No room at the inn

This incident highlights the sad truth that increasingly in the so called secular liberal society Bible believing Christians & their views are persona non grata. As post-Christian Britain descends further into Godlessness we can expect the continuing advancement of the pro-homosexual agenda as well as the ongoing demonisation of Boble believers.
Christians currently are routinely mocked, ridiculed, & vilified. Worse is to come.

@ Ian Hall - Try a Google search for a local 12 Step Program that can help with that.

I have just watched a brilliant and moving presentation by Sam Harris at TED:

Science can answer moral questions

"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life"

Sam Harris' arguments have some serious logical flaws. The way he uses science to answer moral questions assumes certain moral values already. He using science to help answer moral questions, but it is not the foundation of his ethical system e.g. he seems to assume that human wellbeing is a good thing to aim for.

In other words, Harris isn't doing anything new by using science; he's just kidding himself and his audience by saying that science is his foundation when it's not - some sort of teleological system of ethics is.

LucyQ : your patronizing comments are unwelcome. Furthermore your characterisation of the B&B owners as 'vile' is in my judgement incitement to hatred.
I shall be registering a complaint concerning your comments.

JB

If it was your and your wife's B&B, would you have accomdated them?

No Bible believing Christian could in conscience do anything other than what the B&B owners did. Personally I'd happily go to jail before facilitating this sort of sin.

Ian

Even if it meant sharing your cell with another man?

What a wonderful amount of repression syndrome on display by christians in this thread. Oh, I do love the sound of hungry lions tearing meat from bones in the morning.:D

I suppose their views are facing a bit of pressure. And they are being ridiculed. As they should. Keep it up LucyQ. Can't say I always consider your posts deeply intellectual gems but it would seem to me your heart and mind are mostly in the right place. No need to feel unwelcome here, despite what some christians say.

Always better to do what's right before God regardless of the consequences.

Ian,
You have no evidence that a sin was going to be committed, unless sleeping in the same bed is now a sin, which would technically make two brothers sleeping in the same bed incest. Similarly the owners have no way of knowing whether heterosexual couples were sinning under their roof unless they policed their sexual activity and checked their marriage status and history.

I have heard several church leaders express their view that homosexuals should not be discriminated against as it is the sexual act, not the sexuality which is the sin. These men are being discriminated against because of their sexuality not for what they may or may not do because the owners have no knowledge of that. That discrimination is illegal, just like it is now illegal to ban Blacks, Coloured and Irish, or do you still support that?

RJB post 12, best post of this thread sofar, lol. And thanks.:)

PetrKlaver : And what a striking display of hatred for Christians is on display from 'tolerant' liberals.

The only sane comment that has been made here is the last paragraph of Jonathan's post(3)and in particular the last sentence.

#17
Ian, it’s not hatred…. It’s simply a matter of a struggle to understand the mindset. I do not hate the Taleban or the Ku Klux Klan but I struggle to tolerate their beliefs and actions.

Kind regards
DK

#15 Golfie : Pure straw man argumentation. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, being Black etc clearly isn't.

#17 David Kerr : describing the B&B owners as 'nasty folk' and 'vile' is evidence of hatred.
Oh and don't think we haven't noticed your none too subtle and utterly ludicrous attempt to liken UK Bible believers to an extreme Islamic group and a American racist organisation. Nice try.

No Bible believing Christian could in conscience do anything other than what the B&B owners did. Personally I'd happily go to jail before facilitating this sort of sin.

Well, despite your apocalyptic visions of leather clad deviants grinding the righteous under the heels of their well polished boots while the police cheer them on (I'm guessing, of course), you wouldn't have to submit yourself to the tender of mercies of the temporarily gay inmates of Her Majesty's Institutions. The police have said it's a civil matter.

Golfie, to a certain extent I agree with you - as I hope I've indicated in the final paragraph of post 3. However, it would be somewhat naive to think that a couple identifying themselves as romantically entangled (in a hetro or homo way) and asking for a room with a double bed, doesn't have sex as a possible recreational activity. In fact it would seem that this was a point the owners focused on. If they had asked for two single rooms (maybe even a room with two single beds), I would imagine that the owners wouldn't have had a problem with them staying. Certainly I hope they wouldn't have.


RJB, as I hope would be clear from my comments to Golfie, I would have no problem with a gay couple staying in my hypothetical B&B, as long as they stayed in separate rooms like any other unmarried couple. A couple of years ago I was away for the weekend with my church and there was a couple connected with the congregation who weren't married but were sleeping together. They were warmly welcomed on the weekend and stayed in separate rooms. I'd hope that the same would have been true if they had been a gay couple.

Good to see the Christian Institue helping this faithful couple who are suffering for Christ in this intolerant, illiberal, secularist age.

#20 Ian Hall
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Why do people continue to pedal this nonsense. Can you simply not accept the evidence given by experts that homosexuality is normal.
The summary of the results of the biggest peer review of data by the American Psychological Society is here in a pretty concise Q&A

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

The UK equivalent body has similar data available and draws the same conclusions, as is true of any country where the data has been examined free from prejudice.

#22 JB
Would it also be OK then for catholics to deny protestants a marital bed as it is somewhat likely that they might use contraception, a sin. Can christians refuse people who pray to other gods than theirs, as this breaks the first commandment. Is it OK for people who believe that the scripture supports the view that interracial marriage is wrong allowed to discriminate against interracial couples. Or is it only the sin of same sex sex (with maybe a bit of fornication banning to take the bad look off it) which is regarded as worthy of discrimination. My understanding of the list of sins which are all on an equal footing is quite long so why the focus on sexual rules and homosexuality in particular.

Ian Hall, post 17,

Maybe you should follow RJBs example and grow some sense of humour about these things.

And David Kerrs comparison to the KKK isn't that far-fetched. Apart from being a racist group, they are also devoutly christian in character. Meet for instance the head of the Knights of the KKK, Baptists minister pastor Thomas Robb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmHNzF9MaNY

Golfie, there are degrees of certainty, degrees of importance and degrees of reasonableness all to consider. You cannot be held accountable for all the actions of someone you how hospitality to. I think that refusing to provide a room with a double bed for unmarried couples is reasonable because it's easy to tell that they're unmarried and giving them a room could imply endorsement of their likely activities. Offering them separate rooms would allow hospitality to be shown while taking a stand on a matter of conscience.

Perhaps the difference lies in the publicness of the action. Use of contraception and person prayer are quite private acts, whereas sharing a room with a double bed is a relatively public one - certainly it is one which the owners will be fully aware of.

Regarding the equality of sins, every sin is sufficiently bad to separate a person from God and place them in danger of Hell. Some sins are highlighted as worse than others, possibly with worse punishments - Jesus seems to pick out sins against children - however to my knowledge, no great differentiation is made between various sexual sins; they all fall under the category of sexual immorality.

Incidentally, isn't your comment 'with maybe a bit of fornication banning to take the bad look off it' rather pejorative? Assuming that someone who disapproves of homosexual acts will lie about their stance on other areas of sexual morality to look better? Isn't that a form of discrimination based on a belief about a group of people? Isn't that bigotry under your definition? How about we stick to established facts, rather than casting aspersions.

PK, it's very easy to laugh when you're the one making the insulting comments. Somewhat harder when you're on the receiving end. I imagine that if RJB is standing should to shoulder with anyone here, it would be the mockers rather than the Christians.

Regarding the KKK, saying that it's a throughly Christian organisation apart from being racist is a rather absurd comment. It's very nature makes it antithetical to Christianity. Saying that a baptist minister is its head is no more than an appeal to authority. The only way to back up such a wild claim would be to compare the beliefs and actions of the KKK with Christianity. Professing Christians being involved doesn't make the organisation Christian; it more likely means that those Christians are inconsistent and hypocritical. Take for example the Israelites in the Old Testament and their syncretistic worship. When they made sacrifices to Asherah, that didn't make Asherah worship a Jewish thing to do - it made those involved inconsistent and unfaithful. Alternatively, look at the child abuse scandal in the RC church. Is child abuse a Christian activity because it has been perpetrated by members of the church? Or is a demonstration of hypocrisy and unfaithfulness?

