "phobe" word at all. i happento believe that getting drunk is inconsistent with Christian lifestyle does that make me "alcophobic". I'm not claiming moral equivalence here, just trying to understand why a moral position is automatically labelled as a phobia.

And by the way Richard,I'd better rise to the bait of the phrase

"from what you've written I think I would like you as a person (don't worry, I'm straight!), "

Why the "don't worry"? Do you think that if you had been gay I would have been worried thereby displaying myself to be homophobic?

I'm quite open to people gay or straight "liking me as a person" - or maybe like many you think my theological position makes that impossible?

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Bible-believing Christians' objections to the homosexual lifestyle are neither irrational or arrived at through fear. Instead, they object because in their earnest desire to be transformed more & more unto Christ's image as opposed to conforming to the world & its ecclectic bag of 'DIY standards'. One issue that may progress the disussion forward if clarified, is can it be agreed that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than a genetically-determined predisposition? Questions of bias & bigotry can only be responded to once this position is settled - am I, for arguments sake, equally bigotted if I object to another's lifestyle choice or to a genetic-predisposition. Am I not FREE to disagree with certain lifestyle choices in society - polygamy or incestuous relationships for example? Or will those who show themselves to be truly intolerant of Biblical standards only be happy when the Scriptures are re-written & preachers exchange truth & righteousness for political correctness. Gay & Lesbian bloggers - prove yourselves tolerant, and afford others the right to hold opposing opinions from your own. Surely, you do not want to become the new 'thought-police'?

Luther's Barber should read back over some of this debate going back months on this blog: homophobia (despite its name) is not being used to describe a traditional 'phobia' (ie. an irrational fear); it's being used to describe an attitude which discriminates against gay and lesbian people or treats them unfairly in some other way. It's also been well established here that much evidence points to the existence of homosexuality from birth.

Luther's Barber get your hair cut. Just because younhave a sincerely held view doesnt make that view acceptable in a civil society. I regard your anti gay comments as no more acceptable than sexist or racist comments. I defend you right to hold your views. I even defend your right to exclude practising gay men from your ordained ministry if that is your theology. I would defend your right to exclude women from the ministry if that is your view. And if you have a theology banning disabled or black people from your ministry I would defend your right to exclude them too.

BUT!

Don't then tell me that I can't call you a homophobe. Or a sexist. Or a racist. Or an able-ist.

Your pathethic account of the scientific basis for homosexuality shows you need to read a book other than an ancient text.

Check the link for coverage of this story by europes largest gay news service, pink news. They don't give you a credi for breaking the story, Will (typical, eh!), but they've reported the leaked document and gay groups replies to it.

Maybe some within the church will see that their report is making them a news story acorss europe now.

Glad to see some feathers ruffled! I particularly enjoyed reading Hillbillery's response; and by the way Hillbillery, "You can call me Eddie". Also, I'm already bald! More seriously though, I wonder what readings you would recommend Hillbillery? Do be a sport & treat us all to an insight into what you consider sage & germane on this matter. I can probably guess the psychobabble & po-mo clap-trap that graces your shelves! Moreover, whose definition of a civil society are you using? It's interesting that several contemporary philosophers are referring to liberal-democratic societies states as "neo-barbarian" due to their moral decadance. Cause for celebration? I think not.

With regard to John Wright's responses: 1)neither you nor I own the rights to language. Don't waste your time playing linguistic smoke & mirrors games. 2)I find your suggestion that evidence abounds re homosexuality from childhood curious on two fronts. (i)it still doesn't answer the nature/nurture question; & (ii) as a postgrad student researching moral orientation & gender issues, I'd be most grateful if you could elucidate on what research - specifically - you are referring.

TTFN

Re: Post 35 : "Your pathethic account of the scientific basis for homosexuality shows you need to read a book other than an ancient text."

I guess you refer to the blogger's reference to .... a 'gay gene'? What's your problem with this idea. Is there not such a thing? Is it unscientific to speak of such then?

Big Toe

Religion always defines itself by drawing shrap lines between "US" those chosen by god to be saved and spend eternity in paradise after they die and the "OTHER" who are the unbelievers, the heretics, the blasphemers, whom god hates and will be cast into hell, eternal damnation and pain to pay for their sin of being the other. Rigid conformity to rules and codes of behavior even in a complex world like ours is the price for salvation and those who ignore or flaunt their disregard for the rules are cast out, ostracized, excommunicated to become the hated other. Lots of people fall into that category, in most religions homosexuals are among them. Too bad the psychological baggage of religion is handcuffed to a child for life, it is very hard to break the bonds which tie a person to religion once enslaved by it. Dawkins is right, it's a mental disease. If people are so adamant about their beliefs, why can't they believe in god without a religion, why do they need someone else to tell them what god wants them to do? Why don't most people look at religions leaders with skepticism and disdain recognizing that the only knowledge about god they have came out of reading books written by other mortals?

