Australia bans same sex marriage.

[Groundzero]

The indigenous people of this country? Do tell.

Another ludicrous façade that's distracting and dividing Australia. I recognize the Australian flag. I don't recognize the Aboriginal flag, or anything that it stands for.

 

[KCKID]

The indigenous people of this country? Do tell.

"The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice."

Mark Twain

Another ludicrous façade that's distracting and dividing Australia. I recognize the Australian flag. I don't recognize the Aboriginal flag, or anything that it stands for.

I'm not sure what you mean. And, what is the 'Australian flag'? Is that the one that incorporates the British (pommy) ensign?

 

[Selene]

God created a helper for Adam. Before doing so God sought out such a helper from the animals that He'd created. None appeared to be suitable. So, God took a rib from Adam and formed another being. God created one woman because one woman was all that was required to be Adam's helper. Remember, Adam was just hanging around a garden themed paradise at the time so he probably would not have needed too much help to maintain the property. :)

I seriously doubt that a scientific and professional organization such as the American Psychology Association would have been so influenced by homosexuals that they would have resorted to unscientific and unprofessional tactics. That's quite absurd. By the way, would you personally prefer that homosexuality be seen as a disorder as opposed to 'normal'? It seems so. If so, why? Moreover, IF homosexuality IS a disorder then why do so many Christians say that it's a choice? It's either normal or a disorder or a choice ...which is it? As has already been pointed out to you, those with other 'disorders' are allowed to marry so why would people with the 'disorder of homosexuality' be refused the right to marry by the Supreme Court? Why would YOU prefer that people with disorders not marry? So many questions . . .

Incidentally, God seemed to wink at polygamy, So, why would polygamy be such a big deal to you even if the polygamists were to push for the acceptance of polygamy?

This is the reason why values have gone down in society. Pedophilia might as well be approved. And if a murderer killed someone, then it must be okay because the most important thing is love.

Also, I never said that people with disorders cannot marry. In the first place, I stated that this never had anything to do with equal rights. Gays already have the right to marry. It's a restriction that they want to remove.

"We are called to love homosexuals, but that does not mean to give them same sex marriage" . . .I'm sorry, Selene, but the arrogance (though I realize that it's unintentional) of that statement is quite unbelievable! As has already been pointed out, your religious views on this subject (yes, I realize that this is a Christian forum) have little to no influence on the secular world. You are certainly entitled to your opinions or/and religious beliefs but that does not give you the authority to give the yay or the nay as to who wishes to marry. And yet, in the sentence highlighted you are implying that you (as a Christian) have the authority to permit or not permit those who can marry and those who cannot marry based on your religious beliefs. Again, on this forum, yes, your religious beliefs have merit because this is a Christian forum. But, in the secular world they do not. You also need to understand that two people who fall in love and wish to commit their lives to one another, 1. probably don't care what Christians might say about their relationship being a sin, and 2. don't see how their loving one another can possibly BE a sin anyway. To an increasing number of people the anti-gay marriage message spouted by Christians for NO OTHER REASON than "God says" is fast losing impact. This is not to mention, of course, that the Bible scholar not bound within the confines of religious dogma realizes that 'God' never said any such thing . . .

More than 2000 years ago, Christ walked on this secular world. He lived in this secular world despite that He was not of this world. During His time here, Christ did correct the Pharisees several times. And He did this because He loved them too. In fact, He called them hypocrites and brood of vipers. Those were very strong words. But the fact that he took the time to correct them showed that He loved them too.

God will judge those who commit the act of homosexuality, but how do you think He is going to judge those who support their sins? God loves every sinner because we are all His children. We are called to love everyone, but what kind of love allows another to fall into sin?

1 John 2:10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister [fn] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.

 

[aspen]

the DSM is the book that defines all mental disorders. One of the most basic criterias for inclusion of diagnostic symptoms as a disorder in the DSM is a determination that people who experience the symptoms, report a significant disruption in their relationships with others and or basic functioning.

People with thought disorders often experience delusions, auditory and or visual halucinations, which may or may not lead to dysfunction. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the dysfunction in people's lives who reported to have same sex attraction was deamed to originate from the cultural rejection and related attempts by the homosexual to repress their emotions.

Selene you are right about never claiming that people with mental illness were banned from marrying.........however, you did say that if homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder than we would never be in this messy, which i interpreted to mean legalizing gay marriage. My statement about people with mental illness already having the right to marry was meant to illustrate the fact that inclusion or exclusion with the DSM has nothing to do with the right to marry.

 

[Selene]

the DSM is the book that defines all mental disorders. One of the most basic criterias for inclusion of diagnostic s
ymptoms as a disorder in the DSM is a determination that people who experience the symptoms, report a significant disruption in their relationships with others and or basic functioning.

