麻豆约拍

This report is away with the fairies! Sorry, couldn't resist that pun! But really, how can anyone be so out of date on this subject. Gay people are here, can we please get over it! The church has updated its ethics on women, black people, divorced people and other groups. Wake up Presbyterians! Your churches are closing for a reason.

I agree with Jan. I'll never understand why accepting that some people are homosexual is such a big issue for some people. I hear gay slurs from Christians all the time (eg. "The gay guy got voted off [REALITY SHOW] last night, so that's good at least..."); almost as though their being gay is indicative of a deep vein of sinfulness that represents all of Satan's work or something. Dreadful.

The report.... it's a start.

How ridiculous of a church committee to write a report which attempts to be sensitive to gay people then avoids ackowleding the EXISTENCE of gay people!!

That's pathetic. This church needs to get its act together.

Very strange report. Even the Vatican's most recent statements use the expressio "homosexual persons" (or gay and leabian persons). How can the Presbyterians refuse to use that language too?

I know some conservative christians who refuse to speak of "gay" people because thay word means "happy". That's nonsense. The word has changed its meaning. Even they will speak of "homosexuals" - and that's a phrase many gay people don't much like.

When I meet people who refuse to use the word gay I they usually turn out to be anti-gay.

People can have their views on homosexuality but surely we can all start y accepting that the words used to describe gay people should not be offensive to gay people.

I was astonished to read this church report even suggesting reparitive therapy. That kind of therapy is abusive and has been rejected by the world's leading psychological societies. I regard it as unethical. That a church report in 2007 would even suggest it is a sign of how far that church is behind the scientific consensus.

This badly written report (don't get me started on the syntax and style) is extremely odd. Will's last point about two groups of people pulling in two directions while it was written makes sense of the presence of forward-looking sections alongside homophobic sections. Bizarre.

I hope the genera assemby will rethink this report. There are some good things in here, including the parts where ministers are asked not to use homophobic langauge (it's amazing that we would need to ask clergy to refrain from that, isn't it?).

My suggestion is that the report's panel be asked to rewrite this document so that it recognises the existence of gay people. I did not choose to be gay, it's who I am. I am also white and male and a member of the church. Please don't minimise my sexuality by making it sound like a lifestyle or a hobby. It's part of who I am.

I also think it would be disgraceful for a church to encourage anyone to have therapy to stop being gay. I've known of one person who had that kind of counselling and became extremely despressed to the point of a suicide attempt.

Did the panel writing this report not consult the British Psychological Society about the dangers of reparitive counselling before thy finished their report?

When the report says that incidents of homophobia are anecdotal, that gives the impression that they are minimising those cases (it's like saying, "well, some people say this sort of thing").

Why doesn't the general assembly invite a real "gay person" to speak at the assembly and tell them what it's like to be gay in Northern Ireland, or to be gay and Christian in Northern Ireland?

They won't do that because the Assembly is not prepared to HEAR those experiences. That's a shame. Gay people have been invited to tell their stories in larger church bodies in England and Scotland but not in Northern Ireland. What does that say about Christianity in Norhtern Ireland? I ask that question as a believer myself.

That's quite a report!! Just read it. Actually there's a lot of good stuff in there. I don't think the presbys have ever realy addressed this topic properly so maybe this is the start of some progress for them.

I notice that they think ministers and church members shoud stop using the term SODOMY.That word is used in the King James Bible, isn't it?

Does that mea they thnink the King James Bible is homophobic?!?!

Not that I want to enter into another church's grief, but it seems to me that this panel have not considered much of the very good theological and pastoral work that's been done on this subject over the past 30 years. Many churches have commissioned reports into various aspects of sexuality and homophobia and many are extremely subtle considerations of the subject. The PCI report here looks cobbled together with out of date research and out of date theological analysis. That's a pity because this subject deserves the best theological thinking we can bring to it.

An earlier commenter asked if the panel had spoken to psychologists. I doubt it, having now read this report. My question is: Has the panel spoken to any theologians? That's a more worrying absence in the report.

A strange report. Underlying the report I sense that the PCI knows that their position on homosexuality is out of date, is causing needless harm and needs to change. But to avoid such a change we have this report which is classic fudge. Until they change their biblical teaching the church will not be a welcoming place for lesbian and gay people.

The report states a desire for the PCI to 鈥渁ctively promote an atmosphere of understanding and acceptance rather than fear and rejection.鈥� Good news. Positive. Then it鈥檚 all shattered by the statement 鈥淚n commending the Report to the Presbyteries for study and comment, the Assembly considered it desirable: "to draw the attention of all people to the fact that the Holy Scriptures clearly condemn homosexual practices鈥�.

I鈥檓 afraid of snakes. If a shop had them roaming around their store I wouldn鈥檛 enter. If the shop owner then decided that he wanted to make feel more welcome and displayed a big sign outside stating 鈥淭hose afraid of Snakes most welcome鈥� I still wouldn鈥檛 enter. The items causing offence would still exist within the store. The only way I would enter is if the offending objects were removed.

In the case of the PCI, the report is, I believe, largely positive but doesn鈥檛 go far enough. They need to remove their offensive biblical position.

A couple of questions:

Who are the gay groups this panel claims to have met and what do they make of this report?

Did the panel talk to any of the authors of recent studies into anti-gay abuse?

What about the police? Did the panel talk to the police about how they ahev made progress in tackling homophobia in their ranks?

Why is there no bibliography material here to see which books and research (if any!) the panel consulted in drawing up this report?

I would urge all Gay people to show respect and understanding for Presbyterians. It is not their fault that they are so often bitter homophobes.

Remember, no-one is EVER born Presbyterian - unlike Gay people, who are nearly all born Gay. (The Wolfenden Committee of the House of Commons reported as far back as the 1950s that human SEXUALITY was fixed well before puberty, and indeed as early in childhood as can be measured). Not so with religion.