John Wright,

You are correct in describing how the word homophobia is being used within this blog and by wider society. I think this dilutes the seriousness of the word, given that we now have legislation which expects police to investigate 'homophobic incidents'.

Consequently, if people really believe somone has said or written something 'homophobic' then surely an 'homophobic incident' has occured and the police should be asked to investigate.

I believe many use the word just as an insult and to silence debate.

I previously asked for UK legal/police information which uses the term homphobic in the way used by some in the blog.

None has been offered.

John Wright,

You are correct in describing how the word homophobia is being used within this blog and by wider society. I think this dilutes the seriousness of the word, given that we now have legislation which expects police to investigate 'homophobic incidents'.

Consequently, if people really believe somone has said or written something 'homophobic' then surely an 'homophobic incident' has occured and the police should be asked to investigate.

I believe many use the word just as an insult and to silence debate.

I previously asked for UK legal/police information which uses the term homophobic in the way used by some in the blog.

None has been offered.

LB #37- "1)neither you nor I own the rights to language. Don't waste your time playing linguistic smoke & mirrors games."

Do you or don't you want to deal with language as it is being used by the people you are conversing with? If you do, then that is the definition of 'homophobia' we're using. You'd best get used to it, otherwise you're the one playing word games, not me. You started your tirade by saying that a phobia is an irrational fear. I'm telling you that when William uses the word 'homophobia' he is not describing a fear, but rather discriminative attitudes toward gay people. How you decide to deal with that is up to you.

2)I find your suggestion that evidence abounds re homosexuality from childhood curious on two fronts. (i)it still doesn't answer the nature/nurture question;...

What question would that be?

"(ii) as a postgrad student researching moral orientation & gender issues, I'd be most grateful if you could elucidate on what research - specifically - you are referring."

How long have you got? Some of the most important: Swaab and Hofman, Allen and Gorski, Simon LeVay, William Byne, Bailey and Pillard, Gringas and Chen, Blanchard and Klassen, Bocklandt, Horvath, Villain and Hamer.

Presby: why are fundamentalists like you always so sarcastic? Ok, so you've riled me with that last comment.

You may not care about what you describe as the "gay issue" (imagine someone referring to racism as "the black issue"?), but thankfully some of us do care. This is just about the last acceptable prejudice in our society and some of us want to end it.

Incidentally, since you ask about the other issues being talked about on this blog apart from "the gay issue",

- the anglican communion split is a religion and politics issue just as much as a gay issue. who ISN'T talking about it!?

- scientology

- the new atheism

- climate change

- the death of jerry falwell

- a US evangelical leader's conversion

- alan johnston's abduction

- the split at wycliffe hall, oxford

- limbo

- shambo the hindu cow!

All of that, according to my reckoning on this page, has been debated at least once, sometimes much more often than once, in the past TEN days alone. In that same period, there were two articles posted here about the Preby-homophobia report.

You point is? It sounds to me like you've an interest in stopping people debate the one issue you have failed to respond to responsibly and christianly.

From what I can also tell, the climate change debate has a big following here in terms of comments. People haven't been writing about the "gay issue" for a while; the bloggers tend to move on with their debates. Now you've raised the flag again, maybe you'll respond to some of the comments here you've avoided. As a straight person who attends church regularly (yes, i WOULD call myself a Christian), I find your attitude extremely unChristian. Why don't you think before you write/speak and realise that you little attacks hurt people. A couple of years ago, I had no interest in the "gay issue" but now I am very provoked by it because I know gay people and I have seen how people in the church (and their language too) have caused untold damage to gays and lesbians.

If there are gays and lesbians reading this, please please please do not judge all christians by the kind of petty, ungracious attacks you hear from people like Presby. More and more Christians are waking up to this "issue". It's about basic justice for gay people as God's children. God is a god of justice and more and more of us in the church realise that justice has to be done for EVERYONE. You may not be welcome in Presby's church, but you are welcome is God's kingdom.

Helenanne

Looking back at my previous on this topic I'm not sure what comment you are referring to.

However, since language seems to be an issue (and John tells us we have to accept the definitions of the other person) let me tell you I am not a fundamentalist. Allow me the freedom to define myself- as I allow gay people to do so.

I would have hoped that nothing I asked in earlier posts was "petty and ungracious" I specifically said I longed for the time when gay couples could be comfortable and welcome in my church because we had all matured enough to see through the name-calling and listen to each other.

As for the other stuff on this blog- at least a number of the things you mention concern the gay issue- Falwell and his 9/11 views, Wycliffe and the new principal's stance on sexual morality (among others).

Earlier in this topic conservative Christians were
accused of being 'obsessed' by the gay sex issue. No Helenanne, I don't think it is us who are obsessed by it.

You probably don't believe I care at all about this issue. I do - in perspective. You're not the only one with gay friends. Again you may find it hard to believe, but I have them to- and we talk about the issues in a mature way. They know i'm not a fundamentalist and they know I am concerned about the real homophobia that exists in sections of our church. People like me who are trying to speak against that need your support not your dismissal. But the way forward in eradicating true homophobia is not for you and others to try to bully people into changing a sincere theological position which it is entirely possible to hold while still treating people with dignity and respect.