People with thought disorders often experience delusions, auditory and or visual halucinations, which may or may not lead to dysfunction. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the dysfunction in people's lives who reported to have same sex attraction was deamed to originate from the cultural rejection and related attempts by the homosexual to repress their emotions.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because they threatened and intimidated the APA. According to the weblink:

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the organization that determines for the professional community what is normal and what is abnormal. Their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a handbook widely used by clinicians to assist in diagnosing and classifying mental, emotional, and sexual disorders. The first edition of the DSM, published in 1952, listed homosexuality as a mental disorder, a severe form of psychopathology.

By 1968, the gay community had a few organizations in place and one of their first targets was the APA. Over the next few years, protestors interrupted APA conferences, shouting at the speakers and taking control of meetings. After three years of disrupted conventions, the APA agreed to let gay activists be involved in the decision-making process, even though the activists were not professionals in psychiatry or psychology.

http://www.samesexattraction.org/gay-rights-movement-activism.htm

They disrupted APA meetings and even threatened members of the APA. Apparently, they did not trust the judgments of the APA, which is why they resorted to such tactics, and the APA gave in to their intimidation. A person has a right to marry even if they have a disorder or a handicap. Even a pedophile has a right to marry. He just can't marry a child. In the same way, a gay person has a right to marry. He just can't marry a person of the same sex. And yes, even a handicap person has a right to marry. People have a right to marry. They just have to follow the restrictions to marriage.

 

[Groundzero]

"The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice."

Mark Twain


I'm not sure what you mean. And, what is the 'Australian flag'? Is that the one that incorporates the British (pommy) ensign?

Is there any other flag? In the words of Jesus, a house divided against itself shall not stand. How can you have two different flags? One Aboriginal and one Australian?

And that question, I'm assuming you're trying to be smart. The British ensign is there because it represents our heritage. And if you didn't know that, then I'd be rather ashamed to call you a fellow countryman.

 

[KCKID]

This is the reason why values have gone down in society. Pedophilia might as well be approved. And if a murderer killed someone, then it must be okay because the most important thing is love.

Also, I never said that people with disorders cannot marry. In the first place, I stated that this never had anything to do with equal rights. Gays already have the right to marry. It's a restriction that they want to remove.

WHAT is the reason that values have gone down in society? All I said was that homosexuality is either normal, a disorder or a choice. I asked ...which is it? As for pedophilia and *gasp* murder ...do we really need to equate these with homosexuality?

You DID say that if homosexuality was (still) on the APA list as a disorder, then the Supreme Court would not need to decide same sex marriage. If that doesn't imply that people with disorders cannot legally marry then I don't know what you meant. As for gays already having the right to marry, yes, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. This does not work for them because they are simply not hard-wired to be intimately attracted to someone of the opposite gender. It matters not WHY ...it simply IS.

More than 2000 years ago, Christ walked on this secular world. He lived in this secular world despite that He was not of this world. During His time here, Christ did correct the Pharisees several times. And He did this because He loved them too. In fact, He called them hypocrites and brood of vipers. Those were very strong words. But the fact that he took the time to correct them showed that He loved them too.

God will judge those who commit the act of homosexuality, but how do you think He is going to judge those who support their sins? God loves every sinner because we are all His children. We are called to love everyone, but what kind of love allows another to fall into sin?

1 John 2:10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister [fn] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.

In your first paragraph - which I haven't yet learned to separate and respond to as a snippet of the whole, grrrr... - you say that Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites and a brood of vipers because he loved them and wanted to correct them. This assumes that homosexuals need correction simply because they happen to be gay. And they well MIGHT need correction - same as heterosexuals - but NOT because of their sexual orientation. One's sexual orientation - be it gay or straight - cannot be a sin. There is no way anyone can convince me otherwise of this. One thing that I DON'T need convincing of, however, is that we are ALL sinners. If I knew you well in real life, Selene, I might see things in you that I believed fell way short of Jesus' righteousness. I could, therefore, take your position and be the one pointing the finger at you. In reality, however, I could hardly do that because I fall way short of Jesus' righteousness myself. This would therefore make me a hypocrite and Jesus' words about taking care of the log in my own eye before I worry about the splinter in someone elses eye would probably haunt me.

As for your concern about those being judged who support the perceived sins of others ...well, you've already made the case about your belief (even though I don't agree with it) that homosexuality is a sin so why would you be judged for supporting this 'sin'? Clearly, you're not supporting it. You have also given your message - as you believe it to be - that homosexuals need to stop being homosexuals and repent and be saved so there is little point in pushing it over and over and over. People (which is what homosexuals are) will either listen and respond favorably to your message or they won't. Whatever they do, your job is done.