I suppose I could be wrong, but this incident has all the hallmarks of a 'set-up', designed to embarrass a B&B owner who holds to Christian princples. It seems that the men identified themselves as being in a relationship which she rightly regarded as being unnatural and immoral, and which she therefore could not in conscience permit to take place in her home.

This appears to be a further pursuit of an item on the anti-christian agenda of the 'gay rights' lobby, which cannot stomach freedom of conscience for Christian people, who hold to the teaching of Scripture that homosexual behaviour is sinful and therefore cannot be condoned.

Are we really to believe that John and Michael chose this particular B&B by accident?

Hello Jonathan,

"Regarding the KKK, saying that it's a throughly Christian organisation apart from being racist is a rather absurd comment. It's very nature makes it antithetical to Christianity."

Its nature is the antithesis of YOUR flavour of christianity. For them they go hand in hand, in the same way that the bible went hand in hand with apartheid in South Africa a few decades ago. I'll grant you that I phrased it too broad, I should have distinguished between the different flavours within the wide spectrum that makes up christianity, not paint them all with the same brush.

"Professing Christians being involved doesn't make the organisation Christian;"........"Alternatively, look at the child abuse scandal in the RC church. Is child abuse a Christian activity because it has been perpetrated by members of the church?"

I'll agree that just the fact that mostly christians make up an organisation doesn't make that organisation christian. But in case of the KKK it isn't just that practically all members are christian, it was founded very explicitly as a christian organisation and christianity is deeply ingrained in just about every aspect of it.

The central issue really is in the fact that the both the media and the anti-Christian public are seeking to use whatever ammunition it can get to oppose and belittle the beliefs of Christians.
At one time,I had neighbours who were homosexuals but I didn't run to the council or local authorities to have them evicted.
The folks who own the guest house are simply saying that they won't offer facilities to support those who 'might'or 'might not' use their facilities for homosexual activity...why not try and see it from owners point of you for a change and RESPECT their beliefs.

According to The Christian Institute website, "She politely explained that the guest house has a policy of not offering double beds to homosexual couples." It certainly sounds like this B&B discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation. There is no indication that the owners have a policy of only allowing married couples to share rooms at their B&B. I think Jonathan Boyd is right to say that the Christian owners are "homophobic" if they excluded unmarried gay couples but did not exclude unmarried heterosexual couples. On the other hand, I doubt that the Christian owners of the B&B would recognise gay civil partners as comparable to a legitimate couple either. To most people, this looks like a simple case of discrimination.

JR, a cvil partnership isn't equivalent to a marriage, therefore it would be reasonable to treat such a couple in the same way as a straight unmarried couple.

Even if most people think this looks like a simple case of discrimination, most people aren't in full possession of the facts and are simply being judgemental of the start labelling the owners and arguably bigoted against conservative Christians. The fact that the owners told a homosexual couple that that they have a policy against giving double beds to homosexual couples tells you nothing about the rest of their policies. All they did was highlight the policy relevant to the case.

Additionally, it can't be discrimination against the people themselves or their identity as homosexuals because they would have been offered single rooms if they had been available. Certain activities were prohibited, but there is nothing to suggest that homosexuals could not stay in the guest house.

"Would it also be OK then for catholics to deny protestants a marital bed as it is somewhat likely that they might use contraception, a sin."

Not a bad point, that. Where do we draw the line?

There's something to be said for the right to your own opinion under your own roof. But you can't invite anyone who'll pay to stay under your roof, add conditions after they arrive, and not expect to cause offence.
I can't say that I've a lot of sympathy - but a police investigation seems to be a waste of resources. And the subsequent campaign against the Wilkinsons seems to be OTT.
Suppose the Wilkinson's had advertised as a Christian B&B, or a Christian Family B&B. (Or a Roman Catholic B&B). Would that have made any legal difference? Any ethical difference?
If the Wilkinsons had also turned unmarried heterosexual couples away, would that have been a legal issue?
GV

It appears I cannot link to a pdf file,

here is the link to the American Psychology Association research results I mentioned earlier, which I commend to Ian.

https://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

Interestingly while I was looking around the web I found a research paper on Ekklesia which takes this subject, facts of homosexuality and another subject being discussed - what Jesus/god said about homosexuality and discusses them in tandem. It also discusses other objections and myths about homosexuality (not bible based). As far as I am aware it is written by christians, and is current as it is to be presented at a conference over the next week.

https://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11195

It at least shows that some christians have the capacity to open there minds to possibilities and that they can recognise the churches own failings. JB, you may find it connects to some of what we have discussed and I can see many elements of your much more supportive/caring views on homosexuality within it. I wouldn't accept 100% of it, and would not expect anyone to, but I found it a very interesting read. It could occupy a whole thread of its own lol

In other words, I think that Morgan and Black are right to take their chances in court, and sue. They were caused unnecessary offence. Some modest sanction seems appropriate.

And the Wilkinsons will have their day in court to defend their decision to turn Mr Black and Mr Morgan away.

Police involvement just seems sinister, to be honest. The Wilkinsons and Harry Taylor at Liverpool Airport all thought that they were within their rights. They acted foolishly. But should all three face ruin -
merely for being offensive?

GV
GV

Brian Thomas

Given the Harry Taylor case, it seems more like a case of the Police enforcing the opinions of Middle English voters.

GV

Brian Thomas,
It is probably truer to say, the non christian public and the state are reminding you that the beliefs of a christian sect are not paramount in law, have no jurisdiction outside the sect and civil law outweighs your beliefs.
The civil law is for everyone irrespective of their beliefs, beliefs are for those to subscribe to them. In any conflict between the two civil law takes precedence. That does not mean you cannot act against civil law in line with your conscience, it just means you have to accept the consequences.

Golfie

The civil law cannot make people civil. You're asking the law to make everyone's opinions sane, and everyone's manners exemplary. That isn't the law's role.
And as it happens, not only do I disagree with the 'Ekklesia' document, I find it poorly argued and condescending. Do I belong to a "sect" if I hold such opinions? Should the civil law prevent me stating opinions like that in my home? In my Church? In conversation with friends? Where is the line between private and public space?

Jonathan
"Certain activities were prohibited, but there is nothing to suggest that homosexuals could not stay in the guest house."
Which is a fair point...however the Wilkinsons left themselves open by not being clear in their advertising, and by never asking that heterosexual couples sharing a bed be married. They acted foolishly. I would worry about the subsequent campaign against the Wilkinsons. I'm bewildered at Police involvement. But in the absence of further evidence I must assume that Michael Black and John Morgan acted in good faith and were caused needless offence.

Nobody denies that this Christian couple have religious beliefs about homosexuality. That's not the issue. The issue is whether someone can use their religious beliefs as a defence for discriminating against a gay couple. The new Equality law is very clear about that. Shouldn't a Christian abide by the law of the land? The law is not requiring the couple to agree with homosexuality or to share a bed with the couple. It simple says, if you want to run a B&B as a commercial venture in the UK, you must not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

In the past, we had some B&Bs refuse to accommodate mixed-ethnicity couples on the basis that the owners believed those "mixed-race" relationships were immoral. That is now illegal, and rightly so. What if a Christian owner of a B&B believed the Bible prohibits mixed-race relationships (as some Christians have historically held, and as a minority of fundamentalist Christians, including Bob Jones University, still believe)? Should those Christians be allowed to discriminate against mixed-race couples on the basis that they have religious beliefs? Of course not. No-one in this thread would support that. So why are people supporting the same kind of conviction-based discrimination against gay people? It's no longer OK to discriminate against mixed-race couples, but it's still OK to discriminate against same-sex couples.