Helenanne and Presby arent having a meeting of minds, are they? Language is the key here, I really believe that. If conservatives were able to learn not to use certain terms and gay people avoided some terms we might all make more progress.

For example: "the gay issue" is an insulting expression to a lot of gay people. They are people, not an issue. This phrase diminishes people. Imagine speaking of the equivalent in racial terms or other ethnic terms and you see what I mean. I know people like Presby mean no offence by the term, just like they mean no offence when they use the term "gay lobby", but they need to know that this language puts up walls. If you want to engage in dialogue, you need to know how NOT to offend the other side of the debate.

Simlarly, helenanne, this term "fundamentalist" is offensive to some people like Presby. He probably (I don't know) regards himself as a traditional Christian rather than a fundamentalist. It's better to avoid that term because it puts up a barrier in dialogue.

On the gay sex obsession question. The truth is, we are all a bit obsessed with this at the minute. The churches seem to be fighting over this across the world. Politicians in Northern Ireland have been fighting over it too - council property, civil marriage, equality laws etc. The religious press follow those stories closely. I'm fascinated by a lot of this and its everywhere. Jerry Falwell's death is being talked about all over the world, he's a fascinating story but its about much more than a gay aspect of it. Falwell was certainly obsessed with homosexuality.

With the best will in the world, it would be difficult to persuade most balanced thoughtful outsiders to this debate that church people are NOT rather obsessed with gay sex. They may say it's just the media misrepresenting their views, but I can't see that. I would love it if the church campaigned on so many justice issues, but instead, speaking generally across UK and US, the conservative churches over-focus on this stuff.

Helenanne and Presby probably have more in common than they realise. It's a great pity in this debate that divided sides rarely meet and talk. I encourage you both to give each other a break here and begin to learn from this discussion about how to communicate.

I don't want to sound patronising to either of you, but I think you are both using unhelpful language.

Can I suggest that a positive step forward could come from a discussion of where Presby would LIKE to see change in his church? Where do you see real homophobia? There was a young guy who wrote on this blog a while ago with appalling stories of homophobia in his presbyterian church and he hasn't written since. If he is reading this, maybe he can tell us more? Why did you go silent here? Let's listen more to each other and take steps forward?

Presby says he's not a fundamentalist, and I believe him. But then he's not representing the huge problem demographic of the fundies, of which there are many in Presbyterian churches and others in Ireland. People like Christian Hippy appear to be much more staunchly anti-gay, and so far he's avoided or ignored my attempts to reason with him. I'd suggest that, while there is much that can be learned through a dialogue between people like Helenanne and Presby, it's the Christian Hippies of the faith that most urgently need to see the light.

Thnaks David Oxford for your helpful comments and attempts to understand. This one is going to run and run and I hope that we will all be the wiser at the end of it.
Briefly- i would like to see a church where gay people are welcomed without having to worry about snide comments or jokes or hurtful innuendo- or even throw awy remarks from the pulpit. I know in the past i have been guilty of such things. I also now understand that such an environment is truly homophobic.

However since part of Christian discipleship is coming to terms with the theological concepts of sin and grace and forgiveness, I want everyone in church to be eposed to the fact that they are sinners and to revel in God's grace and seek to live for him. The implications of that will be different but equally demanding for hetero- and homo-sexuals.
If people feel judged in church I want to ensure that it is not by the people there - me or anyone else, but by the word of God.

Presby- What would you feel about attending a church where gay couples enter hand in hand and are treated the way heterosexual couples are today in your church? How are others treated in your church who smoke (perhaps outside a church building before the service starts) or who drink alcohol (perhaps at a church social)?

I'm sorry, but I think PCI is irredeemable.

Thanks David (Oxf) and thanks to Presby too. I agree not to call Presby a fundamentalist. I'm sure you are sincere in your views and you are trying to work out what God is saying to the church today.

Will Presby agree to stop using the terms "gay lobby" and "the gay issue"? this is about real people's lives, not lobbyists and issues.

I hope john wright is wrong about PCI being irredeemable even though I share his scepticism about what progress is possible in that church.

I am so grateful to presby for acknowledging that he has engaged in homophobic jokes and other insults in the past and for agreeing that this kind of think promotes a homophobic culture in the church.

That is real progress and I appreciate you saying that. If the general assembly in June said something like that, a statement of real repentance for homophobia within the church, it would move this debate on by light years. I really believe that.

The fact that you are prepared to acknowledge your own part in the story of homophobia, Presby, is a sign of great maturity and sensitivity. I hope that's also not patronising, i just believe that.

I wish the general assembly could read many of the comments and stories here (and thanks to the 大象传媒 for giving people space here to think and speak). I wish the general assembly could make space to HEAR from a gay person and his or her story about being in the church. That would help people understand more.