Is there any other flag? In the words of Jesus, a house divided against itself shall not stand. How can you have two different flags? One Aboriginal and one Australian?

And that question, I'm assuming you're trying to be smart. The British ensign is there because it represents our heritage. And if you didn't know that, then I'd be rather ashamed to call you a fellow countryman.

Hypocrite much? You give a deafening exclamation some posts back that Julia Gillard is a POM!! The implication being that a pom (an English person to those who don't know) should not have the right to govern Australia. I sorta feel that way myself, not that I let it bother me too much. NOW you're falling back on that English heritage that you appear to be so proud of. Again, hypocrite much? By the way, I came to Australia from the United States (Kansas, hence my screen name) in 1980. I am, however, an Australian Citizen and I look forward to the day when Australia becomes a Republic and flies a more appropriate flag of its own, i.e. a flag devoid of the British ensign! Canada did. This is my opinion and the last time I checked we ARE still allowed an opinion in this country. So, no need to feel ashamed for me.

 

[meshak]

Why so many main stream church people are concerned of what this world do and interfere with it?

Jesus says His followers are not of this world. He also says let the dead bury their own dead. Your controlling spirit it showing vividly, friends.

His followers their own responsibility to do, spreading the knowlesge of God's kingdom which most of you are neglecting to do by minding this world's business and practicing militant faith.

 

[Selene]

WHAT is the reason that values have gone down in society? All I said was that homosexuality is either normal, a disorder or a choice. I asked ...which is it? As for pedophilia and *gasp* murder ...do we really need to equate these with homosexuality?

You DID say that if homosexuality was (still) on the APA list as a disorder, then the Supreme Court would not need to decide same sex marriage. If that doesn't imply that people with disorders cannot legally marry then I don't know what you meant. As for gays already having the right to marry, yes, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. This does not work for them because they are simply not hard-wired to be intimately attracted to someone of the opposite gender. It matters not WHY ...it simply IS.


In your first paragraph - which I haven't yet learned to separate and respond to as a snippet of the whole, grrrr... - you say that Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites and a brood of vipers because he loved them and wanted to correct them. This assumes that homosexuals need correction simply because they happen to be gay. And they well MIGHT need correction - same as heterosexuals - but NOT because of their sexual orientation. One's sexual orientation - be it gay or straight - cannot be a sin. There is no way anyone can convince me otherwise of this. One thing that I DON'T need convincing of, however, is that we are ALL sinners. If I knew you well in real life, Selene, I might see things in you that I believed fell way short of Jesus' righteousness. I could, therefore, take your position and be the one pointing the finger at you. In reality, however, I could hardly do that because I fall way short of Jesus' righteousness myself. This would therefore make me a hypocrite and Jesus' words about taking care of the log in my own eye before I worry about the splinter in someone elses eye would probably haunt me.

As for your concern about those being judged who support the perceived sins of others ...well, you've already made the case about your belief (even though I don't agree with it) that homosexuality is a sin so why would you be judged for supporting this 'sin'? Clearly, you're not supporting it. You have also given your message - as you believe it to be - that homosexuals need to stop being homosexuals and repent and be saved so there is little point in pushing it over and over and over. People (which is what homosexuals are) will either listen and respond favorably to your message or they won't. Whatever they do, your job is done.


.

Where in my post did I say that sexual orientation is a sin? I said that the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. I thought I made it clear that God loves the sinner, but it's the sin that He does not approve. The sin is the act of homosexuality. If the person really loves their neighbor, they would correct them (See 2 Timothy 4:2) rather than support and approve their sinful behavior. After all, when the money changers were selling in the temple, what did Jesus do? He overturned the tables and drove the money changers out. He did not support their shameful behavior in the temple.

You asked whether homosexuality is normal, a disorder, or a choice. For some, it's a disorder just like pedophilia is a disorder. And for others, it is a choice. See the story below, and I provided the weblink below:

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

A minor incident in a barber’s shop last week has helped me to realise that I may no longer be gay. Not a fully fledged homo, anyway; perhaps not even a part-timer who helps the team out when it’s busy. It appears I may be going straight.
I was in Tenterden, the Kentish village where I was brought up and to which I have lately returned, working at a nearby aerodrome as a helicopter pilot. I was waiting my turn for a chatty Latvian to apply the hot towels and razor.

A handsome young dad entered with a small, fair-haired boy at his side. The man took a seat and hoisted the wide-eyed child proudly on to his knee. The first haircut, I speculated inwardly, as an unfamiliar fatherly glow and feeling of mild envy swept over me. I could not tear my attention away from the mirrored reflections.

From time to time, the dad leant forward as they waited and whispered close to his son’s ear, tenderly kissing his fair head. Touching stuff.