I appeal to my fellow Christians to stop using the Bible as a cloak to hide homophobia. You can preach and teach what the Bible says about sex, but it is wrong to discriminate against gays when it comes to commercial activities. Those who defend that discrimination need to face up to their own attitudes and how those attitudes are bringing the Christian faith into dispute across the country.

To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, it is to show love and grace and hospitality, even to strangers, even to aliens, even to gay people. If you turn a stranger away from your door, what does that say about your faith? Better to take the gay couple in, give them shelter and a bed for the night, treat them with grace, as Christ treats us with grace.

Here is a bit of good news for those who have extreme phobias:

Fear of spiders, sharks, snakes, heights and other phobias could be cured by a simple injection which prevents people from learning to be afraid, claim scientists.

"Scientists claim that because fear is a learned habit, they could be able to switch off the part of the brain that generates those emotions with a simple jab."

Who teaches hatred of the other? That is the crux of the question.

People are free to invite their friends for dinner or to sleep over and even give them an invoice if they wish. Once anyone opens a business to the public then the law must prevail as it protects all equally.

Sin, what the heck does that word mean other than a simple subjective description of what you feel is offensive. I think it's a sin to put mayonnaise on French fries yet others do it.

Ann Coulter is a person with extreme and nasty views. She is currently speaking at some Canadian universities:

"Ms. Coulter also told an audience in London, Ont., she thinks feminists, gays and illegal aliens all want to be black as they complain their rights are being attacked in the same way the rights of African-Americans once were."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/ann-coulter-attacks-gays-and-muslims-tories-attack-medical-doctor/article1508955/

Some may buy her books, they are popular in the less sophisticated, remote, rural areas of the USA however thankfully that kind of hysteria is considered foul by those who embrace human rights and gender equality.

Some of the comments here make me wonder and wish that everyone would learn a bit about Human Sexuality 101. A couple of years ago I saw a fantastic exhibit at the Museum of Sex in New York, New York.

Kung poo panda:
“The Sex Lives of Animals,” opening Thursday 24 at the Museum of Sex, aims to enlighten the public on the non-reproductive carnal proclivities of nature’s creatures."

It is more than clear that many need to opt out of religion class and take up science to have a better understanding about us human animals and other species.
https://newyork.timeout.com/articles/own-this-city/42121/kung-poo-panda

Okay. Out of sheer cussedness I'll argue against myself.

Suppose a young man and two women (vary the genders if you like) had requested a double bed. Would the Wilkinsons have the right to refuse in that instance?

GV

LucyQ

To be accurate, we have good news for gold fish. Humans have to wait for the sweet bye and bye when simple injections will cure all ills, cause lions to lie down with lambs and rid society of old people.

GV

Joseph

That might be worth responding to on the "How (not) To Talk to Each Other Thread". We can take the discussion there if you like. Or maybe that's all you wanted to say.

GV

GV,
I don't for a moment suggest that civil law makes people civil, or is some panacea. Maybe I should just stick to the term law. I merely state its precedence and a persons right to object, but take the consequences.

Should the law stop you from holding and expressing opinions in your home, church etc. no! But if you harass or incite to hatred or violence in the way you express these opinions then you may find yourself subject to the law. I am not suggesting you personally would do that, merely trying to explain that it is not a line between private and public, but more of a definition of free expression and the responsibilities and consequences it brings.

2 examples of beliefs which if expressed in these terms to day I think would get anyone in hot water anywhere, depending on the audience, not the place.

Roddenbery Congressional Record. 1912 creation of laws to ban interracial marriage

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"

and more recently in turning down the repeal on the ban on interracial marriage in 1965

Judge Leon Bazile 1965
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The first is hard to see now how anyone today could hold such a belief, the second (having visited southern states of the US) I am not so sure.

The question for us is should a B&B owner be allowed to act on (not hold) these type of beliefs when providing a service to the public in choosing who to allow to access that service. I think not, others here think they should.

On a side note I find the language very similar to that used to condemn homosexuality today


Do you belong to a sect?
What is the difference between a denomination and a sect? Are all religions and belief systems not sects from each others perspective, and also from the perspective of non believers.

I'll leave Ekklesia to its own thread.

LucyQ, a decade ago would have been sympathetic to view that homosexual activity is fine by God. Since then I've trained as a scientist, studied my Bible more carefully and found myself with a different view.

Sin appears to have lost its meaning in your life, however in the Christian/biblical context the words translated as sin, transgression, trespass, etc. have clearer defined meanings such as 'missing the mark.' I would be happy to elaborate further if you're genuinely interested.

Golfie, t looks like you've got that thread you laughed at! I've posted my opinions on the paper there.

GV, I haven't seen their advertising so I'm not at liberty to comment on it. It's quite possible that they never imagined that they would have to face the issue without it becoming clear over the phone. Which may well have been foolish.

JR, the equality law is not the sum total of the law. As the Christian Institute have pointed out, there are also laws protecting freedom of religion. Here the laws clash. Regarding the mixed race issue, there is a difference there because it is the identity of the person which is discriminated against, rather than an action.

I appeal to those who profess to be Christians to stop using grace as a cover for faithlessness. They cheapen the costliness of Christ's grace-winning actions by sanctioning that which he condemns, under the cloak of good-neighbourliness

That last paragraph sounds a little smug doesn't it? A little condescending? A little know-it-all? A little ungracious? Now read the last two paragraphs of your last post and explain how you were extending grace to your fellow Christians. Or is it simply the case that it's okay for you to criticise a moral stand your disagree with, but not okay for those you disagree with to do that same?

And once more the moderator kills the conversation!
Hooray!

@ GV, G & JB, what is the hold up with your posts? Man this is like being on a slow train from hellA to San Francisco and wishing that you were in a rent-a-car and flying on the freeway.

Here's another question for the mix.. What if a male-to-female transexual comes to a church service and needs to go to the loo,which loo should the deacon direct them to? allowing for arguements' sake that the deacon knows who they are.. or what about a transvestite aswell?
does anyone know what the law is concerning this? Would a church be descriminating against a person for not allowing them access to the washroom of their choice?

LucyQ, there are worse things that a train to San Francisco. Like an NIR train to Larne. Even worse is getting off at Mossley West in pitch dark when you meant to change at Central for Holywood.

That's a fair point Will. I'm so used to people dragging racism into the discussion that I didn't do this particular point justice.

JR, you made a better point than I initially allowed for. Sorry for writing it off so quickly. First of all, I think that anyone who took such a view would be gravely mistaken in their application of the Bible, though whether they are right or wrong isn't necessarily the determining factor.

I guess the difference between the situations is that the people are already married in the mixed-race instance. If you let them stay, that doesn't make them more or less married. In the case of sexual activity, that is an act which can be enabled or prevented depending on whether you provide two rooms or one. In the first instance, you can tolerate the would-be guests without condoning their behaviour, whereas in the second, providing a different room in effect condones sexual activity.

A better comparison might be the question of whether someone who disapproves of inter-racial marriage should be able to withhold services relating to the act of getting married. Does that make sense?

I probably shouldn't detract from the seriousness of the argument but the incident makes me recollect an experience of my own from a few years back.

I had neglected to book a room for a conference in a town/city here in our own beloved province, couldn't get one anywhere when I tried, and consequently took up the offer from an entirely heterosexual colleague to share the family room he had obtained in a B&B within staggering distance of the conference hotel. We travelled together and, on arrival, the proprietor looked us up and down and said, as greeting, "You're just too late, you've missed him. We had that Titti von Tramp (a drag queen) staying here - he'd be one of your lot!" I have to admit to being rather tickled at the misapprehension especially as we hadn't a false eyelash between us. We passed the conference without adding a Biblical dimension to our knowledge of each other, our host was extremely genial throughout and, when we were leaving, wished us farewell with "One thing I have to give you lot, you know how to drink."