A religious FAITH such as Presbyterianism, is almost always the rather peculiar result of years of religious indoctrination by misguided parents and teachers. All FAITHs, by their very definition, involve the decision to believe things which are totally illogical and nonsensical to most non-believers.

The various (large and small) multi-national companies called Churches, who trade in such beliefs, find it hard to confront the undeniable reality of human life and sexuality. Their search to integrate their particular illogicality with the reality all around them often forces Faith leaders to jump through the most ridiculous hoops (eg the Catholic church with its doctrine of Limbo).

There is, however, always hope - even for believers as purblind as many Presbyterians.

While attempting to deny one's inborn SEXUALITY almost always leads to years of mental torture (relieved only by finally Coming Out), people quite easily change their FAITHs - indeed it is usual for a woman to adopt her husband's religion upon marriage.

LGBT people should stretch out the hand of friendship to those in our society still afflicted by religion, and help them to see the light.

"The Truth shall set you free."

Cordially,

P A MagLOCHLAINN

PA,

Attacking religion doesn't help. There are many gay Christians who are very comfortable with both their sexuality AND their faith. I agree that most gay people are born gay rather than socialised as such, and i agree that Faith gorups need to evolve in their sensitivity and knowledge of these issues.

This report by the presbyterians is a tiny step forward for a church that has struggled with homophobia and sectarianism for a very long time.

Let's hope the new spirit of openness and tolerance we're seeing politically in northern Ireland can infect presbyterianism too.

PA

I have liked - not feared - all the gay people I have ever met.

And I have consistently been the only person in my office to defend a colleague from homophobic abuse for some 12 months.

I also went on public record to defend a lesbian couple from verbal and physical abuse in Northern Ireland.

But I must state, there is no academic consensus that homosexuality is fixed before birth.

Certainly Peter Tatchell and Alfred Kinsey knew quite a few gay people who have gone straight.

The Apostle Paul said he knew people in this category as well.

I too state without question that as a fallen person I have a fallen sexuality.

But I am not so sure the new term "homophobia" adds light to this particular discussion.

Judeo Christian belief has classified homosexual baheviour (the act, not the person) as sin for 6000 years, as attested by Matthew Parris.

But I dont think it is really accurate to classify this a phobia, while I have no doubt that such a thing does exist.

Is it really credible to state that the leadership of the Presbyertian church has a phobia about homosexuality? or more credible to say they have sincere convictions about it based on the bible?

I get the impression that most of the posters here have already decided that Christians have no real right to hold their 6000 year old beliefs.

That is not very tolerant and could be argued to be a form of inflexible fundamentalism.

I for one applaud any attempt by the Presbyerterian Church to be more gracious and compassionate to people in this position, while firmly defending their right to hold to the biblical teaching.

sincerely

PB

BTW JW

In my experience, generally speaking churches that reject the bible as the word of God shrink.

You appear to be suggesting that churches that teach liberalism would grow strongly, but I have never seen this happen.

PB

Im not surprised that PB likes this report. It reads like soemthing he might have written!

The operative theological presumption is stated at the very beginning;

"1.1 Biblically we as a church maintain that a person is defined in the first instance in terms of their relationship to God-creation in relation to Creator."

Given that we now have strong evidence that there is a correlation between certain aspects of the pituitary gland in men and their sexual preference, it seems clear that male homosexuality is not a matter of free will it is a matter of how that individual was created. The male homosexual has no more control over his sexual desire for other men than any of us have over our desire to slake a thirst or satisfy a hunger. Therefore, according to the teachings of the Presbyterian Church, not only is male homosexuality not a sin, to condemn it is to condemn the expression of God's creation as he intended it. That is the sin. All other teachings according to this religion the way I read it are false.

OK all you ultra religious NIers, I'll bet you're saying to yourselves; "so what, that is not what my church teaches, that is not what we in our religion believe." What would you people do if you couldn't find an excuse to hate other people?

To PB who said that the consensus isnt agreed on whether homosexuality is fixed before birth. What point were you making when you said that?There is almost unanimous consensus that religion or a predisposition to believe in a religion is not fixed before birth. Even Scott Atran has subscribed to this view.
Similarly to homosexuals, if you had have been fortunate enough to have been born into a non religious family you would likley not be believing in God now. If the Presbyterian bigots are suggesting the conversion of homosexuals as a 'solution' to homosexuality, would they react favourably to me suggesting the same for them????????

Denis

You havent added anything to this discussion except an intolerant personal attack.

Personally I think the feelings of the human beings at the centre of this are much too serious to be trivialised in that manner.

PB

All- Some great questions in #10

PB- I didn't ask the question you refer to in #14

Joe- You raise a great question and I'd like to call on PB to give an answer.

Dear Gerard G,

I was not aware that I was attacking religion. If you re-read my message, you will see that I called for respect for believers.

However, your reaction is quite illuminating. Many religionists seem to find their faith so wobbly and difficult to maintain that they see any dispassionate, logical discussion of it as an attack.

Most people go through a religious (or sometimes nowadays political) phase in their lives, when they want to change the world. By the time they are forty, most of them have (fortunately) calmed down, and grown less certain of their religious or political dogmas.

Einstein thought Nationalism was such a stage in the evolution of humanity in general - he described it as the "measles" of mankind. It is fairly clear than religion is a similarly widespread experience: I see it as the "first wet dream" of mankind, where we first encounter the mystery of sex, and must seek some kind of framework to regulate this all-powerful impulse.

Like children scared of the monsters under the bed, we make up our own wee rules, and then claim these came from our tribe's God. Some of us cut a bit off our son's penis, while others mutilate our little girl's vagina.