But then my eyes lowered and I became transfixed by the sight of the boy’s tiny pink fingers gripping his father’s huge, workman-like fist. And I almost wanted to burst into song.
I think my life changed at that moment.

That’s love, folks. Simple really. A proud dad, an adored little boy and a beautiful display of dependence and responsibility. It was the epiphany I had needed and I emerged with a dashing new haircut and a desire to procreate.

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

And lately I have, almost imperceptibly, been laying the groundwork to make parenthood happen in the old-fashioned way. I have been flirting with someone at my local pub, thinking about her at odd times, making excuses to call her and wondering if she likes me. It’s rather strange.

This will come as a shock to — among others — my male former partner of ten years, gay pals from my former media career, my rabidly heterosexual chums in the aviation industry and, not least, my family (who rather hoped I was going through a phase — albeit for about 20 years). Well, it’s come as a shock to me, too.

I once attended the nuptials of a gay male friend to a girl with whom he had unexpectedly fallen head over heels in love. It was a curious affair: the wedding party was peopled with his ex-lovers — including me, the best man and even the vicar. There is a risk that a wedding guest list of mine could have the same casting issues.

My sexuality was formed behind bike sheds and in school dormitories, a most unimaginatively clichéd pattern of pubescent fumbling. This propelled me into a lifestyle, reinforced by a social milieu of flamboyant media gays. At the BBC, where I worked for seven years, homosexuality was very nearly compulsory.

At these tidings, my sceptical buddies will splutter, “You what?! Miss Patsy, trouser-chaser extraordinaire, has decided she’s now dancing at the other end of the ballroom? Pur-leeeeeeeze!” They have seen little evidence of an interest in the opposite sex during my adult life, nor asked why. And that’s the clincher.

If there had been an interest, it became eclipsed by other more instant, carnal and deliciously taboo temptations, so it never gained light to grow. For 20 years, my life took a track that stifled the fragile stems of a family man that wanted to emerge.

So I will have to face down a tidal wave of doubt as I’m coming out in public. People will look at me strangely now — though I doubt they’ll mutter, “Well, of course, we always wondered. After all, he is interested in real ale and piston engines.”

For it is true: I quite like girls. But there is no pink meteor shower for this announcement; no glittered cabaret or niche community willing to clutch me to its bosom and claim me as a sister. Just a little whiff of suspicion.

Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.

Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.

A 12th-century chronicler, quoted by the historian Christopher Hibbert in his History of England, wrote of the homosexual king William Rufus: “All things that are loathsome to God and to earnest men were customary in this land in his time.” In modern times, we have become accustomed to abnormality again.

But two decades of cavorting with my own sex has delivered little that is memorable, except one super-sized sexless friendship with the aforementioned ex-boyf, with whom I spent a decade of my life; numerous hours of internet dating; a dizzying number of casual couplings and a few trips to genitourinary medicine clinics.

I will spare you tales of exploits in the gloaming world of fast gay encounters. You would simply not believe what I have seen and done. You would not want to know.

I can however disclose that I was once pursued in a subterranean gay haunt by the homosexual rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Scantily clad, he was quite resistible. Like Oscar Wilde, I have “feasted with panthers”. And survived.

In novels such as E. M. Forster’s Maurice, a seminal work of gay literature, the message was tolerance. It was never a charter for parity. Civil partnerships really are little more than theatrical shams involving men making a point in matching wedding cravats, of embarrassed grandparents and monstrously camp multi-tier cakes.

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

I was never convinced of my sexuality. True, I never liked football or fighting and I do make a beautifully light Victoria sponge when the need arises. But I shamble like a bloke, I burp and fart without shame and I’ve never really got Barbra Streisand. There was a little voice, lost long ago in the drowning din of my homosexuality, that still called quietly; the smothered, smaller voice of a boy who liked girls.

And then, two summers ago, I met Olga. She was a knockout-looking Ukrainian, washed ashore as a waitress in a breakfast bar in Ocean City, Maryland, on the East Coast of America. I was working locally as a pilot. A group of aviators slouched in each morning for coffee, eggs and grits. She took a particular interest in my chopper.

We began an e-mail exchange and she would send me numerous pictures of the industrial city of Cherkassy, her hometown, where people who swim in its river find that they glow at night. I liked Olga. She was pretty. Nothing happened, though — I wanted more than a passport-hunter and children whose presence would send Geiger counters into a frenzy.

Pilots have a habit of attracting female attention, as the numerous airline captain/stewardess couplings attest. The phenomenon even has a name: pilotitis. So, when I became a helicopter instructor, I was ready for dilated pupils and blushes when I took female students skywards. OK, I must admit, I am still waiting . . .