Perhaps a major breakthrough would be David (Oxf)s point about language. Can we learn how to listen and talk to each other. I confess I haven't bee good at that either. I have written off the church too quickly and I don't think my attitude has helped either.

Maybe this is progress. To have presbyterian ministers and elders trained in LANGUAGE so that they can speak to and of gay people without adding to their sense of hurt and rejection.

"Sodomy"
"Love the sinner, hate the sin"
"the gay lobby"
"the gay issue"
"adam and eve, not adam and steve"
"abomination"
"queers, fags, poofs"
"struggling with their sexuality"

All these terms are aggressive and unloving. They have no place in a loving conversation between gays and straight people.

Another thing that would help. Can ministers and elders simply learn to talk about "gay people" or "gay and lesbian people" without making an issue of those worlds (as the report under discussion does)? Gay people exist. They do not like to be told that they are struggling with their sexuality (any more than straight people struggle with their sexuality). We all struggle with our sexuality!! But gay people have a sexuality that should be respected and affirmed.

Even if people like Presby believe those gay people are sinning when they make love to their partners, they have to deal with the psychological crisis that is thrown up for a gay person when he is told he can never act on his sexuality. That's an enormous weight to place on someone's shoulders. particularly if that person is a young gay man or woman. Suicide, self-harm, emotional breakdown ... who takes responsibility for that when it happens to a gay person?

Those are BIG issues and these are the issues we need to talk about here, aren't they? Presby, I apologise for caricaturing your views and I hope we can all learn to avoid doing that. I would appreciate hearing more of your views on some of the psychological crisis dimensions of this that i've just mentioned. I'd also ask you how you are hoping to help your church become less homophobic, because homophobia is a sin isn't it?

I do appreciate the comments here and am totally comfortable with avoiding the language highlighted- SOME of which I had no idea was offensive. I would also ask that others recognise how being accused of homophobia is offensive to many of us. We don't like the word being hijacked and redefined. To me homophobia needs to be defined just like xenophobia, claustraphobia, arachnephobia etc. and not used as an insult to hit people who simply subscribe to a different moral framework.

Helenanne, I would want to think further about what you said regarding telling a gay person they cannot act on their sexuality is "an enormous burden". I don't regard it as any greater a burden than I coped with retaining virginity until married, or that many perpetually single and celibate Christians shoulder. Because we don't regard "acting on our sexuality" as an essential part of our humanity, celibacy is possible without psychological damage. The deification of the sexual act- more by heterosexual than homosexual society admittedly - reduces us to animals unable to control instinct.

John I regret you regard me as irredeemable (and I identify with my church just as gay people would with their community so don't try to separate me from it.) To answer your questions,there seems to be(not for the first time on this blog) an unfair caricature and stereotype being portrayed which if I dared do something similar to gay people I would be accused of homophobia.

I have been involved in Presby churches where smokers were not uncommon and I have no problem taking alcohol in moderation- and have even had some at church doos. Maybe not your typical Presbyterian church but so much of this is cultural and there are many non-teetotal Presbys out there (unsurprisingly since the bible extols in the merits of wine) To reduce "sin" to cultural taboos like smoking and drinking is to trivialise it. The sexual issue is more serious because it has to do with identity not behaviour. Having said that,
I would be entirely comfortable with a couple of gay people holding hands in my church- it doesn't mean i personally accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. But I would love to see the situation where there was enough mutual respect for that scenario to take place
My only plea re the current church debate is that you allow us the space to debate and develop this in our time. There are extremists around and trying to bully us into change will be counter-productive. Also, while recognising this might sound like me wanting thanks for precious little in your eyes, recognise that we are at least trying to deal with it. There are many more conservative denominations out there who don't even want to acknowledge there is a debate.

John Wright,

What tirade?

Please read:

You see John, for every piece of research any one of us cites, the other can find twice as many to refute their argument. Therefore, the discussion (like much on this thread) becomes circular & tired.

A higher authority is required. I believe that authority is the Christian Bible - God's revelation to mankind. It's really a question of 'who's in charge' - God or man? To argue that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle is to deny God the right to exercise His authority over His creation.

You cite LeVay in one of your responses: Is this his article/booklet entitled 'QUEER SCIENCE?' Do you know much about LeVay? Or do frantically search the www for any article your Search Engine can find then post them on the blog hoping they somehow bolster your arguments. R-E-A-D LeVAY John, then cite him - for your own sake!

Question John - if I can get 10, or 1,000 or 10,000 (whatever the magic number is) to agree with me a new definition for a word (be it a noun, adjective, verb or adverb), can I then expect everyone else to subscribe to MY new definition of that word?

Is the PCI document homophobic? When viewed through the biased lens of many homosexual 'rights' groups it is - hardly surprisingly so! Why exactly is it wrong for people to hold views that see certain behaviours as wrong, immoral & detrimental to a society's welfare? Ah, I see it now. The penny/cent/euro has dropped at last! "Let's broaden the definition of the term homophobia, so we can apply it to whom-ever, when-ever we want!" Hardly ingenious, nor honest. But then again, truth or right is not at the heart of this debate.