Alas for mankind, all too many of us never progress beyond these stages. We remain trapped forever in the sickness of nationalism, or the nightmare / dream-world of religion.

As for the fixedness of sexuality - PB and I are actually in agreement. Kinsey's research showed that sexuality is NOT a question of Black or White (Homo or Hetero), but a whole spectrum. We can visualise this as ranging from the Infra-Red of the Completely Hetero person, through such shades as Orange (Almost Entirely Straight, say), Yellow (Mostly Straight), even Fifty-Fifty, to the opposite extreme at the Ultra-Violet (Completely Gay).

Several of my predecessors as President of Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association are now happily married. This does NOT prove that their sexuality was not fixed. They were simply at a different point on Kinsey's scale from me.

Quite a number of us in the Northern Ireland LGBT movement are involved in seeking dialogue with believers, of no matter what persuasion. The response to our approaches is often, in my opinion, far from Christian behaviour.

It is rather galling to find this report referring to those few of us who can afford to speak out against injustice as "aggressive". When in history did Gay people lead the mob to burn Presbyterians at the stake, just for being what they are?

Cordially,

P A MagLOCHLAINN
================

ok JW

Joe, first of all, is any progress going to be made on this issue if you open with name calling such as "bigots"?

I reject such dehumanisation and demonisation of any person and it is not indiciative of open dialogue.

I work in a large workforece; why was I, a Christian, the only person that repeatedly stood up for my colleague suffering genuine homophobic abuse?

I still cant get my head around that.

Nor can I understand why the people who attack me on this blog will not see the irony in that.

Having taken such personal risks to defend gay folk in my own life I think I have earned the right not to be insulted as "a bigot", so i would politley ask you to retract that.

I know it is much easier to stereotype people like me as fundamentialist reactionaries, but I am sorry, you are just going to have to accept that I emphasise and affirm the complete humanity and worth of any gay person, whether or not they agree with me.

Why did nobody else lift a finger to help my colleague? None of them have any prestentions to Christian faith that I am aware of.

I suppose I would basically agree that homosexuality nor religion are fixed before birth.

If you read my post the reason I mentioned this is because I was addressing my point directly to PA, who disagreed with that.

I was not brought up in a household which holds my faith by the way, though my entire family gradually came to faith after me.

Is "conversion" a solution to Presbyterianism?

Well in my understanding Presbyterians do not suffer mental health issues even in nations where they are fully respected.

And the vast majority of psychaiatrists have not considered Presbyterianism a mental health issue, while at the same time Presbyertians work to overturn such views - not through academia - but primarily through political activism/intimidation.

Presbyertians as far as aI know do not currently suffer serious mental health issues because of their denominational identity.

True Freedom Trust says that there as many Gay Chritisians in the orthodox churches who are opposing those desires as there are gay folk outside the churches who are not.

There is too much fear and intimidation in this whole issue, and shrill shrieking whenever genuine questions are asked in a gracious manner.

Censorship of free and respectful speech on this matter in this way - I must stress - will not and can never help the position of gay folk in *any* way.

It smacks very strongly of fear of open discussion.

I would strongly contend that people attempting to do so with personal attacks and pejorative language are -whether they realise it or not- sacrificing the right of gay folk to be fully informed in their decision making processes on this matter.

Please, if you are thinkg of replying, please do, but please try and discuss the issues in a contructive manner without personal attacks, as it undermines the credibility of any worthwile point you have to mkae.

sincerely
PB

PA

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

I respect your honesty in saying that several former colleagues of yours have now gone straight and are married.

There must be some lessons to be learned from that for gay people who wish to be straight, I am sure.

I find it paradoxical that in an age of freedom of choice in sexuality that there are many resources poured into helping folk come out but none into helping gay folk who wish to become straight.

I think I could easily live with gay culturs going more mainstream in our society if there was equality for gays wanting to go straight.

It seems to discriminate against their freedom of choice and conscience, as does denying that they are in a fit mental state to hold such views.

I must clarify that you cant agree with me about Kinsey;s assertion that everyone is on a grey sexuality scale as I have never concluded I agree with that.

While you are on, I would be very interested if you could tell me whether and why you think it acceptable for adults to have sex in the open air in or near residential areas. I know you discussed this on the radio in recent times and I was quite surprised by the views you appeared to put across.

I would also be very interested to hear why gay lobby groups normally seem to be active in pressing for lowering the age of consent for gay folk.

One prominent gay rights leader in the UK argues on his website for a boy of 14 to be free to have sex with whom he will.

But he is not saying this should be the lower age limit.

At what age would you say children should legally be free to have sex?

sincerely
PB

PS For folk like Bob on Will's intro, I cannot imagine the pressures you are under. However Andy Comiskey has written some very helpful stuff on this having come through it himself. IN fact his writings are very helpful for any Christain wanting to understand and redeem their sexuality, I believe, myself included. His organisation, which has a centre in London and has been reviewed by the guardian, is called desert stream ministries.

ps i would just like to broaden the question out about the age of consent for gay folk.

Will did draw out how this issue is perceived to impact on children in his introduction.

I know Stonewall are listening in, so feel free to comment too.

What should the lowest legal age of consent for children to begin having sex?

How should this be determined? Should it be open to a downward revision at a later date if social attitudes so allow?

A member of the chief constables assocation for the uk made front page news in the sunday times recently when he said he did not believe sex with children should be a crime, so long as they have reached puberty.

How do we define when children are old enough to give consent for sex and yet still protect them from predation?

As I say, I understand gay lobby groups normally press for ever lower ages of consent, so it would be good to hear from PA and Stonewall on this first hand.

sincerely
PB

PB, the Kinsey report is seriously out of date on the science of sexual development. There are newer studies suggesting that gay people account for a much smaller segment of the population than Kinsey's methodology indicated.