To be honest the couple should have looked for a "Gay friendly" guest house and Susanne Wilkinson should find ways to articulate that her 'inn' is, for whatever reason, unwelcoming to our equals in the gay community. The whole story reminds me of a similar tale involving a christian guest house owner and a muslim guest, not so long ago.

I really do not wish to cause offence with what I am about to say but believe it adds to the discussion. Others might expect christians to welcome and give shelter to all because they are reputed to be of good character. However, as I do not exactly buy into the rebranded 'good' image, I would actually expect a true follower of christianity to adhere to his or her beliefs and to behave in the way various examples have behaved throughout the last two thousand years. I have very low expectations from this sect.


Regards
DK

Would the Wilkinson's have given Morcambe and Wise a room? That's what I'd like to know.

GV

To be clear, in this case

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-men-sue-guesthouse-over-double-rooms-policy/

I'm on the side of the guesthouse.

GV

Although the guesthouse in Cornwall would still have discriminated against Morcambe and Wise, which is a stepp too far in anyone's book.

Will

I take it that you're not making any statement about the rationality of those defending anti-miscegenation laws on theological grounds as compared to the rationality of those who object to homosexual relationships on theological grounds? (the Bible's witness against endogamy on racial grounds seems strong).
Rather, am I right in thinking that you're asking a *what if* question?

So suppose there was a group today who, say, had a religious or cultural objection to sexual relationships between members of their group and individuals outside their cultural group.
Suppose some members of that group owned a guest house. And they refused a married couple board as one partner belonged to their group and the other did not. In all conscience they could not "enable" what they believed was a "sin" or a "crime".
Now I think all the regular bloggers would be horrified. But is our horror enough to warrant a law that prevents a group behaving in this manner?
Does it make a difference if this group represents a majority of a nation? Or if it is a minority struggling to preserve it's identity. Say after years of oppression?
Suppose it wasn't a guest house. Suppose they were landlords. Should they have the right to evict tenants?

GV

Thanks for that link GV. This section seems particularly relevant to the discussion:
'Mr and Mrs Bull, who are being supported by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund, have hit the headlines in the past for turning down heterosexual couples who were not married.

At the time of the incident the guesthouse’s online booking page stated: “We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only.”

Mrs Bull, a 62-year-old great-grandmother, said: “I have had people clearly involved in affairs and under-age people who have tried to book in here for sex, and I have refused them the same as I refused these gentlemen because I won’t be a party to anything which is an affront to my faith under my roof.”'

The whole incident looks suspiciously like a Stonewall setup now, with the intent of ruining the livelihood of the owners.

GV, have a read at what you've just written. You've just made a case for the law allowing people to discriminate on race grounds. To answer your question: NO, landlords should not have the right to evict tenants because they belong to a different racial group, and NO, a guesthouse owner should not have the right to evict guests because they are from different racial groups or mixed-race couples.

Jonathan Boyd, note that GV's link relates to a DIFFERENT case, not the incident being discussed in this thread. But not also, that the mere fact that a hotel or guest house advertises in advance that they refuse to accommodate gay couples does not protect them from prosecution under the equality laws. Advertising your intention to break the law do not somehow make that breach of the law OK.

Why are Christian commentators on this blog rushing forward to defend someone's breaking of the law? Paul writes in Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

" You've just made a case for the law allowing people to discriminate on race grounds.... "

I haven't made a case for *anything* in that post Joe. (Except a defence of the Morcambe and Wise's sleeping arrangements). In fact I raised the issue of landlords to balance against the arguments I'd mentioned previously
I was throwing scenarios out for discussion. Devil's advocate, if you will... and in that spirit...
On your priniciples what would happen to the rights of, say, Native Americans to control their land, or Black Universities? Could a feminist organisation recruit females only? (I can't see why not).

In other words, I think this might be a complicated issue.

GV

Well spotted uncle Joe Ratzinger, that it is a different case. The names of the couple in this thread are Michael Black and John Morgan, those in the article Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy. So Jonathan Boyds suspicions of an organised Stonewall set-up in the case mentioned in this thread should probably be chalked up as a case of christian persecution syndrome, alongside pastorphilips post 29.

DK,
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have categories of guest house, gay friendly etc.

That is simply putting a warm glow round 'no gays here'.

The term gay friendly is a constant reminder that other places are not gay friendly and I would be in danger. You only have to be hit a few times before you need to seek out safety in Gay friendly places. It is an acceptance of discrimination and apartheid by the back door.

If I extrapolate from this, it is not too far to suggest that Shaun Fitzpatrick, murdered in a ally in Dungannon, should have gone to a gay friendly bar and not upset those two heterosexuals in their rightful place.

Why should anyone in this country have to check if they are welcome in a certain place before we go there. That is the purpose of the anti discrimination law. If you cannot run a business without discriminating against sections of the community, then don't do it.

JR, thanks for pointing out that it as different case. Looking at the date of the article, I forgot this is 2010, not 2009. As for the law, there are three important points to bear in mind:
1) There are laws protecting freedom of religion which potentially clash with the new equality laws.
2) There hasn't been a trial so it hasn't been established that anyone has broken the law.
3) Christians aren't told to blindly follow the law. Obedience is up to the point where you are ask to act against your faith. In that case, it is right to submit to the 'justice' of the authorities, but not necessarily to obey the law.

PK

I'm prepared to bet my jam doughnut that you haven't broken any rules, and that the mod has just missed your post.

GV

Thanks Will

Yes, just to be clear, I wouldn't want laws that allow people to be evicted for their sexuality.

I suppose I'm having an argument with myself on this thread - but here's another way of looking at the issue. Take a same sex couple. They have a right to privacy. No one should be asking what goes on in anyone's bedroom - unless they can give very good reasons.

So when do I have a right to ask what someone does in the privacy of their home? Do they have a right to privacy in *my* home? My Church? My business? My property?

And a question about civility/manners - Under what circumstances should I be allowed to express my opinions about what someone else does in the privacy of their home?

At this stage, in this post, I'm not making any arguments, or stating any position.

GV

GV

Yes, reading back it does look as if I was backing racial segregation! Thanks for the chance to clarify.
No, I was asking just how tolerant we can be of intolerance.And if guest house owners can refuse custom on conscience, where do we draw the line?

GV

(And does it make a difference if a minority wants to discriminate in this way? Rather than a tyrannical majority?)

PK, I couldn't remember the names of the people involved but saw that date 23 March and assumed that it was the same case. It was a bit stupid to not realise that this is 2010, not 2009 and that Cambridgeshire is not Cornwall, but we all make mistakes don't we? Hardly a case of Christian persecution complex.

Will, thanks for framing the debate around those more general issues. Sometimes the details can be a distraction.

I've already outlined why I think that mixed race and homosexual couples are different situations and would also be interested in hearing the opinions of others on that matter.

From a legal perspective, I have some sympathy for the view that you whatever control you should have of your own home doesn't necessarily extend to your business, even if it is in your house. I guess that raises the issue of whether people should be excluded from certain vocations because their beliefs are incompatible with the law. Hasn't that been an issue in the past few years with some items of abortion legislation?

Good point Golfie...... I am going to have to think long and hard about what I said and why I said it. You may well have fixed something that was broken in me. Thank you.

DK

Will, I may have misunderstood your original explanation of the miscegenation issue. I thought the objection was primarily to marriage, with sexual activity asa consequence. From what you're saying though, it does sound like an analogous situation, in which case the same reasoning would apply. I think that there should be scope for people conducting commercial affairs within the limits of their conscience. In the case of the mixed race scenario, I think that a reasonable compromise would be offering separate rooms, just as would be the case for a homosexual couple or an unmarried heterosexual couple.

I'm not condoning such a view of mixed race marriages, but just because I think they're wrong doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to have restrictions on who they conduct business with. To a certain extent, placing ethical limits on business is something that society generally approves of, e.g. companies getting their coffee from FairTrade sources, mutual societies not investing in arms companies, etc. We recognise that there is a role for ethics in business, even if the ethical stand someone takes is one we disagree with.