Presby #50- "John I regret you regard me as irredeemable (and I identify with my church just as gay people would with their community so don't try to separate me from it.)"

You've separated yourself from it. The PCI is made up of people many of whom are much less tolerant than you toward gay people. You separate yourself from it by virtue of the fact that you are more reasonable than the average 'presby' with regard to homosexuality. You admit as much yourself in your next paragraph:

"I have been involved in Presby churches where smokers were not uncommon and I have no problem taking alcohol in moderation- and have even had some at church doos. Maybe not your typical Presbyterian church but..."

First, congratulations on finding a Presbyterian church that breaks with tradition on some of these points; they're in short supply. But this makes my point for me. You're not representing mainstream PCI in your comments on this blog in general. As I said above, your defences apply to yourself with whom gay people would have much less of an issue, not PCI. That fact helps shed light on these statements:

"My only plea re the current church debate is that you allow us the space to debate and develop this in our time. .... while recognising this might sound like me wanting thanks for precious little in your eyes, recognise that we are at least trying to deal with it."

Again, I'd suggest that most NI Presbyterians don't even know there's an issue. It's good that some clergy understand the deficiency of PCI in this regard insofar as they commissioned a report on it, but even that isn't representative of the organisation as a whole. I'm happy to acknowledge that you are trying to deal with it and that there are others like you in PCI. My "irredeemable" remark regards not you and your ilk but mainstream PCI congregations who haven't shown a willingness to even think about their attitude toward gay people, let alone challenge those attitudes. For what it's worth, if most presbyterians were like you, things would inherently be healthier in that denomination.

--------------------------

LB #51- "You see John, for every piece of research any one of us cites, the other can find twice as many to refute their argument. Therefore, the discussion (like much on this thread) becomes circular & tired. A higher authority is required. I believe that authority is the Christian Bible - God's revelation to mankind."

This is so wrong-headed I don't even know where to start. First, if two pieces of research are contradictory, it doesn't mean that science is inadequate to come up with a resolution; it simply means that a scientific consensus involving the same scientific process is required. Imagine if everytime a test tube produced a result which contradicted previous results, the chemists threw off their white coats and ran to church! Your quality of life is testament enough that they were wise to ignore people like you in that regard. Even if the jury is still out on what makes gay people gay (which is arguably not the case at all), it doesn't mean we doubt the ability of science to give us the answer.

"To argue that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle is to deny God the right to exercise His authority over His creation."

You're entitled to believe that, just as your ancestors were entitled to believe that slavery and racism and sexism were justified by Scripture. But it relies upon a belief about the bible which the bible never claims for itself and which will be difficult for you to defend. (Query this? Just ask me, and we'll discuss it.)

"Question John - if I can get 10, or 1,000 or 10,000 (whatever the magic number is) to agree with me a new definition for a word (be it a noun, adjective, verb or adverb), can I then expect everyone else to subscribe to MY new definition of that word?"

That's a good question. Language certainly is a fluid concept, and something which changes often. (I assume you wouldn't challenge that.) But surely it doesn't particularly matter what we call the practice of discriminating against those of a homosexual orientation, as long as we talk about it? You're pursuing this discussion on a matter of sheer semantics when, in actual fact, the sound of the word we're using has no bearing whatsoever on the details of the debate.

"Why exactly is it wrong for people to hold views that see certain behaviours as wrong, immoral & detrimental to a society's welfare?"

Apply that question to sexism, racism or slavery and answer it yourself.

"Is the PCI document homophobic? When viewed through the biased lens of many homosexual 'rights' groups it is - hardly surprisingly so!"

I'm a member of no homosexual rights group, I don't know many homosexual people, none of them are among my various groups of friends, and I'm not homosexual myself. It doesn't take a gay to spot homophobia, despite the inference you make here.

"'Let's broaden the definition of the term homophobia, so we can apply it to whom-ever, when-ever we want!' Hardly ingenious, nor honest. But then again, truth or right is not at the heart of this debate."

You're right, and there wouldn't be a debate if gay people didn't have to fight for the basic decency of other human beings. What is it exactly that you'd like to see, or that you're defending? Why don't you tell me what is at the heart of this debate? Gay people want to be treated like straight people. What's your beef with that?

I've been following this debate and trying to stay out of it, because it's about me, really, and it's not just a debate to me. It's my life. After so many people here trying to help Presby understand the kind of language that is hurtful and offensive to gay people, he is back to that language again in that last post. It's a bit depressing, when you hope that people will move forward on these things.

Thanks to John Wright and many others here for trying to defend people like me as full human beings created by God with every right to live and love and serve in the church. I appreciate your support more than you can appreciate here.

Presby,
I think one of the outcomes from my reading of this blog as it has developed is that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland should consider further dialogue. I would hate to think the Church would just publish the report and think the matter is closed.
It can't be.
I am a Presbyterian Minister. Presby I know you are a colleague -you may know me and I would love to talk more about this before the report goes to the Assembly next week.
I understand that you may wish to remain anonymous but if not get in touch...