There are also some interesting new books suggesting that sexual orientation is mostly fixed at birth in most gay men. "Born Gay" is the best of those new books.

I can understand why some people should "Bigot" when a report seems to endorse conversion counselling. That's a very dangerous type of therapy and some gay men and women have been hurt by it.

As a gay man living in Northern Ireland who is a member of a Presbyterian Church, this report makes me despair.

I am not out to people in my congregation even though I am very involved in the church's life and work. If i did tell the minister I was gay, he would I'm sure exclude me from the work I am doing now with young people in the church.

Homophobia is rife throughout the presbyterian church.

I agree with Will that this report will upset a lot of gay people in the church who are hopign for more opennness.
I wish the general assembly could produce guidelines that reach out to gay people rather than these, which are patronising, offensive and insulting. Hopefully some intelligent questions will be asked in the June debate and this report will be sent back to the panel for a rewrite after the panel have talked to more experts.

To PB, Firstly I wasnt personally attacking you by using the word bigot. I said "Presbyterian bigots" and I meant that in relation to SOME Presbyterians. Having thought about it now, it probably wasnt a good word to use. However I do certainly think that there are plenty of Presbyterians, Catholics etc who are bigots so I think it is a valuable word all the same.
Now I really dont think you answered the question. I applaud you for helping the gay person you mention in your post and I do not doubt for a second that you are an honourable person yourself. You ask is conversion a solution to Presbyterianism? Is conversion a solution to homosexuality? By using the word conversion I have opened myself up to a debate on semantics. Remove the word conversion. What I am tackling here is not what constitutes conversion, but whether it is hypocritical to suggest that Gays can be changed because they are not born gay. If you use that argument then you leave yourself open to arange of accusations. If you believe that gays can be changed, and you are religious (using one example), THEN YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT YOU TO ARE OPEN TO THE SAME POSSIBILITY. I DONT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE!
You were mentioning "mental illness" and I am not sure what you meant by that. I think you meant it in relation to whether there is a solution required on account of being Presbyterian. I would simply ask why people feel the need to suggest that homosexuality needs a solution. If you were suggesting that homosexuality is in someway linked to mental illness I would be gratedul if you could point me to somewhere I could read about that, I havent come accross any research suggesting that.
Also, I respectfully state that I am not on here to annoy, taunt or insult people. And once again, I wasnt personally attacking you. Cheers!

This discussion is losing its focus - pb is obsesssed with the age of consent

Ach, that's the oldest tactic in the book for people who basically aren't that comfortable for gay equality - try and shift the subject on to paedophilia. Seriously, PB, if you want to be taken seriously as someone who disagrees with homosexuality while respecting and valuing gay people, please stop using that argument. By far the most dangerous misconception that we gay people have to live with is the one that gay=paedophile. It's the excuse that violent homophobes most often use to defend gay bashing and even murder. So please, please, don't use it.

As an openly gay member of the Church of Ireland, all I would say to those struggling with their identity as gay Presbyterians is, if you're of age and can look after yourself, come out now and live free. You will discover many false friends but also find out who your real friends are, and probably make many others, not least within Northern Ireland's large community of gay Christians. You'll discover a community much less defined by petty sectarianism and prejudice than our mainstream church congregations. And you'll be able to be a change agent in your church, playing your part in ensuring that future generations of gay Presbyterians don't have to go through what you have.

As for the whole nature-nurture debate, I stopped caring a long time ago. I don't know whether I was born this way or became this way later, but I tell you what, if I was given a magic wand that could turn me straight I wouldn't use it. Why would I want to lose my wonderful partner, my great friends, my closeness to many female colleagues that developed because I'm not a sexual threat, etc., etc.? Being gay is great, and I hope everyone gay or straight is comfortable with who they are, knows that God loves them and has great sex with the man or woman they love.

Sammy

I am not trying to use "a tactic"
If you read Peter Tatchell's website he argues for amnesty for certain gays on the sexual offence register; says an age of consent of 16 is "persecution" and advocates 14 as the age of consent, which he says is also stonewall's position. He also criticses age of consetn legislation etc.

Sammy, the onus is not on *me* to explain why I am discussing lowering the age of consent, the onus is on you to explain why it is such an issue for gay lobby groups.

A very gay-friendly friend of mine who works in child protection says that the "sexual rights of children" is an exceptionally powerful and coveted concept beloved of the paedophilia movment. It is easy to see why.

I am *not* equating gays to paedophiles, but historically there has always been overlap eg classical greek pederasty etc and they have their modern equivalents;-

Who of you reading this does not know what a chickenhawk is in gay slang?

I think it does not stand up to believe that gay sexuality and lifestyles are mirror images of heterosexuality; HM Government said only about 2.5% of gays would be interested in permenant monogomous relationships ie civil partnerships.

I have been propositioned three times by gay men and in my experience it was always about raw sex and unlike anything I experienced with girls - this was in my pre-christian days.

In the media and in gay media, gay culture does seem exceptionally preoccupied with sexual acts.

There is also the point about adult groups having open air sex in public in Northern Ireland, which I have asked PA Mag' to repeat his views on here. He tackled Lisburn City District Policing Partnership for their stance on this during a public meeting and he speaks on behalf of NILGA.

I am not trying to pigeonhole the views of every gay person, they are all individuals but as I understand it, inherent in gay culture is a momentum to break all sexual taboos ie which paves the way for polysexuality.

Sammy, how can you simply say that God loves gay men practising gay sex? How do you get that out of the bible? I wouldnt simply say to a hetero adulterer is loved by God full stop, if we are discussing sexual sin; he is loved of course but God loves him too much to allow him to continue in sex outside marriage. Do you believe in life-long one-partner monogamy Sammy, BTW?

