Advocate's Person of the Year now in heterosexual relationship

Great blog post by the anglican Peter Ould. Has anyone seen this?

http://www.peter-ould.net/2014/01/1...the-year-is-now-in-heterosexual-relationship/


So apparently the poster woman for the gay movement has reverted to a normal heterosexual relationship. What's more the Post itself and the lengthy discussion in the Comments outline evidence of other studies that repeatedly show that homosexuality has nothing inborn in it.

(Of course, that was known to a first-class biology student, from the fact that no homosexual gene was discovered once the entire Human genome was mapped.)

Ould: "As for the effectiveness, we only have one longitudinal study of SOCE (Jones and Yarhouse) and that suggests a success rate similar to Alcoholics Anonymous."

 

I found this interesting in that it comes from a splinter organisation (represented in this forum, incidentally) called "The Anglican Catholic Church". Hardly mainstream Anglican and from what I can gather, obsessively anti-gay.

The bearded Mr Ould of Romney Marsh (is he a "clergyman"?) seems to have a tendency to veer off topic. This article doesn't seem to have much to do with Anglicanism, any more than his "Euro-prediction Competition" about the European soccer cup in 2012. Ah well, if he's a football fan at least he's human.

My Anglican Person of the Year is Justin Welby.

 

Peter Ould is a regular member of the Church of England. What are you smoking?

 

Don't kid yourself, Christianity is under a massive assault from the gay lobby, seeking to normalize itself as a legitimate alternative lifestyle.

 

I don't smoke. However, there was a reference in the article to the ACC ; and Mr Ould bears a striking resemblance to the "Right Reverend" Damien Mead, head honcho of the "ACC". Hence my mistake.

None of the regular members of the church I attend are are anti-gay in the way Mr Ould seems to be. Instead we try to be inclusive

 

I don't kid myself. I am a sidesperson and a member of the Parochial Council and the Deanery Synod. I have never come across this "massive assault". I am also Electoral Roll Officer. I neither know or care which of the 126 people on the Parish Roll are gay. In any event, we don't discuss such things at the church I attend. Instead we try to be loving, tolerant, faithful and inclusive.

You will know that it is illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to conduct gay marriages.

 

The scientific evidence against gay pre-determinism is clear. Science is not anti-gay.

You mean you do not know which of them had chosen that sinful lifestyle?

 

I don't think people choose to be gay. I'm not sure what your sexual orientation is, but did you choose it? I'm heterosexual. I can't remember choosing to be. I was just made that way and I'm happy to be.

I don't know if the concept of a parish Electoral Roll means much to you. People fill up a form and are entered on the roll. They are not asked about their politics, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

 

It is bad to be anti-science.

 

I'm not. That is, for example, why I am not a creationist. But to say that it's been "scientifically proven that people choose to be gay" is dodgy to put it mildly. However, rather than have a "scientific" debate, let's get personal. So, I repeat, I didn't choose to be a heterosexual. I just am one. I don't choose not to fancy someone of my own gender. I just don't.

I do choose not to be an adulterer or a thief. But my sexuality is not a matter of choice on my part. Perhaps your experiences are different.

 

'Did you read what I started the thread with? The longitudinal studies cited?

You'd rather not have a scientific debate, and then proceed to make a scientific statement. Isn't that ironic.

Yes you did choose to be heterosexual, not today in a conscious manner, but when you were very little and were still forming as a human being.

These two words hetero- and homo- signify a false dichotomy. There aren't two viable and similar options. There is only one: the generative function all creatures are born with. You had it and I and everyone else. Everything other than that generative function is an aberration from the same; it is a 'broken' exercising of that function. You chose to exercise it naturally when you were little and that choice was cemented by decades of continual development. What we would like to say is that homosexuality, rather than being a viable alternative lifestyle is really a broken normal human sexuality; those who had chosen it made grievous mistakes in their childhood development (generally through no fault of their own).

 

No, it's not ironic. I am not a scientist but I am well educated enough to differentiate between something which is clearly proven (evolution) and something that is not (that sexuality is a matter of choice).

You know nothing about my childhood development. And I'm not at all sure what you mean by "grievous mistakes". Are you?

 

I have done some research. In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that, "sexual orientation is biological in nature....and therefore not a choice".

 

If these "mistakes" were "no fault of their own", how can these people be "sinners"?

 

You didn't address my point. The dichotomy you presented, of our orientation being either in-born or frivolously selectable, is incorrect. We cannot today easily choose sexuality in a developed frame of mind after our primordial choices during childhood development. That's what child psychologists tell us.

 

Yes and the American Psychological Association declared that it was no longer a mental disorder, in the 1970s. That declaration was later proven to be driven by politics and pressure groups, and not by science. A lot of people in social prominence make decisions based on your false notions of Inclusivity and avoidance of making people feel bad.

The scientific evidence is solely on one side. The human genome has been fully mapped for 20+ years now, and no homosexuality gene had ever been found. The "retraining" therapy that Ould cites was proven to be effective in the same category as Alcoholics Anonymous.

Just see where this discussion started from!
Advocate's Person of the Year now in heterosexual relationship

Was she born with it or not?

There are sinners only and if they do the sin.

 

There are, of course, people around who are bi-sexual. I know a Lesbian couple who are both grannies.

 

You've made my point.
These sorts of people mutilate the ideas of marriage and gender, and they'd like to force that upon the rest of society.

 

A few points in reply. Yes, I suppose if you're bi-sexual you do have a choice. As a heterosexual, I don't. I find the thought of same sexual activity a turn-off. Could be that gays feel the same about heterosexual relationships.

Second, whilst I have known relatively few gay people, not one has tried to force anything on me. You appear paranoid. Certainly the Lesbian grannies I mentioned are friendly, happy church-going people. Decidedly non-threatening.

Now let's return to Anglicanism. On another thread I mention our vision: faithful, friendly, flourishing. All positive. Perhaps your vision is one of a fringe organisation which proclaims a message: "if you're gay, keep away". Ditto if you're divorced or an unmarried couple?

 

I have just seen an article on the BBC News website which states that the Church of England is 'committed "unreservedly" to the pastoral support of homosexual people'. Where that leaves Mr Ould, or you for that matter, I'm not sure.