PRESBY, you say you are a minister in PCI? Are you going to tell us what your congregation is and who you are?

garethlee #55- Presby was courageous enough to come online and engage in debate on this issue in a polite, sensible and admirable way without any necessity to do so and without the encouragement or corroboration of his denomination. I'd suggest that's something he can feel proud of doing without the need to 'identify himself.' Moreover I'm not really sure why you think his identity relevant, or knowing it necessary. A discussion of this nature, whether right or wrong, is a sensitive issue for someone in his position... that much is just a fact (and certainly is part of the problem as I'm sure you'd agree). But as a PK (preacher's kid) I'm familiar with the reasons Presby may want to retain his anonymity, and nobody should think any less of him whatsoever for wanting to do so.

Presby- Perhaps your interest in this issue may make it worthwhile for you to accept Rick Hill's offer of dialogue (#54)?

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments.

1. The point being made was simply that citing research proves nothing other than someone is having greater success at securing research grants than I am! With regard to being "wrong headed" - I'm afraid you seem to have a rather low view of knowledge. Science is only one way of knowing & in case you missed the final stages of modernism & smouldering embers of postmodernism's almost extinguished remains, it (science) has not delivered answers to the big questions of life. Are you a scientific-fundementalist John?
2. "My ancestors"? Do you know something I don't about my family John? References in Scripture in the Bible speak of it as a cultural reality of the time. Indeed slaves are encouraged to live a godly life before their masters in witness to Christ. Christians are encouraged to see themselves as slaves to Christ also (Doulous). How did God create the first couple in terms of their gender-orientation? Can you please cite for me a positive referrence to homosexuality? Let's broaden things out here John: what is Islam's view of h/sexuality or Judaism's view? Regarding me superimposing my views upon the Bible: no, that won't do as a jibe. The Scriptures are God's revelation to mankind - it's written for the rational mind to comprehend it. Maybe that's why it's ALL Greek to you John!
3. This point was as much about statistical morality as it was language. Central point was that vocabulary with an historical meaning attached should not be high-jacked, re-defined & taken sole-possession of by a minority grouping. This happen to the term 'gay' for example. Objections to homosexuality are not irrational nor hateful. Certainly some people may wish to visit violence upon those with whom they disagree - I certainly do not. All human life has intrinsic value - even yours John - as we are all made & sustained by God. We are therefore, His property not our own.
4. Sex (as in masculine & feminine), race or enslavery are not behaviours John - NEXT!
5. I didn't think you were a gay rights activist John. In fact, you sound like a fairly decent chap who is concerned with fairness & doing the right thing - these are good, virtuous traits to possess & I applaud you for them. What is your basis for holding these values? It must be consistent with a broader worldview. Could you nutshell it for me?
6. "Fight for the basic decency of other human beings" - please explain why gays feel so incomplete. What human right (baseless) are they lacking? Do they have the right to force the acceptance of their chosen lifestyle upon the rest of society? What is desired is not acceptance as 'equals' it is a declaration that their lifestyle is legitimate, wholesome & morally acceptable. On a global scale this belief is practically universal. All the main world religions, in their orthodox teaching, as understood for hundreds if not thousands of years, hold that homosexual practice is wrong (Morgan & Lawton, 1996).

The pressure to get PCI to accept homosexuality is really trying to seperate the church from the bible.

Churches that do this shrivel up and die. Look around and you will see this is true.

People like Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream ministries show that God is fully able to bring gay folk straight (google his name) he is now married with children and reaching out to other gay folk with grace and compassion.

I previously asked PA Magloclain on this blog to clarify his position on dogging, by the way, I am still awaiting his response. Also answers to GW et al here;-

/blogs/ni/2007/05/post_4.html

PB

LB #57- Appreciate your response. I don't quite know where you were coming from sometimes, but I'll answer some of the key points to the best of my ability:

"How did God create the first couple in terms of their gender-orientation?"

Man and woman.

"Can you please cite for me a positive referrence to homosexuality?"

There aren't any. (Argument from silence?)

"What is Islam's view of h/sexuality or Judaism's view?"

They don't like homosexuals. What is any of this supposed to prove?

"The Scriptures are God's revelation to mankind - it's written for the rational mind to comprehend it. Maybe that's why it's ALL Greek to you John!"

I'll assume that remark was a joke. But you still haven't shown me where I'm supposed to believe that God condemns homosexuality!

"Objections to homosexuality are not irrational nor hateful."

At one point in the history of Christianity you may well have been telling me that disallowing women from voting or that objecting to black people as equals was not "irrational or hateful" either. I believe you when you say that you don't object to homosexuality because you hate gay people; your objections are biblical. But history may judge you differently, and its readers may not care what your rationale was.

"Sex (as in masculine & feminine), race or enslavery are not behaviours John - NEXT!"

Let's get something straight: do you regard homosexuality as merely a behaviour which can be changed at will, like whether to drink tea or coffee?