I am also slightly concerned that you have no interest whatsoever in what caused you to be gay while affirming you would never change. This appears to be very closed minded to information.

Terry

The Kinsey report is older, but is still the landmark against which other work in the field is measured.

PA happily quotes it, but I am not contesting how good or old it is; I simply say Kinsey came across many men who changed from gay to straight, that is fact regardless of new research.

If you look on Peter Tacthell's website he rejects the conclusion of Born Gay because they ignore the data of so many gay folk turning straight. eg John Moss, ex-of Boy George.

Tatchell says it just doesnt add up because he knows so many people who have gone straight. The authors of Born Gay, while publicising the book, also declined to state their sexuality.

PA Mag' above says a number of former presidents of NILGA have also gone straight and are now married.

Your argument doesnt add up I'm afraid, that homosexuality is fixed before birth.

I have no doubts gay folk have been hurt by counselling, but it does not follow that no gay people have ever gone straight, as PA agrees.

I dont believe I have any right to press someone into attempting to change their sexuality. But I do believe I should have freedom of speech and conscience to discuss these matters openly and I absolutely do believe that gay folk who wish to change should be given every assistance to explore what options there are and what is best for them in each case.

Joe

Encyclopaedia Brittannica says historically the vast majority of psychaitrists have held that homosexuality required treatment.

Irving Bieber is one name you could google.

American Psychaitric Assocation was the trojan horse that the gay rights movement used to overturn these views using political acitivism and intimidation - not new research.
Once they turned over the APA they used it to pressurise other groups, so most/all of them now hold the new position - but take note, the dominos starting falling because of shock tactics and protests in the APA AGMs - not new research.

ie, it came down to shouting and voting - not the presentation of new findings.

Wikipedia says:
"In the late 1960s and early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a small majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

Lastly, I have to run and apologise this was rushed. I would finally just like to say biblically we are all sinners with fallen sexuality, myself included.

I depend daily on the grace of Christ to cleanse and forgive me from all sin and to give me strength in him to avoid it.

I dont think it is part of a life long Christian battle.

sincerely
PB

Pb - a couple of comments on your bizarre train of thought (I'm gay, by the way):

AGE OF CONSENT
Peter Tatchell is only one person and he is entitled to his views. I believe the age of consent, whatever it is, should be the same for gay and straight people. 16 seems to me the right age. You aks why gay groups are obsessed with age of consent issues? Come on PB, you're not this unreflectve are you? If you were gay and your sexuality was criminalised you would take an interest in what the law says too about the legal age you can act on your sexuality. Even when deriminalised, gay people have had to fight to lower the age of consent to 21 so that 18 year olds wouldn't be arrested for having sex with other 18 year olds. You are quite wrong to see the age of consent argument as an argument for paedophilia. It's an argument for equality.

PAEDOPHILIA
You say you are not equating gays and paedophiles then say historically there's always been an overlap (citing an American pro-paediphile group). There has always been an overlap between paedophilia and heterosexuality too. In fact, more so. You really don't get it, PB, and your continued connection between gays and paedophilia is offensive. I am gay, deal with me as a gay man and stop throwing red herrings into the mix. I oppose paedophilia every bit as much as you do. Can we stop ruining this debate about homophobia with these homophobic side-swipes at gay people that are drsssed up as honest comment on your part?

TREATMENT FOR HOMOSEXUALITY
You can rely on out of date summary documents in Encylopedia if you wish, but this is not exactly a journal of psychosocial research. Psychiatry and Psychology have made a long journey on the topic of homosexuality (as with other human behaviours) and the vast majority of the disciplines would now regard reparative therapies as unethical and potentially harmful. That you wish to peddle these therapies is part of the problem faced by gay people.If someone is deeply unhappy about being gay in a society like ours, I can understand that. People like you, PB, are the reason why they are so unhappy: a culture of demonisation, rejection, accusation, rumoured paedophilia, and misconception all add up to the kind of culture that makes one wish to be different. Add in a religious culture with ancient textual rejection and you have an even more potent mix. Instead of offering this person therapy to deal with their unhappiness we would be better to change the attitudes in our society that leave a people feeling so rejected in the first pace. Why don't you focus your attention on that campaign instead of throwing around undigested out of date research and literalistic readings of the Bible?

PB, you will not like bing accused of homophobia. Racists don't like being accused of racism. That, I'm afriad, is how I regard the kinds of things you have been syaing here. Just because you finish you point with some comment about everyone being a sinner doesn't let you off the hook. You can't engage in rhetorical abuse of gay people and then sanitise your abuse with Christian language.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you need to know how utterly offensive your comments are to a gay person. If you care abou relating to gay people, you will moderate the way you address this subject.

THAT REPORT
Well, it's an improvement of a sort for PCI but that wouldn't be difficult. The report is still homophobic in the ways already noted here. I wish PCI could engage with this subject in a more sophisticated manner rather than hurl this sort of unreflective and rushed "analysis" into the public sphere. This report merely damages the reputation of the church as an organisation capable of dealing with 21st century issues. Personally, I regret that, since I am a Christian and it brings me no pleasure to see the Christian faith become a figure of fun within society. For the sake not only of gay people but also of the intergrity of the Christian message, I hope the Presbyterian General Assembly will reject this report and require a new panel to produce guidelines that avoid the accusation of homophobia themselves.

Instead, come June, we aer likely to see news stories of gay groups denouncing the presbyterian report as homophobic. That's hardly progress for the church.

Is it 'homophobic' to say that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, as the Bible clearly teaches?

It seems to me that homosexuals are happy for Christians to believe that.....so long as they never say so!

The truth is that all of us are sinners who need to turn from sinful behaviour. To refrain from communicating that to homosexual people is to effectively cut them off from the forgiveness they could experience in Jesus Christ. That would not be to show authentic Christian love, would it?