Did anyone read the article on the BBC today about belief-based out opts for chemists? That seems to be relevant as far as legalities are concerned.

Will
I think one problem with using the "Opponents of "miscegenation"" is tha their opposition was framed on a very poor reading of scripture.

But, if I read you right, you're not drawing a parallel between the *rationality* of pro/anti homsexual readings of scripture. Rather the parallel is with the *sincerety* with which those beliefs are held.

I'm afraid that sincere belief just isn't enough to warrant tolerance. Some other standards need to be met. Some rights will trump some beliefs, and the passion with which they are held.

However, liberal democracies tolerate groups like the Mennonites and the Amish, who will practice forms of community discipline which are illiberal.
Now if Mr Black and Mr Morgan had expected such communities to set aside their beliefs and welcome them in as full participants, they would have been acting unreasonably.
So liberal democracies do seem to be able to make room for communities that seem intolerant, according to widely held standards. The question is, where do we draw the line?
Personally, I'd back the Cornish Guest House, provided that they made every effort to advertise their standards appropriately. (Something like Traditional Christian Guesthouse). I draw the line with the Berkshire guesthouse as they did not make their standards apparent.

Now I wouldn't tolerate a "White's Only" Guest House, or a "Black's Only" Guest House. I would tolerate a "Black's Only" University or School. But not a "White's Only" University or School. And I'm prepared to offer arguments for those distictions. But at the moment I'm just pointing out that drawing lines is a complex matter.

GV

Jonathan,
I agree to a degree with the relevancy of the Pharmaceutical case, if you have a conscientious objection, then do not offer the service at all to anyone.

A more analogous example to the B&B would be not supplying condoms to gay people but supplying heterosexuals, that breaks the same law as the B&B.

What they cannot do is offer the service to some people in society that they approve of. My view, however, would be that if a pharmacist cannot offer all services they should either employ someone who can, or close.

As for you support for people to chose to discriminate against interracial people in society as well as Homosexuals, would that extend to inter faith couples as well, there are those who say the bible bans that too, could you list all the marriages that the bible invalidates so B&B's make sure they only allow in the 'right sort'.

Golfie, just to clarify my position again, I don't agree with those whoa re against inter-racial marriages. Neither would I turn away people who marry between faiths. My point is more that when it comes down to choosing between freedom of conscience and government imposed morality, I lean towards personal conscience. That's why I'm sympathetic to homosexual couples being granted the rights which are equivalent to marriage.

"I am surprised that you are prepared to defend the establishment of black-only universities. That would be illegal in the UK."

Oh, I imagined it would. But I would have no difficulty with minority groups forming exclusive schools, in certain circumstances. If it was at that communities request, and there was a good chance that it would "level" certain inequalities, then I've no difficulty. After a period of time I would expect the Schools to open their doors to a quota from other communities.
If the schools failed to level inequalities then you would not have adequate justification to let exclusive selection continue.

Of course Black Universities in the US existed for very different reasons. (And there doesn't seem to be any case at all for such universities in the UK.) But in principle circumstances might exist in which a liberal democracy may allow some minority to discriminate, even on this level, for a while - to level inequalities, and to allow a community to develop a robust sense of identity.
GV

I think it's important to point out that what I'd allow in these sitautions would depend on certain contingencies. I don't think that absolute rules can be set out in advance of considering a communities position in wider society.

GV

Will, I sometimes feel that we've turned into a dangerously rights-obsessed culture that has lost sight of the difference between rights and privileges. It may well be the case that what I think should be a universal right differs from what others would list. I think there should be no discrimination in providing essential services such as health-care or education. I don't think that there should be such a thing as the right to demand access to a luxury. It cheapens the concept of rights and values possession of luxuries over freedom of conscience. I value being able to live according to my conscience over being able to purchase a luxury or make use of a non-essential service. If you force people to render a non-essential service to someone then I would see that as valuing the service more than being able to live according to one's conscience.

Incidentally, I'm finding this discussion very beneficial personally in working out what exactly I believe on this subject and why, so thank you to those who have been participating.

"we are back to the two scenarios: how are they morally different?"

Easy
Endogamists are obviously wrong in their opinions, and I am obviously correct in mine. (-;
(Honestly, society would be a happier place if everyone would just wholeheartedly agree with me on ...well on everything really.)

Seriously though - There are several very good questions in that one question "how are they morally different?" At least, so it seems that way to me.
I think that there's a good question about when and why I tolerate intolerance. It can't just be on the occasions when I *feel* sympathy for the morality of the intolerant.

I think that there's another very good question about moral certainty - when can I reasonably, and in all conscience, reject another persons moral code, identity and aspirations. (I think it goes beyond a rejection of 'lifestyle').

There's another question about hermeneutics. I don't think the revisionist case on Paul has much exegetical or historical merit. At the same time it remains coherent, and possible. So not very probable, but possible.
Now at one stage the course of action for someone who judged an interpretive startegy was clear. Go with the most probable.
But I think that there has been a revolution in hermeneutics - and many people feel reluctant to resolve the meaning of a text in this way. We shouldn't decide on one true meaning, but keep all the options open. Otherwise we do violence to the text.
In the case of the morality of homosexuality there would be additional pressure to interpret the text in the most "compassionate" or "loving" way.
Now part of my reply would be that I don't just base my rejection of homosexuality (or endogamy) on a few proof texts. There are wider biblical and theological considerations, arguments from natural law,
and Church Tradition.
So I could state that case - but I come back full circle. Logically I could be wrong. And intelligent women and men of good conscience disagree with those arguments.
So shouldn't I opt for the more tolerant option?

So three questions at least there. (And I still might have missed the questions you're really interested in - I'm thinking out loud here.) I'll mull those over a bit, and maybe get back to these on Monday. They're good provocative questions, and I don't want to give my gut reactions.

GV

"If you force people to render a non-essential service "

If liberal democracy is meant to promote freedom we do need to be careful when coercing citizens. So there is another point to think about.

Christians, on the other hand, do need to think through how to be a good citizen when their morality goes against cultural norms. So, like JB, I'm finding this very helpful.

GV

That's the Crux of it GV, or else it all gets a bit Animal Farm-ish.

I have been made aware that Morcambe and Wise would indeed be discriminated against in most guesthouses, as Eric smoked a pipe in bed.

Will

You were asking if identity based on race and sexuality are comparable in terms of this discussion.

No doubt there are many similarities for the sake of this discussion but there are also many differences.

Race is genetically determined but there are opinion leaders in the gay community who do not believe sexuality is genetically fixed.

I do believe you have previously acknowledged that people's sexualities do change, as does Peter Tatchell.

That does not attach any morality to the fact, nor does it follow that someone may "make a decision" about their sexuality or how.

But those issues and questions have been open to serious scientific research over the past century.

The vast bulk of the research has concluded, so far as I understand, that sexuality is not fixed. eg Kinsey, Irving Bieber, Masters and Johnston, Yarhouse and Jones, and decades upon decades of similar papers.

And so far as I understand, none of this research has actually been refuted, just subjected to political revisionism.

My point is not to advance a moral position against homosexual people, just to say that race is a genetic objective fact whereas sexuality seems to be (for many people) more of a journey, for many/most one they feel they have had no choice in.

I appreciate it is easy to assume a theological position as a fact rather than an opinion, but I suggest that the bible is fairly consistent from start to finish on what is God's intention and purpose for sex and what falls short.

Paul perhaps sums it up when he says that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. None of those identities really contained a moral quality for those who belonged to those groups, so far as Paul was concerned.

However he did advance serious guidelines for sex, which were modelled on the OT and the sermon on the mount, which did.

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes of the church is to batter those having trouble with these standards (heterosexual people or homosexual people) without taking the trouble to listen to the stories that brought people to those identities.

Eg, there seems to be a very strong body of research and testimony to say that many people have found they have homosexual desires and emotions etc because of a painful mismatch with their fathers as they were growing children, causing them to defensively reject their own gender etc.