"What is your basis for holding these values? It must be consistent with a broader worldview. Could you nutshell it for me?"

Ethically speaking, I'm an egoist. Socio-politically, I'm a libertarian. Spiritually, I'm an agnostic Christian/theist.

"Do [gay people] have the right to force the acceptance of their chosen lifestyle upon the rest of society?"

Let's put it in a more useful way: they have the right to conduct their homosexual relationships in the same way and with the same protection in law as you do your heterosexual relationships. With regard to "acceptance", if you mean do they have the right to force other people to agree with them, no. Absolutely not. But they are also free to disagree with you as you do them. That's the beauty of a free nation.

What is desired is not acceptance as 'equals' it is a declaration that their lifestyle is legitimate, wholesome & morally acceptable."

If I were homosexual I would desire that people regard me and my lifestyle as morally acceptable, yes. That's not something they're wrong for desiring, just as you would no doubt desire that everyone find Jesus. You're not entitled to give them that moral acceptance, but neither are they entitled to give them theirs. Ultimately they're also entitled (as am I) to regard you as homophobic for your opinion.

***CORRECTION***:

The last two sentences of #59 should read:

You're not obliged to give them that moral acceptance, but neither are they obliged to give you theirs. Ultimately they're also entitled (as am I) to regard you as homophobic for your opinion.

Perhaps a read of Robert Gagnon's work will be helpful.

For a different perspective, one could read 'Dirt, Greed and Sex' by Countryman.

John,

I'm trying not to be churlish - but to premise your comments with "I'm not sure where you're coming from sometimes" seems rather disingenuous of you & also, patronizing. For someone who appears to occupy a material-reductionist worldview, you need to be careful when handing out the disparaging comments! You're a man with feet of clay standing on the intellectual battlements of a sandcastle!

You have not answered the fundamental questions put to you in this thread - responded yes, but not answered - there's a difference.

Your Achilles鈥� heel is the same as all those contributors who deny the authority of the Bible on moral issues: you are left with a valueless human race desperately trying to assign some meaningful value to their existence other than that which they create for themselves in an existential sense. Such 'added value' has no basis other than either nose-count morality or personal preference. Either way true society & community perishes. Nietzsche understood this very well - if God is 'dead' so too is morality; man also. Then again, Friedrich, son of a minister, homosexual, insane, & suffering from siphylis. And no, I'm not saying these are all inevitable consequences. Kant also understood this to be true, saying that man must live as if there were a God. At least Bertie Russell was more consistent - accepting that his existance was universally meaningless & insignificant; causing him to say with a rhy smile, "when I die, I shall rot." Then again, he's on record as saying on record as saying that homosexuality was the consequence of bad parenting! How does your base for 'moral acceptance' measure up with these men?

More recently: Bentham's GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle) is what most pro-gay 'rights' are applying to themselves. Moral acceptance comes from God & is explained to us both through nature (although now in a fallen state) & Scripture.

PLEASE FURNISH THIS THREAD WITH A SIMPLE (not simplistic), NON-VERBOSE RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION:

From whence comes the moral imperative for me or others to accept, condone or legislate for the equal-recognition of the homosexual lifestyle?

LB

LB #62- "You're a man with feet of clay standing on the intellectual battlements of a sandcastle!"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've no idea how you've come to such a conclusion; you certainly haven't justifiably garnered it from any conversation you've had with me.

"Your Achilles鈥� heel is the same as all those contributors who deny the authority of the Bible on moral issues: you are left with a valueless human race..."

Yet another undefendable assumption. Why the bible? Why not the Koran, or the book of Mormon? If you wish to attribute moral authority, you're certainly not starting with the bible; you're starting with reason, and from there attributing moral authority. If you wish to use the bible to do so, you must figure out why. Are humans who've never heard of the bible "valueless"? Of course not. They simply have values none of which derive from the bible. Honestly, I'm beginning to have problems taking you seriously.

You finish with a great question:

"From whence comes the moral imperative for me or others to accept, condone or legislate for the equal-recognition of the homosexual lifestyle?"

The absence of any reason to treat homosexuals as morally deficient, unequal or impeded in any way.

"You're a man with feet of clay standing on the intellectual battlements of a sandcastle!"

I have looked through the posts here and I for the life of me cannot work out what LB is on about.

DD

John (& DD)

Quite simple guys: I want to know on what you base your ideas regarding homosexuality being morally acceptable. I propose that not only your philosophical perspective is faulty but that your argumentation, insofar as I can detect by reading your comments on this & other threads, is ultimately self-refuting.

If we subscribe to the views of say, the 'objectivist' (like Rand) and man is the measure of his own morality then no morality is universally applicable. All we are left with are societal conventions which are voluntary.

Consequently, we are free to make are own moral 'rules' or have none. If this is so, why is it right to have rights, wrong to be homophobic or unacceptable to beat up a 'Randroid'?

Why the Bible? Because it sets forth a worldview commensurate with, and best supported by, the evidences of Creation & human experience.