It is about time that those wishy washy ministers within the Presbyterian Church stopped beating a bout the theological bush and called a spade a spade; the Bible in both the NT & OT is absolutely unequivocal in its condemnation of all homosexual behaviour.

Those who say that they are Christian are only fooling themselves, because believing the bible should leave them in no doubt whatsoever that homosexual behaviour incurs the wrath of GOD because they are in total opposition to the mind of GOD.

Obedience to the Word of GOD isn鈥檛 moral persecution of nor is it homophobic it is simply obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ The Word, acquired behaviour which is in contradiction to the Word of GOD which is sinful should not be advocated as a way of life to do so is to disbelieve the Bible as the Word of GOD.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Homosexual behaviour is plainly the self centered pursuit of sinful pleasure in total opposition against the purpose of creation; unrepentant sinners cannot have fellowship with GOD or with other Christian believers.

Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him. the door or salvation is shut to unrepentant sinners regardless of what that sin is, Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The problem is that "the church" is so lost in religion that it has lost it christian values!

Christian Hippy, PB and other fundamentalists:

Let me pose you a scenario. Say I am a Christian whose only sexual attraction is to the same sex. What is it that you think I should do with my sexuality throughout my life? Try to ignore it? Try to rebuke it or change it or repress it? Pray for a hormonal miracle? In the event that it never changes, should I live a life of celibacy? Maybe force upon myself heterosexual relations, distasteful and awkward and repellent as it might be to me? Possibly live a lie in this regard? And which would be preferable to you: that I allow myself to accept my sexual orientation for what it is and accept the necessity of sharing my sexuality with same sex partners, or that I commit suicide as so many of my fellow gay people have done for lack of being able to share such love? If the latter is a true dichotomy, as many gays attest that it is, will you accept the necessity of my lifestyle and stop attacking me for it?

Until you can accept that such questions do not have black and white answers but rather shades of gray, and until you can wrestle with them theologically and deal with the very real nature of the issues facing gay Christians, you're in no position to make the kind of sweeping judgements that you have.

Finally I'd like to point out that the practical upshot of your approach to homosexuality is that gay people do not become Christians very often. Not only is this an undeniable fact; it is directly due to the judgement that people with your theological outlook make upon them and their lifestyle. Assuming that you subscribe to traditional evangelical 'justification by faith', your choice, therefore, is this:

1) Change your approach.

or

2) Accept that the souls of millions of gay people will be lost for eternity as a result of their not being accepted by the church because they wish to express the sexuality they were given for the "blink of an eye" that they are on earth.

What say ye?

I'm afraid to say that this report is rather like the Curate's Egg - good in parts. William is right that there is a clear tension between progressive, and less progressive elements within the Panel that produced it.

On the positive side, the more progressive panel members have made some constructive input in terms of 'safe spaces' and the need for repentance with regards to homophobic language (while not naming it as such).

Unfortunately it is not all positive. Fr Anonymous is right to flag up that the theology underpinning it is almost thirty years old and therefore thirty years out of date.

The refusal to acknowledge gay people as being gay will no doubt prolong the hurt and anger that the mainstream churches have caused and continue to cause. The insistence on the use of the phrase "people with same sex attractions" on the grounds that sexuality is only one part of a person's identity is a little ironic as The Presbyterian Church in Ireland not only defines its religion, but also its denomination and geographical location within its own title. You would never hear PCI refer to itself as "people with theistic beliefs"!

The whole 'repariative therapy' and 'possession' side to the report does nothing to help the Presbyterian Church to build bridges between itself and the gay community. To say that LGBT people are in need of a cure is a most insulting way to approach the issue.

All in all, while small steps have been taken, the Presbyterian Church is on a long and painful journey to try and drag itself into the 21st Century. I fear that the well used cliche is true: "I don't struggle with my sexuality. YOU struggle with it". I only hope that PCI has the courage to face up to its mistakes and to start treating EVERYONE equally under God.

PB,

still claiming Homosexuality is a disorder?

You couldn't counter my arguments here

/blogs/ni/2007/03/primate_of_homophobia.html

Post 50 contains info on the delisting of Homosexuality as a disorder by the APA. You readi t at the time (only a few weeks ago) Why are you pretending you didn't see this info? Maybe you need a reminder... Maybe you are just entrenched in dogma?

I have been attending a Presbyterian Church for a few months and am considering becoming a communicant member of the church. I have gay friends and I love them very much. I will wait to see what happens when this report goes to the general assembly but I will certainly not be joining PCI if this report is agreed by the assembly. This is embarrassing and I have no conception of the mind behind it: it's disgraceful that this report manages to be so offensive when the who point of the exercise was to respond to homophobia. I am ashamed at the moment to be associated with the Presbyterian church.

I am very grateful to Gee Dubyah [Posting 35] for showing me the sort of person PB actually is.

Why is that so many of the pro-Gay people are prepared, like me, to give their full names - whereas PB and others prefer secrecy? What have they got to hide?

PB, I am still flabbergasted by your smug self-praise [Posting 13]: "And I have consistently been the only person in my office to defend a colleague from homophobic abuse for some 12 months."

Why have you allowed this illegal situation to continue for "some 12 months"? Why have you not helped your abused colleague to bring a case against those in your office waging this homophobic campaign? When exactly (if ever) do you intend to inform this victim that you will back her / him up at the tribunal? Could it be that the victim sees no point in bringing a case, because he / she thinks you won't help?

Your behaviour reminds me of Jesus's Parable of the man robbed on the road to Damascus, and how many God-fearing believers "passed by on the other side." Your poor colleague is more in need of a Good Samaritan than of a "Good Christian" like you.

If you are too craven to back up your poor colleague, at least direct this victim to me, and I will assist her / him to seek justice.

Either you are part of the Solution, PB - or you are part of the Problem.