I am not suggesting that this is the story of all homosexual people (I'm not qualified to), but certainly many say that it is the case in their own journeys - Andy Comiskey, Mario Bergner, Bieber etc.

Dont we all know of first or second hand stories of people who have lived as both homosexual and heterosexual?

It therefore doesnt seem fair of the church to condemn people on journeys without taking the trouble to understand where they have been coming from and what support they need.

I dont in any way mean to imply this post is a comment on the life of every homosexual person, but many credibly testify of themselves that it has been and I dont think it credible or constructive to the discussion to reject them out of hand as having nothing to contribute.

In support of this, from what I can say everyone in the discussion agrees that so little of the issue is fully understood in a scientific sense. It therefore seems highly prejudicial to draw absolute conlusions ahead of time, though understandable from the point of people who feel they are being scapegoated and dehumanised.

Sincerely
OT

OT, you once again claim extensive literature in support of your position. This you have done many times, often claiming peer-reviewed literature to be on your side. But when asked you have sofar never produced more than a few wikipedia links, see e.g. here. So the same question you've been asked many times before: could you produce that extensive literature you claim supports your position? Or perhaps quit making these wild claims of support for your position, when that position is little more than a reflection of your own personal homophobia (remember your 'tidal wave of filth' description of homosexuality)?

is homosexuality a sin, an abomination unto the lord or whatever? i don't know and don't feel i need to know. if it is a sin, then i am lucky that it is not one i have, so far, been tempted to commit. there are plenty of other temptations i do have to struggle against and sometimes fail.
It seems to me the relevant biblical authorities for a christian are (and sorry i cannot give chapter and verse) are the parable about the two men praying one who says: i'm a pretty good guy and pay my tithes and all, and the other who simply says: have mercy on me, a sinner. The other relevant passage is the story about Jesus stopping a stoneing by suggesting that the sinless one should start it off.
Should a christian let a room to a hedge fund manager? and check the marriage certificates of male/female couples to make sure they are married - to each other?
and i agree with graham veale post 66 about privacy.

Why does W&T appear to operate startling double standards in the sexuality debate it continually raises?

Why are searching questions only ever asked of the ethics of Christians and not of the Government, homosexual community or muslims???

In recent times W&T has engaged in repeated conversations and postings about an Irish poet in his 50s who spends long periods in Nepal where he openly says he was persistently engaged in sexual activities with a large number of teenagers, aged 17 and above. As his sexual partners were all above the age of consent there is no suggestion that anything illegal was being done.

However, many Irish commentators raised questions about the balance of power in these relationships as the poet was very wealthy by Nepalese standards; whether it is appropriate for someone in an wealthy benefactor/informal teaching capacity should be engaging in sex with a wide range of teenagers.

The person concerned said it was completely normal for him "because he was gay" his words, not mine.

When challenged about the coverage of the story W&T refused to consider that there were any ethical issues to be discussed, simply repeating that no laws had been broken.

Later William Crawley did a radio interview with the poet in which there was only a passing indirect reference to the controvery (which had been national news).

The poet was merely asked to give his thoughts about the controversy - is there are no ethical issues for discussion when 50 year old men engage in sexual relations with a wide number of teenagers so long as it is within the law.

The interview majored on his life and work, giving explicit affirmation and praise for his poetry.

The discussion can be linked back to this thread.

Much if not most of the sexual relations took place in a hotel in Nepal. If we link that back to this thread, we could envision a situation when a homosexual person in his 50s decides to base himself in a Christian B&B, partly for the purposes of engaging in sexual relations with a wide range of teenagers in the area.

On past record, W&T would still refuse to raise any questions about the ethics of the older person but put the attitudes of those sympathetic to protesting B&B owners through a searching self examination.

That does not appear to me to be objective any standards, but I am interested to hear the views of others.

Let me be clear, I am not making any presumptions about the motives of William Crawley as he is an employee of the BBC working as part of many teams and subject to management directions. I cant know what constraints or directions he is under.

Not am I making any judgement about the poet, whom I do not know and have not spoken to.

But I am saying that these appear to be very serious double standards, with regards to who has legitimate ethical questions to answer and who does not.

It is not just W&T or the BBC of course. This is the same environment that has been set for the national debate.

Another similar example I can think of was a leading gay rights campaigner attending a PSNI DPP meeting in Lisburn a few years ago to confront the police about persecuting the gay community. It received national coverage and was featured on BBC discussions. What had the PSNI been doing? Mounting operations to combat public sexual intercourse in the residential and public park areas of the Giants Ring/Edenderry.

However nobody dared to raise the question the ethics of the gays rights leader in pragmatically defending the rights of people to engage in public spectacles of sex. Why?

Yet it is fashionable to chuckle when people of faith are described as mentally ill and delued. Not that this really bothers me in itself.

I am just questioning how fair and objective the terms of this debate are being held under. And whether those terms are ultimately helpful and constructive for us as a society as a whole.



The Government, which has a number of homosexual cabinet ministers, is at various very serious stages of implementing legislation which would impose one narrative about sex/sexuality across society;-

* Churches could be forced to employ practising homosexual pastors
* Children could be forced to take pro-homosexuality education
* Free speech could become illegal on the subject of sexuality, with no exemptions
* Extensive measures have already been put in place to allow Government to criminalise public sector and private sector workers for having traditional views on this subject.

Homosexuality is the most popular subject raised by W&T and yet the questions raised by W&T are only ever directed at Christians.

It is entirely legitimate of W&T to pose searching questions to Christians regarding the integrity, consistency, motive and theology.

But it appears entirely illegitimate for the BBC to only direct its searching spotlight on Christians.

The Government has repeatedly tried to criminalise any free discussion about homosexuality and yet there are no concerns about aggressive high profile athiests saying that people of faith are mentally ill. Why does W&T not query this?

The European Convention of Human rights guards the rights of homosexuals but also freedom of conscience, religion and expression. Why does W&T never raise any concerns about repeated attempts by the Government to outlaw freedom of speech on religious matters and freedom of conscience?

Those are very serious matters well withint the terms of this debate and this blog and they are never raised by this blog.

I repeat, I uphold and praise the value of W&T in questioning the motives, theology and consistency of the church in how it deals with homosexuality.

Sincerely

OT

a further thought,

this debate is framed as Christians vs homosexual but that is neither accurante nor helpful.

Gay commentator Matthew Parris is on record as saying that the church should not and cannot abandon its stance on homosexuality.

Gay christian Martin Hallet of True Freedom Trust (he identifies as a man with homosexual issues) says that in 30 years ministering in the field he is certain that there are many homosexual people inside the church who see homosexual practise as sinful as there are outside saying it isnt.

Peter Tatchell has defended the right of open air preachers to criticise homosexual practise due to the importance of freedom of speech.

It would seem that the default position of every world religion today (and the historical/present athiest/communist world) has been against homosexual practise.


Why are none of the muslim population of the NI quizzed by W&T and or the BBC regarding its views on homosexuality?


Why arent we having a wider debate?


OT

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

PS Mr Klaver, you identify as an athiest and a professional scientist but which are you debating me as?

You present as being totally ignorant of the historical landscape of the science in this debate over the past century and totally ignorant of some of the landmark peer reviewed research I have alluded to.

It would be informative if you were to give your opinions of the peer reviewed work you are aware of in this field over the past century, what conclusions you draw and why?

I find it difficult to consider you are debating as a scientist when your major contribution is to attack my character.

fyi the post of mine that you linked to (which cannot be read in isolation from the previous eight on that thread), certainly did not single out any person or people for criticism but rather challenged libertine attitudes and theology generally, while confessing the real difficulties of the church and myself personally in living up to our own convictions.

I do say that all people, homosexual or straight are spiritually, emotionally and sexually broken before God. (Original sin, the fall of man). That fits with ex-gay man Andy Comiskey directing his ministry openly to homosexual and heterosexual people, which I have found to be a blessing personally.