But for the first time in my life, I’ve been getting to know girls. It’s been a blast. As a teacher, I find them naturally adept at flying helicopters. They listen and they are good at multi-tasking. They are fun to be around and sometimes they’re pretty.

I had a girlfriend once, 24 years ago, when I was in my late teens. It really wasn’t a great success, as the two decades of uninterrupted homosexuality that followed it possibly demonstrate. We lived together briefly and “did it”. But she wore striped pyjamas and it was confusing. What I’m saying is, I’m ready for another go. No pyjamas, though, this time.

I want a wife to love and a child to protect. And I want to look at them both and know that they are mine and I am needed by both and I can be like the workman’s fist, clutched tightly by the little pink fingers in the barber shop. The rock of the family.

Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.

Would I be a good husband? I hope so. Would I keep faith? Well, I would try. The same siren voices to stray call to all men, all the time. I would be no different.

The late jazz singer, art critic and gay-straight convert George Melly was the first celebrity I interviewed as a young radio reporter in my previous career who told me about his Damascene transformation. He was 30 years old, on a country bicycle ride with a group of friends, when it happened. Floridly gay, he suddenly noticed that he was staring at the girls, rather than theboys, and declared to himself, “Oooh, you’re heterosexual now, dearie.” He went on to enjoy a long and happy marriage.

So anything is possible. With the right kind of understanding girl, who loves me and possesses pragmatism and patience, I can picture myself as a good husband and dad.

Next month, I will be embarking on the first step of catch-up, to acquire parenting skills by volunteering as a befriender for children in care via a local charity. After vetting, there is special training and then a two-year commitment to visit and take out a child who needs a friend and a new perspective on adults.

This may be time-consuming, thankless and possibly distressing on the one hand. On the other, I will get free entry to various local zoos and the fabulous children’s JCB digger driving centre near Maidstone — without looking like a weirdo.
How good will it feel to see a smile break across an unhappy child’s face? That is my goal. Surely that is the magic that only parents usually know. And one day perhaps I will see that smile on my own offspring’s face and it will be heaven-sent.

So there was symmetry in rediscovering myself last week in a barber shop in the village of my childhood, the place of my innocence, before life’s twisting turns. As the last line of The Great Gatsby says: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Sometimes, in the past, we rediscover ourselves and new paths to our futures.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/01/18/the-day-i-decided-to-stop-being-gay/




And below is another story of a lesbian woman named Harriet Bernstein. She was a mother of two kids and a grandmother of six. This woman is 70 years old and In 2008, she suddenly found herself a lesbian after she attended a retreat for gays and lesbians. So, most of her life she was straight until she visited a retreat full of gays and lesbians? It sounds to me like she was environmentally influenced rather than being born a lesbian. See the weblinks below:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340


http://www.edgeboston.com/news/family///138330/nj_civil_group_found_to_discriminate_against_lesbian_couple_

 

[Groundzero]

Interesting post Selene.

I get tired of hearing 'Christians' especially, try and tell me that people are born with a homosexual orientation. That's a load of rubbish.

 

[KCKID]

Where in my post did I say that sexual orientation is a sin? I said that the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. I thought I made it clear that God loves the sinner, but it's the sin that He does not approve. The sin is the act of homosexuality. If the person really loves their neighbor, they would correct them (See 2 Timothy 4:2) rather than support and approve their sinful behavior. After all, when the money changers were selling in the temple, what did Jesus do? He overturned the tables and drove the money changers out. He did not support their shameful behavior in the temple.

You asked whether homosexuality is normal, a disorder, or a choice. For some, it's a disorder just like pedophilia is a disorder. And for others, it is a choice. See the story below, and I provided the weblink below:

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

A minor incident in a barber’s shop last week has helped me to realise that I may no longer be gay. Not a fully fledged homo, anyway; perhaps not even a part-timer who helps the team out when it’s busy. It appears I may be going straight.
I was in Tenterden, the Kentish village where I was brought up and to which I have lately returned, working at a nearby aerodrome as a helicopter pilot. I was waiting my turn for a chatty Latvian to apply the hot towels and razor.

A handsome young dad entered with a small, fair-haired boy at his side. The man took a seat and hoisted the wide-eyed child proudly on to his knee. The first haircut, I speculated inwardly, as an unfamiliar fatherly glow and feeling of mild envy swept over me. I could not tear my attention away from the mirrored reflections.

From time to time, the dad leant forward as they waited and whispered close to his son’s ear, tenderly kissing his fair head. Touching stuff.

But then my eyes lowered and I became transfixed by the sight of the boy’s tiny pink fingers gripping his father’s huge, workman-like fist. And I almost wanted to burst into song.
I think my life changed at that moment.

That’s love, folks. Simple really. A proud dad, an adored little boy and a beautiful display of dependence and responsibility. It was the epiphany I had needed and I emerged with a dashing new haircut and a desire to procreate.