Until you can assure me that you've banished homophobia from your office I will be unable to discuss anything else seriously with you.

Cordially,

P A MagLOCHLAINN
(Out and Proud to be Gay)
=========================

I would quite like to know how Mr. Crawley obtained this; the man who wrote it (No, it wasn't a committee) had not yet brought it to the General Assembly.

Reply to #38

Anonymous, what kind of wuestion is that? It's obvious that someone leaked the report to the 麻豆约拍 isn't it? The media often publish leaked socuments and reports; it's kinda what they do! I wouldn't get upset that the report's been published here. Get upset about the fact that it's a disgraceful report!

You say the man who wrote it ... It may have been written by one person, but it is the report of a Panel, so it's reasonable to desribe it as the work of that panel.

Feel free to name the guy who wrote the report; Will hasn't named him here yet (probably to save the guy from embarrassment!!).

Dear William,

I'm sorry if my outraged appeal to PB has upset other posters. I note, sadly, how no other "Christian" has a word of support for my stance.

I can't see Christ in any of today's churches; I follow Him by trying to help others, especially by speaking up for the oppressed. And no child in Northern Ireland today is more the butt of bullying and oppression than the LGBT child. As a result, LGBT youngsters are many times more liable to commit suicide than any other group in society.

What comfort does this Report offer to that child? When will the churches publicly seek forgiveness for their part in this holocaust?

I am still prepared to consider other people's opinions and engage in discussion - but I have as little time for time-wasters as Christ had for the Pharisees of His day.

"How long, O Lord, how long?"

Cordially,

P A MagLOCHLAINN
================

P.A.,

I am a Christian and I oppose homophobia. I support equal rights for gay people in the church and in society. I am not the only straight Christian who is pro-gay. You have more friends than you realise. I encourage others who agree to add there comment here and let's show gay people like P.A. that being Christian does not mean being homophobic.

David #41,
P.A. #40-

Of all the comments posted on this thread so far, only a relative few seem to be happy with the PCI report as it is. That should give you a good indication of how many of us here have already displayed our opposition to homophobia in the church and in society, and who see gay people as equals. My own challenge addressed to "Christian Hippy, PB and other fundamentalists" (#33) has gone unanswered. I guess I just asked too difficult a question.

Sometimes I wonder what defines "being Christian". For me, amongst many other things, it means respecting the integrity of each and every individual,recognising, understanding and celebrating difference, loving your neighbour, being supportive when someone is in difficulty,being loyal and trustful; and trusting in your faith and judgement helped by guidance from Our Lord to do all of these things and many more. Salvation is not a one-off event; it should happen every time you are faced with choice. Keeping the faith is always a struggle; it is meant to be bloody difficult.
I cannot abide people who on first meeting me tell me they are a Christian; it sometimes means that they are hiding something. I sometimes say into myself "I would like to see the proof, but it is not for me to judge". I have to stop myself, in case I am missing something, in case I lose my humility.
So when any of you "Christians" of the smug variety criticise me for being who I am, created gay not by my choice, please pause, think, follow the example of Our Lord, try to get to know me as a person, and not as a sexual being only, and ask yourselves how you would react if a son, daughter, brother or sister was gay. Would you pass by on the other side, when someone you should love is abused, shunned and wounded because of their sexuality. And is it not ironic that some of the Christian churches and other faiths will not meet us, answer calls or reply to emails: YES, I demand the proof that you are Christians!
Do as Jesus did, reach out to those you may not understand, read your Bibles intelligently, and for goodness sake, don't forget that these scripts were written almost 2000 years ago in a different place, time and culture, and with little understanding of genes, nuture, socialogy, science. Think, understand, reach out and empathise. If Jesus could do it, so can you!

Can someone PLEASE write to these people and let them know that they need to review this report before publishing it? I'd hate for such good work to miss out the massive positive impact it should get, without its authors knowing the changes WE NEED to accept it.

x M

I think allot of people need to seriously consider just what is a Christian! We have no right to define what we consider Christian or how to be a Christian from our own personal experience or thought! WE ARE ALL SINNERS!!! Fallen IN EVERYWAY from what God intended at creation! That means are minds, emotions and yes our desires as well! Christianity is defined by the BIBLE!! The truth of GODS WORD TO GODS WORLD! That and that alone must determine who is a Christian and how they must live!
The Bible is clear homosexuality is a sin, it goes against the very created order which God appointed. There is no argument!!! If someone has Homosexual tendencies then they need to be addressed like any other sin is addressed! By repentance by bringing that aspect of life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ to conform to HIS REVEALED PLAN IN SCRIPTURE.
I fear that militant pro gay culture is being accepted as divine truth by some people, and other just don't want to have to repent! but then that's understandable because "men love darkness". I hope the Presbyterian Church has the backbone to stand up for the Gospel on this issue and not bow the knee to this minority view that homosexual practice is "natural".

Has anyone else noticed this strange law of literature:

The more conservative a commentator is, the worse their command of English is.

The more liberal a commentator is, the better their command of English is.

When Fundamentalists comment, their language is barely intelligible. They SHOUT, they mangle grammar and syntax, and they abuse punctuation appallingly.

It's almost as if a particular theological view of the world was a function of a person's educational background.

Could it really be as simple as that?

Nononymous, Mr.Crawley could only have obtained this report if A) Someone at church house gave it to him, or B) if he had access to Church house computers (which he may have, considering that he himself is an ordained presbyterian minister). The media didn't have a copy. And the panel didn't really have much to do with the report. The fact that this report had not been brought to the general assembly before it was posted here means it is NOT, and CANNOT be referred to as the stand the Presbyterian church as a whole takes on homophobia. I can also assure you that the man who wrote this is not ashamed or embarassed of this report, and neither am I. I agree with it, personally. The bible tells us to go forth and multiply; homosexuality does not allow this. Please, do not misunderstand me, I understand that gays have very little if any control over their sexuality, but as has been mentioned, many homosexuals have been made heterosexual, many of these through help from various churches.