PK, I dont profess to understand everything on this subject and I dont contest that sometimes my attitude sucks, but I do try to engage in open discussion, playing the ball not the man, and I dont have a problem apologising when I step over the line.

Do you agree with Richard Dawkins assertion that people who believe in God are mentally ill? in what way would you consider that more acceptable that somone who would make that slur against homosexual people? Why?

I'll come back to this at a later date. No offence OT, but I'm not quite ready to go to war with the entire BBC just yet. Annoying a megachurch is as far as I'm prepared to go for the moment.

Although I keep coming back to what I'm going to call the "Morcambe and Wise" principle. (No one ever thought to ask why they shared a bed. There is something valuable in the innocence of TV viewers in that era. Well, except the viewers of "Love Thy Neighbour", and "Eva I'm Home")

People do have a right to privacy. We need to meet some burden of proof before we inquire into the exact nature of someone's relationship.

We also need to respect other people's private opinions, and be careful when interacting with those.

GV

OT - post # 88

Nothing has ever quite so sent a chill down my spine as your citation from Mike Hallett where he says that "in 30 years ministering in the field he is certain that there are many homosexual people inside the church who see homosexual practise as sinful as there are outside saying it isn't".

The horror is that he may well be right. What an incredible amount of wholly unnecessary pain many of them must bear.

That is why I feel I must reiterate what I have said so often before, I consistently and unambiguously identify myself as a Christian, I say emphatically to all Lesbian, gay, bi and transgendered Christians there is nothing remotely sinful about LGBT sexuality and nothing remotely sinful about the sexual activities arising therefrom, responsibly practised.

Thanks Parrhasios

I think you have underlined the point I was trying to make without even realising it.

I was not trying to determine the sinfulness or otherwise of any practise in citing Martin Hallet.

This has been done to death.

My point was that in the current culture we live in only some people are held to have a valid viewpoint on this subject and those that arent are silenced or ignored.

I am really saying it is not properly balanced journalism/public debate and that this is not in anybody's interest.

Why should you give any less weight to Martin's views that Peter Tatchell's?

In rejecting the validity of Martin's views - and the views of the thousands whom he speaks for in confidence who have used True Freedom Trust - havent you essentially marked him and those he speaks for as mentally unstable or dishonest or both?


You say you do not believe in absolute truth nor in the bible as the word of God.

By what standard have you patronised Hallet as having an invalid viewpoint of his own experience, sexuality, emotions and spirituality?

By what standard of ethics do you deny him the right to determine his own spiritual and sexual direction?


Isnt this exactly the attitude towards the pro-homosexuality homosexual community that culturally we now stand very strongly against?

Personally I would much prefer a pro-homosexuality homosexual person to be open about their life and emotions and be accepted for what they are, because that is exactly who they are; I think they should be accepted for who they are and not have to live a life of guilt and secrecy.

But on what grounds do we withhold that same basic privilege from those who are essentially homosexual but reject that sexual orientation?

Isnt that discrimination on grounds of sexuality and religion Parahasios?

By what objective standards that can be applied to everyone in this debate???

And furthermore, the grounds for refusing people the right to change their sexuality, it has to be said, appear to be strongly spurious.

Throughout the 20th century it was a normal part of mental health treatment for people who were homosexual but wished to become heterosexual to be given help to achieve this.

The success rates were substantially high by professional counselling standards.

Decades upon decades of scientific theory, empiricaly research and practise are there for anyone interested to look.

Many mental health professionals still work within these frameworks today and many people report they are able to change.

Anyone interested could google for testimonies such as Andy Comiskey, Peter Ould, Mario Bergner and work by Irving Bieber, Masters and Johnston for example.

In 1971 the APA changed took a stand and opposed such work and support. This was the beginning of a change in mental health professions.

However, you will note it was not done on the strength of any new scientific findings. Fact.

It was a political campaign of intimidation which has continued to this day.

But none of the reseacrhed and findings of science up until then have been refuted. They are simply politically incorrect to talk about.


One last point. This debate is often framed as hardline religious folk accusing gay people of being mentally ill.

From my reading of the history of mental health support in this field, most scientific theory and practise would more accurately say that for many homosexual people, they were sinned *against* in their formative years, resulting in a painful mismatch with key gender role models ie parents, which often resulted in people rejecting their own gender and therefore sexuality.

From what I can see in trailing over these findings, it is entirely correct for such people to say that homosexuality is entirely natural for them, as it would be a self defence mechanism to protect from further harm and to try and make good gender affirmation they should have had during childhood.

So in mainstream 20th century science findings, treatment "for homosexuality" is actually not treatment for homosexuality at all but rather clinical interventions to make good the emotional input such people should have had and to help heal resultant wounds.

I emphasise I am not giving my opinions here, but my summary of scientific findings throughout the 20th century.

Men particularly vulnerable tended to be very intelligent and artistically minded, but not rough and tumble type macho boys, thus increasing their chances of being rejected by their fathers.

Science says, healing is possible, not my view.



regards

OT

I also repeat, just because we cont turn out homosexual does not mean many of us have not been damaged in the same way. the opposite is in fact true.

OT

OT - # 92

What I actually said was only that Mike Hallett's assertion that "there are as many homosexual people inside the church who see homosexual practise as sinful as there are outside saying it isn't" may well be true. I then disagreed, not with his statement, nor with his right to make it, but with his view of Christianity and what constitutes sin, neither of which I share.

I have every bit as much right as he has to state my understanding of what the Lordship of Christ in one's life might mean for the way one lives it.

I know that there are gay Christians who think homosexual acts are sinful, I would like to educate them out of that notion but I recognise that many will hold on to it persistently, even while engaging in the activities they despise and hating themselves for what I would regard as perfectly natural behaviour. I cannot help it that that thought really pains me, that, though I feel their anguish, I am helpless to assist. I do not apologise for presenting an alternative viewpoint.

That said, I would uphold the right of any person to decide ultimately for himself what he considered acceptable or not. I reserve the right to say "you are wrong" but would not (and do not) say "your view is illegitimate".

I do not think you can argue from the history of mental health treatment what current practice should be, that is simply an absurdity. A person might wish to change his sexuality but any therapist asked to assist in that process would face grave ethical issues. I do actually think it is possible to effect at least some degree, if not of change, at least of augmentation of a person's attraction bandwidth. It is possible but the question must be: is it ever desirable?

It is far too small a sample to be scientific but I once performed an experiment on myself to see if I could generate not just performance but feelings outside my personal comfort zone. It was difficult but I actually found it easier to make the change than to undo it.

If you hold my thought views on the essentially mechanical character of sexual attraction I suppose there is no real difference between saying to a woman "there is something in my natural brain chemistry makes me think we could procreate successfully" and "it took some quite skilled NLP, hypnotic suggestion, counselling, and creative re-imaging but I reckon I can now overcome any aversion I might once have felt to a relationship with you". I can just about go with this, but does your world-view give you the same lee-way? Can you be sure that an ex-gay, while not necessarily cheating-on his partner, may nonetheless be cheating her (and indeed himself) of the fullness of sexual expression and fulfilment?

I think we have still no real idea what causes homosexual attraction or engenders homosexual activity. It is likely that causation is complex. The prevalence of same gender mating in the animal kingdom alone would leave me extremely sceptical about your thoughts that being "sinned against" in childhood is a particularly relevant factor.

As ever, OT, it is a pleasure to engage with you, debate with you and, of-course, disagree (I hope politely) with you...

It seems to have escaped mention on the blog but one psychiatrist, to whom reference has often been made (though not by name) on W&T, was recently referred to the GMC for issues relating to his offering of gay conversion therapy. There are certainly issues there which we might discuss in due course...