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

And lately I have, almost imperceptibly, been laying the groundwork to make parenthood happen in the old-fashioned way. I have been flirting with someone at my local pub, thinking about her at odd times, making excuses to call her and wondering if she likes me. It’s rather strange.

This will come as a shock to — among others — my male former partner of ten years, gay pals from my former media career, my rabidly heterosexual chums in the aviation industry and, not least, my family (who rather hoped I was going through a phase — albeit for about 20 years). Well, it’s come as a shock to me, too.

I once attended the nuptials of a gay male friend to a girl with whom he had unexpectedly fallen head over heels in love. It was a curious affair: the wedding party was peopled with his ex-lovers — including me, the best man and even the vicar. There is a risk that a wedding guest list of mine could have the same casting issues.

My sexuality was formed behind bike sheds and in school dormitories, a most unimaginatively clichéd pattern of pubescent fumbling. This propelled me into a lifestyle, reinforced by a social milieu of flamboyant media gays. At the BBC, where I worked for seven years, homosexuality was very nearly compulsory.

At these tidings, my sceptical buddies will splutter, “You what?! Miss Patsy, trouser-chaser extraordinaire, has decided she’s now dancing at the other end of the ballroom? Pur-leeeeeeeze!” They have seen little evidence of an interest in the opposite sex during my adult life, nor asked why. And that’s the clincher.

If there had been an interest, it became eclipsed by other more instant, carnal and deliciously taboo temptations, so it never gained light to grow. For 20 years, my life took a track that stifled the fragile stems of a family man that wanted to emerge.

So I will have to face down a tidal wave of doubt as I’m coming out in public. People will look at me strangely now — though I doubt they’ll mutter, “Well, of course, we always wondered. After all, he is interested in real ale and piston engines.”

For it is true: I quite like girls. But there is no pink meteor shower for this announcement; no glittered cabaret or niche community willing to clutch me to its bosom and claim me as a sister. Just a little whiff of suspicion.

Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.

Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.

A 12th-century chronicler, quoted by the historian Christopher Hibbert in his History of England, wrote of the homosexual king William Rufus: “All things that are loathsome to God and to earnest men were customary in this land in his time.” In modern times, we have become accustomed to abnormality again.

But two decades of cavorting with my own sex has delivered little that is memorable, except one super-sized sexless friendship with the aforementioned ex-boyf, with whom I spent a decade of my life; numerous hours of internet dating; a dizzying number of casual couplings and a few trips to genitourinary medicine clinics.

I will spare you tales of exploits in the gloaming world of fast gay encounters. You would simply not believe what I have seen and done. You would not want to know.

I can however disclose that I was once pursued in a subterranean gay haunt by the homosexual rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Scantily clad, he was quite resistible. Like Oscar Wilde, I have “feasted with panthers”. And survived.

In novels such as E. M. Forster’s Maurice, a seminal work of gay literature, the message was tolerance. It was never a charter for parity. Civil partnerships really are little more than theatrical shams involving men making a point in matching wedding cravats, of embarrassed grandparents and monstrously camp multi-tier cakes.

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

I was never convinced of my sexuality. True, I never liked football or fighting and I do make a beautifully light Victoria sponge when the need arises. But I shamble like a bloke, I burp and fart without shame and I’ve never really got Barbra Streisand. There was a little voice, lost long ago in the drowning din of my homosexuality, that still called quietly; the smothered, smaller voice of a boy who liked girls.

And then, two summers ago, I met Olga. She was a knockout-looking Ukrainian, washed ashore as a waitress in a breakfast bar in Ocean City, Maryland, on the East Coast of America. I was working locally as a pilot. A group of aviators slouched in each morning for coffee, eggs and grits. She took a particular interest in my chopper.

We began an e-mail exchange and she would send me numerous pictures of the industrial city of Cherkassy, her hometown, where people who swim in its river find that they glow at night. I liked Olga. She was pretty. Nothing happened, though — I wanted more than a passport-hunter and children whose presence would send Geiger counters into a frenzy.

Pilots have a habit of attracting female attention, as the numerous airline captain/stewardess couplings attest. The phenomenon even has a name: pilotitis. So, when I became a helicopter instructor, I was ready for dilated pupils and blushes when I took female students skywards. OK, I must admit, I am still waiting . . .

But for the first time in my life, I’ve been getting to know girls. It’s been a blast. As a teacher, I find them naturally adept at flying helicopters. They listen and they are good at multi-tasking. They are fun to be around and sometimes they’re pretty.