Come off it Anonymous. Catch a grip. It's a leaked report from a church, it's hardly big news mate. It's a Presbyterian panel's report that could soon become the agreed report of the general assembly. Get over yourself. The report is there and if you are on the panel you are partly responsible for it.

As for your "go forth an multiply" comment, that is so neandethal it doesn't deserve comment. Your views here are a perfect example of the kind of culture gay people should AVOID in Presbyterian churches. That's an abusive and condemnatory culture and gay people should protect themselves from people like you - they ahould stay away from your church because gays are clearly not welcome there.

You're still defending conversion therapies? At least read what the professional medical and psychological societies have to say about that kind of abusive experimentation on people. You are a disgrace.

Anonymous #47 says: "The bible tells us to go forth and multiply; homosexuality does not allow this."

How so?

PB has still not answered my appeal, so it appears his colleague will get no help from him. So much for those who "hunger and thirst after justice"!

Only one other "Christian" voice has supported my call for justice for PB's colleague.

I am heartened by the true sincerity and humility shown in postings from those who condemn this report as it stands.

Anonymous, however, says that he and the Report's Author, are neither ashamed nor embarassed [Posting 47]. Well, they should be! Why, for example, has neither of them answered a single one of Angela's questions [Posting 10]?

I suspect it is because they can't.

Cordially,

P A MagLOCHLAINN
================

I doubt that this report will have any real impact at all within the rank and file of the Presbyterian Church membership, it will be a complete waste of time bringing it to the attention of the General Assembly, who have more important issues to expend their hot air on, Presbyterians at large will not be interested in this report because the subject matter bears no significance to the congregational life of the church, And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. This report being selective and discriminatory towards all sinners who are not homosexual who attend the Presbyterian Church, giving preference to one particular group above all other sinners, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Over the past twenty or so years, Presbyterian ministers at large have neglected the historical duty of pastoral visitation and care which is now bearing fruit which is being reflected in the failing numbers who attend church meaning that churches are closing. So why should one particular group be selected out for special pastoral care, the Presbyterian General Assembly needs to look at its overall policy of pastoral care for the church at large instead of being politically correct in the eyes of the world due to pressure emanating from outside the church and from the liberals within.
The liberals within the church cannot rewrite the Word of God to justify being political correct, to do so is to infect the church with radical secularism, nor can they rewrite science books to defend the false notion of a gay gene it is simply not proven that homosexual orientation is determined at birth. No genetic explanation is forthcoming in this respect. Nor can sin be split into two classes; sin is sin, the splitting of sin is the work of the Roman Catholic Church, venial and mortal; the wages of sin is death. The simple fact that the undiscerning Christian in his sleepy sickness needs to wake up to the fact that the world has no place in the church, the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. the way of the world is not the way of the Body of Christ, habitual sin is unacceptable in the life of the true believer, sin in the life of the true believer has to be mortified, For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. The church is dying on its feet because it is trying to live after the ways of the world , the world in the church needs to be put to death. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Christian Hippy- In #33 I issued you a challenge which you've ignored. Can't you answer the question?

I have answered you John, Saturday 19th, but the 麻豆约拍 in their political correctness, have preferred not to publish my comment. Which proves my point that the media have a liberal agenda? To declassify homosexuality as sin by reclassifying it as a human rights issue.

Being gay is being diametrically opposed to Christianity, there is no such thing as a gay Christian, that is an incongruity, but if a homosexual does have a conversion experience, they will know the truth and the truth will set them free" from their bondage, there will be a complete turn around, instead of their tents being pitched toward Sodom they will be facing towards heaven.

Sin in the life of a true believer must be , and the mortification of sin (a forgotten doctrine) isn't a doctrine to nourish the body's of the unregenerate.

Christian Hippy- I'm just sorry that I didn't get to see your response to the questions I asked in #33. I'm sure that would have entirely justified your approach.

Another time.

GW, PA et al...

GW
You quoted several papers; one swallow does not make a spring ergo you have proven nothing. There are many activist researchers in this field.

The facts I have shown above clearly show the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder under political pressure, not because of research.

If you can clearly show the research they based their decision on we will all be very interested.

This was the landmark event that brought most other mental health groups into line, through activism.

PA - there were several reasons I did not pursue this matter. I spoke to the victim in private and he was adamant he would not do it. I assured him he had an open and shut case but that was his decision, he had no intention of pursuing it.

The other reason was that the perpetrator was the son of the boss.

I dont hold my behaviour up as perfect, I am just making the point that I am against abusing gay people verbally or physically.

This does not preclude factual discussion on sexuality.

Stephen in Antrim
Yes you are right, there are more straight paedos than gay paedos in absolute terms.

However it is my understanding the ratios show there is a significantly bigger % of the gay community who are paedos that of the straight community.

The point is that biblically once we indulge in one sin we open ourselves up to others. It seems clear to me that it is the norm in the gay community to break down sexual taboos, much moreso than with straights.

If I am being unfair;- why has PA, above, not clarified his stance on dogging in N Ireland?????????

If you read what I have said carefully I have not recommended any conversion therapy as I am not qualified to do so.

I am saying that so many gays have gone straight without therapy, as PA says himself above, it is only fair that equal support is give to those who wish to come out as those who wish to come in.

Can you pretend that Andy Comiskey's life didnt happen?

Otherwide you are discriminating on grounds of desired sexuality and removing freedom of choice and information to those gay folk who fervently desire the opposite.

You are advocating censorship and against empowerment of gay folk to make fully informed decisions about their lives.

sincerely
PB