Parahasios
No problem, you are as polite as ever. You give a real lead to the blog in how you welcome and affirm new individuals that everyone else is attacking, even when you disagree with them.
In light of our friendship (remember the chuckle brothers) I am going to make a provocative statement here to illustrate my point.
I am not in this discussion arguing the morality of homosexuality or how it should or should not be treated. I am arguing that our culture is now so saturated with such extreme prejudice on the matter that most people approach the subject with little actual knowledge but lots of prejudice/ideology/emotions as they have been indoctrinated by popular culture.
I repeat. I am not arguing that I am right and you are wrong. I am not arguing that heterosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right. I am not arguing whether or not treatment should be available.
What I *am* arguing is that because you come to a serious discussion insisting you have factually and morally the right answers, but come with nothing more than opinion, emotion and sentiment you have disqualified yourself from any serious objective discussion on the subject.
That has been my point from the start and you have still not got it. You do not appeal to a century of constantly revised and proven theory, research and treatment – instead you dismiss it as my opinion!!!???
You seek to define sin but you offer no authority except your opinion – and seek to “educate” others on this basis.


Two example of your prejudice;-

1) “A person might wish to change his sexuality but any therapist asked to assist in that process would face grave ethical issues.”
2) “It seems to have escaped mention on the blog but one psychiatrist, to whom reference has often been made (though not by name) on W&T, was recently referred to the GMC for issues relating to his offering of gay conversion therapy.”

In fact point 1 is factually and demonstrably incorrect. The following news article proves three points;
a) Unwanted homosexuality is still an internationally recognised mental health condition.
b) The Royal College of Psychiatry has no ethical objections whatsoever to this condition being treated.
c) Releasing a statement about Iris’ friend in 2008 during the original Iris/homosexuality, the Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health affirmed the patient's right to pursue their own choice of counselling regarding sexuality.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/No-bar-to-stop-gays.4209486.jp?articlepage=2
(Note, I am not just relying on this article, I know from broader knowledge that it is entirely accurate.)

Regarding point 2 you have violated natural justice in citing an allegation and charge against an individual as evidence or wrongdoing before the evidence has been heard and a conclusion has been reached by the properly qualified judges/tribunal. If this was a court case you could potentially land yourself in jail on contempt of court for such innuendo.
Do you believe in the presumption of innocence or not?
The very fact that this psychiatrist was still openly offering therapy to homosexual people a full two years after he spoke at length about it on national media during the Iris controversy would suggest that he knew he was well within his professional guidelines in doing so. This would dovetail exactly with the News Letter report on the subject, above.

In practise you imply that Christians with homosexual feelings but who reject them are either of unsound mind or lying – yet you offer no reasons as to whether people of the opposite view should be questioned in the same way.


I repeat. I am not arguing that I am right and you are wrong. I am not arguing that heterosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right. I am not arguing whether or not treatment should be available.
What I *am* arguing is that because you come to a serious discussion insisting you have factually and morally the right answers, but come with nothing more than opinion, emotion and sentiment you have disqualified yourself from any serious objective discussion on the subject.

Sincerely
OT

Parahasios

I totally affirm your right to express your opinions BTW.
No need to apologise for that.

You said;-

“If you hold my thought views on the essentially mechanical character of sexual attraction I suppose there is no real difference between saying to a woman "there is something in my natural brain chemistry makes me think we could procreate successfully" and "it took some quite skilled NLP, hypnotic suggestion, counselling, and creative re-imaging but I reckon I can now overcome any aversion I might once have felt to a relationship with you".

Parahasios, to me this emphasises the misconception of what therapy is actually working and widely on offer. For example, Iris’s friend that you refer to, from what I understand his therapy does not focus on sexuality as such, at least that is not the major focus.

It appears to have two main strands, affirming a health sense of one’s own gender and helping people to lay to rest disturbing childhood experiences which continually replay in their mind, through EMDR therapy, which is also used to deal with post-traumatic stress disorders.

Testimony from Mario Bergner and Andy Comiskey seem to jell with this approach. In other words, these guys are not trying to overcome an aversion to the opposite sex, they major on helping people accept and come to terms with their own gender and painful childhood memories.


You said;-

“I can just about go with this, but does your world-view give you the same lee-way? Can you be sure that an ex-gay, while not necessarily cheating-on his partner, may nonetheless be cheating her (and indeed himself) of the fullness of sexual expression and fulfilment?”

This is a false comparison because you have misunderstood what reparative therapy is.
But I am not sure of your question. Are you saying it is may be dishonest because neither partner may be experiencing maximum sexual fulfilment where one of them is ex-gay?

If that is the question, I have no problem you asking it or me thinking about it. But it seems to discount the central issue, which is an individual’s right to self determination.


You say:

“I think we have still no real idea what causes homosexual attraction or engenders homosexual activity. It is likely that causation is complex.”


That again appears to demonstrate a wilful ignorance of reading up the century of theory and research on this, although it seems agreed widely that full understanding has not been reached. However one fact points to serious bias/politicisation – it is not now acceptable to research the formative causes of homosexuality unless you are looking for factors beyond the influence of the subject. Why?

You say;-

“The prevalence of same gender mating in the animal kingdom alone would leave me extremely sceptical about your thoughts that being "sinned against" in childhood is a particularly relevant factor.”

Again you accuse me of presenting “my thoughts” but the sinned against aspect is a core view of 20th century science on this matter, in one form or another.


See Irving Bieber’s work, for example.

As for the animal aspect, it is a valid point – but is the animal’s thinking comparable to a gay person’s? Does the animal realise it is same sex mating and why does it think it is? Is it one-off, occasional or permanent sexuality?
And might the animal be acting this way because of a similar factors which cause humans to be homosexual?

OT

In summary then these are the orthodoxies of our "sexuality religion" in public debate;-

1) Orthodoxy is to question and challenge the motives, integrity and thinking of;-

- Orthodox Christians
- Iindividual health professionals offering reparative therapies
- Christians who have homosexual feelings but reject them
- Christians who have been gay but now live as straight
- People of no faith who have changed from gay to straight for reasons unknown
- Scientists who refer to and discuss a century of solid science on this subject


2) It is now heretical to question the motives, integrity and thinking of;-

- Muslims on homosexuality
- Homosexuals on the formative experiences and motives of their orientation (in a scientific method)
- Governments attempting to muzzle freedom of speech
- Governments attempting to restrain freedom of religion, regarding marriage traditions of 4000 years and impose alternative models on pain of criminal convictions?


Is that the foundation for an open and constructive discussion Parahasios?

OT

If this was a court case you could potentially land yourself in jail on contempt of court for such innuendo.

But it isn't, so we are quite free to read about it here and here.

Thanks Grokesx

I am not sure if you understood the conversation. We all know a complaint has been made against Dr Miller and is being investigated, (as it should).

My point was that Parahasios has presumed that the allegation was evidence of wrongdoing, and that is simply pre-judging the case ie prejudice.


On the ethics of such therapy, I see Dr Miller was also investigated in 2008;-

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/No-bar-to-stop-gays.4209486.jp?articlepage=1

Considering there is another investigation now, it would look like there nothing found against him on that occasion. That would be right if there are no professional guidelines to stop him.

On the contrary, if the Royal College of Psychaiatry confirm that unwanted homosexuality is a recognised condition, as it has done, it would seem unethical of a health professional not to treat a patient who asked for help. Hmm.

In the independent story you link it mentions a survey by Prof King which found "one in six UK psychiatrists and psychotherapists have sought to reduce or change a patient's sexual orientation".

Prof King campaigns on this issue....but again... I suggest the clue is in the fact that so many health professionals are still offering this type of therapy...one in six, he says.

Why would so many be offering it if it is professionally unethical???

The obvious answer is because it is an ethical responsibility to offer the service when asked.

IN reality campaigners such as King are trying to forbid counsellers
form offering such help and there are trying to stimulate a public debate, but all the facts outlined above, especially the news letter article, would confirm that health professionals have a responsibility to support client directed goals for recognised conditions, in this case unwanted (ego-dystonic) homosexuality.

OT