I had a girlfriend once, 24 years ago, when I was in my late teens. It really wasn’t a great success, as the two decades of uninterrupted homosexuality that followed it possibly demonstrate. We lived together briefly and “did it”. But she wore striped pyjamas and it was confusing. What I’m saying is, I’m ready for another go. No pyjamas, though, this time.

I want a wife to love and a child to protect. And I want to look at them both and know that they are mine and I am needed by both and I can be like the workman’s fist, clutched tightly by the little pink fingers in the barber shop. The rock of the family.

Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.

Would I be a good husband? I hope so. Would I keep faith? Well, I would try. The same siren voices to stray call to all men, all the time. I would be no different.

The late jazz singer, art critic and gay-straight convert George Melly was the first celebrity I interviewed as a young radio reporter in my previous career who told me about his Damascene transformation. He was 30 years old, on a country bicycle ride with a group of friends, when it happened. Floridly gay, he suddenly noticed that he was staring at the girls, rather than theboys, and declared to himself, “Oooh, you’re heterosexual now, dearie.” He went on to enjoy a long and happy marriage.

So anything is possible. With the right kind of understanding girl, who loves me and possesses pragmatism and patience, I can picture myself as a good husband and dad.

Next month, I will be embarking on the first step of catch-up, to acquire parenting skills by volunteering as a befriender for children in care via a local charity. After vetting, there is special training and then a two-year commitment to visit and take out a child who needs a friend and a new perspective on adults.

This may be time-consuming, thankless and possibly distressing on the one hand. On the other, I will get free entry to various local zoos and the fabulous children’s JCB digger driving centre near Maidstone — without looking like a weirdo.
How good will it feel to see a smile break across an unhappy child’s face? That is my goal. Surely that is the magic that only parents usually know. And one day perhaps I will see that smile on my own offspring’s face and it will be heaven-sent.

So there was symmetry in rediscovering myself last week in a barber shop in the village of my childhood, the place of my innocence, before life’s twisting turns. As the last line of The Great Gatsby says: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Sometimes, in the past, we rediscover ourselves and new paths to our futures.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/01/18/the-day-i-decided-to-stop-being-gay/




And below is another story of a lesbian woman named Harriet Bernstein. She was a mother of two kids and a grandmother of six. This woman is 70 years old and In 2008, she suddenly found herself a lesbian after she attended a retreat for gays and lesbians. So, most of her life she was straight until she visited a retreat full of gays and lesbians? It sounds to me like she was environmentally influenced rather than being born a lesbian. See the weblinks below:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340


http://www.edgeboston.com/news/family///138330/nj_civil_group_found_to_discriminate_against_lesbian_couple_

I acknowledge having read the story that you took the time to print but I'm still left to say, "So what?" I don't know what the tale of one person - who is obviously bi-sexual anyay - has to do with every gay person in the world. People are people and they come in all shapes and sizes, temperaments, personalities, varying degrees of sexual orientation, etc. I don't know what such stories are supposed to prove other than what I just said about people . . .

Interesting post Selene.

I get tired of hearing 'Christians' especially, try and tell me that people are born with a homosexual orientation. That's a load of rubbish.

Well, this is a great opportunity for you to prove your rather silly "across the board" remark. Either retract what you say or prove it with facts. If you can't provide the latter then it will show to one and all that you have no idea what you are talking about. I already know that you don't know what you're talking about but here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Perhaps we need to get a couple of things clear with regard to this subject. Firstly, and MOST importantly, it's NO ONE'S business - and 'no one' includes YOU, ZebraHug - who two adults are intimately attracted to and wish to commit themselves to ...and that really DOES need to be emphasized! Secondly, and relative to 'Firstly', it MATTERS NOT whether such an attraction is due to nurture or nature, normal, a disorder or a choice. Who one chooses to commit themselves to in a life-time relationship is THEIR business and NO ONE ELSES!

Anyway, ZebraHug ...back to you and your remark. Either prove or retract. Over to you . . .

 

[Rach1370]

The problem (for some of us) with Julia perhaps getting axed in September is that we get Tony in her place. :unsure:

Well, yeah...politicians are politicians. But having said that....the labour party in general has a long and glorious history of putting us so incredibly in debt. They always....and I do mean always, screw over the farmers and those in country towns. So I will always (unless there is a major change in party's) vote for Liberal, regardless of who's the current leader.
Having said that, I don't actually mind Abbott. Especially when held up against Gillard. He has not stolen anyone's spouse. He does not claim to understand things he's never experienced (motherhood), despite Julia's desperate attempt to make him look like a sexist misogynist, he has several strong women in his family who disagree. Calling Julia what she is is not sexism...it's realism.
As I said before, even if I agreed with Julia's policies (which I do not), I couldn't stand her just based on her morals alone. She is a cheating, lying alley cat, who is a terrible role model for young women, despite how everyone praised her for being our first lady PM. And I simply do not believe that she voted against same sex marriage due to any real understanding or respect for the biblcal notion of a nuclear family, or any real moral reason at all.