Stop constantly borrowing 'capital' from theists, especially Christian Theists, and giving humans rights, values & significance that you have no foundations for - hence your feet of clay on sand!

As a Bible-believer I see intrinsic value in every homosexual person - because I believe they, like me, are God's property.

LB

PS
With regard to Scooby-DD - I'm not really that surprised you didn't follow what was said earlier; but not for the reasons you're thinking right now!

John,

Just toured your site. I note your comments about your own blog being 'quiet' ..... I wonder why?

"Honestly, I'm beginning to have problems taking you seriously" - I sense you are your own biggest fan John. You dismiss others' views 'out of order', like some demogogue; when in fact your own thinking is to philosophy what David Brent's was to commerce & industry!

Moreover, I think your mind is in the debate John, but not your heart. What is your greatest hope for homosexual men & women John? Do you REALLY care about THEM, or just trying arguing about them & their plight? This would be a criticism of many objectivists - no?

Until you engage meaningfully.

LB- Until I engage "meaningfully"? I love your sense of perspective! And that sense continues with your assumption that the burden of proof should be on me to show you why homosexuality isn't wrong. - what tangled logic!

"I want to know on what you base your ideas regarding homosexuality being morally acceptable."

Is your default position then that something is immoral before it is shown to be moral by some philosophy? I asked you in post #59 to show me that God condemns homosexuality. Since you haven't done it, I'll assume that you can't, and therefore that there is no reason that you have given me thus far that I should regard homosexuality as immoral. In the absence of such a reason, I'll consider my final sentence in post #63 as valid and unchallenged. I contend that the burden of proof is upon you to show me that an activity is not moral, not upon me to show you that it is. One could just as easily pose your statement thus: 'I want to know on what you base your ideas regarding playing the piano being morally acceptable.' Answer: why wouldn't it be?

"Why the Bible? Because it sets forth a worldview commensurate with, and best supported by, the evidences of Creation & human experience."

And you really don't see the utter subjectiveness of that statement? Only the last time you spoke you informed me that without the bible humans would be "valueless", a wholly ridiculous statement, and an unsupportable one. Muslims feel exactly the same way about the Koran, for example, as you've stated right here about the bible. My question, "Why the bible" has been answered by you subjectively, yet that's your condemnation of me, ie. that you say I don't have an objective morality!

Stop constantly borrowing 'capital' from theists..."

Uh, I am a theist.

Just toured your site. I note your comments about your own blog being 'quiet' ..... I wonder why?"

It ebbs and flows, like every other site. Those comments were made back in December when the good fellow I share the blog with had a baby boy and hasn't been able to post articles as much. (He's also a contributor here, by the way.)

I sense you are your own biggest fan John. You dismiss others' views 'out of order', like some demogogue; when in fact your own thinking is to philosophy what David Brent's was to commerce & industry!"

Perhaps you don't understand the idea of discussion? You tell me your ideas, and if I disagree I'll tell you why I think you're wrong. I'm not exactly sure what makes you uncomfortable about that process, or what makes you wish to insult me for dissenting from you. If having my own ideas and defending them makes me a fan of myself in your book, so be it; I couldn't care less what you think of me.

"Moreover, I think your mind is in the debate John, but not your heart."

You're right for the most part; it's a rational exercise and not an emotional one. I fail to see that as a bad thing, however; it seems to me too much debate is conducted under the influence of high emotion and not enough conducted in its absence.

"What is your greatest hope for homosexual men & women John? Do you REALLY care about THEM, or just trying arguing about them & their plight?"

Whether I care about them or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not their sexual activities are moral. Perhaps you're simply unaccustomed to seeing contributors stand up for people in whom they don't have some selfish investment. I merely argue for equal treatment of gay people because it's right to do so. On my blog we have frequently written articles supporting the rights of smokers, prostitutes, drug users, drivers, hunters, artists, journalists, corporations, and anyone else whose rights are being infringed upon; that's what libertarianism is. We don't do it because we 'care' for them in particular, and we don't have any reason for doing so other than its inherent rightness.

As to the other part of your question, my greatest hope is that human beings will evolve out of the childishness that so often accompanies politics these days, and will recognise above all the sovereignty of their fellow human beings as rational individuals with their own aims and purposes.

JW

I dont see any comments addressed to me here.

have you seen this;-

PB

PB- The link you provided is to the ministry of Andrew Comiskey, author of "Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals The Homosexual". I regard this stuff to be archaic, harmful nonsense, and gay people would rightly regard it as offensive.

Anyone can train themselves to pretend for a very long time that they're something they're not (ask Ted Haggard). But nobody is changing sexual orientation, PB. Comiskey himself acknowledges this in page 104 of his book, where he says:

"...by pledging our allegiance to the rule of Christ Jesus, we are delivered. By deliverance I don't mean being rid altogether of homosexual feelings. ... God frees the struggler to rise up and take hold of Jesus in the face of temptation instead of slouching toward sin."