 

[meshak]

Why so many main stream church people are concerned of what this world do and interfere with it?

Jesus says His followers are not of this world. He also says let the dead bury their own dead. Your controlling spirit it showing vividly, friends.

His followers their own responsibility to do, spreading the knowlesge of God's kingdom which most of you are neglecting to do by minding this world's business and practicing militant faith.

no one seems to be interested in this post. :huh:

 

[aspen]

Perhaps it hits too close to the truth, Meshak?

 

[Rach1370]

Well....I think it's all well and good to say that we're not of this earth, and to let the 'pagans' do as they please....but that's not truly taking into consideration what Jesus calls us to do here. Meshak...I thought you of all would have been on this:

Doesn't Jesus call us to be the salt and light on this earth?

13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is
no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16, ESV)

And what about this?

3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4, ESV)

Do we think it biblically sound and responsible in the light of what God calls us to, to let such evilness abound unchecked in the world (and I'm talking lots of issues here, not just the homosexuality debate) without any attempt by God's people to halt it or slow it down?

We know evilness will go forth and multiply in the last days, but we are still called to show our light and be salty. We are also called to go out and to spread the gospel. Neither can be done if we shut ourselves away and not enter into society at all.

Something else to consider....God calls me to be a biblically and gospel centred parent. How can I, in all good conscience, let my children attend schools that will become more and more secular without me standing up and saying something?

God tells us we must get along with all if possible, and to give the government what is theirs to claim. But he also tells us to draw a line in the sand. Sin is sin, and if we feel the world is pushing us to bend to sin, then we stand strong and not move.

 

[meshak]

Well....I think it's all well and good to say that we're not of this earth, and to let the 'pagans' do as they please....but that's not truly taking into consideration what Jesus calls us to do here. Meshak...I thought you of all would have been on this:

Doesn't Jesus call us to be the salt and light on this earth?

13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is
no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16, ESV)

And what about this?

3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4, ESV)

Do we think it biblically sound and responsible in the light of what God calls us to, to let such evilness abound unchecked in the world (and I'm talking lots of issues here, not just the homosexuality debate) without any attempt by God's people to halt it or slow it down?

We know evilness will go forth and multiply in the last days, but we are still called to show our light and be salty. We are also called to go out and to spread the gospel. Neither can be done if we shut ourselves away and not enter into society at all.

Something else to consider....God calls me to be a biblically and gospel centred parent. How can I, in all good conscience, let my children attend schools that will become more and more secular without me standing up and saying something?

God tells us we must get along with all if possible, and to give the government what is theirs to claim. But he also tells us to draw a line in the sand. Sin is sin, and if we feel the world is pushing us to bend to sin, then we stand strong and not move.

If you are salt and light of the world, you should not be insulting the world by judging what the world are doing. It is non of our business what they do. It is God who will judge them when it is time. They dont even know what God teaches them. We are supposed to be a good example to them with our own conduct. They have to accept Jesus first, then they will know what is sin or not.

Jesus' followers responsibility is tell the world about God's kingdom. And they are so busy minding world's business getting involved in the politics, another big thing is getting involved in wars which is another political issue.

 

[KCKID]

no one seems to be interested in this post. :huh:

Sorry, meshak ...I never even noticed your post.

It's my take that Christians were only instructed to preach the Good News (Gospel) to the world and leave it at that for people to either accept or reject. Unfortunately, we see less and less of this occurring as Christians instead attempt to take on this perceived 'sinful world' in militant fashion with condemning scriptures which invariably result in the opposite to what they hoped to achieve. Instead of the Good News message we hear mostly, "You MUST surrender your liberty and submit to MY God's will OR ELSE!" People 'of the world' don't respond kindly to messages that are intended to demean and condemn. If Jesus was not reported to have risen, He would be turning in His grave.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

This has got nothing to do with upholding God's law. Australia is basically an atheist nation so whatever it does has got nothing to do with the Christian God or ANY god! So, just let us put this into perspective and stop being religiously giddy about it.

ALSO, it's offensive to WHOEVER is not a Christian - and not simply GLBTs - to imply that they are therefore without character as you do above. Furthermore, Australia is no more greater than are the countries others on this forum reside in. That being said and back to the topic, it will only be a matter of time - and will have nothing to do with you or me - before gay marriage is common place and accepted in this country. I'm not saying that this is good or bad ...simply that it WILL happen!



Why? Allowing gay marriage does not mean that YOU must participate in a gay marriage . . .it should not affect you in the slightest.

In regards to your point, it's inevitable.

Unfortunately you may be correct pumpkin. As we all know it's easier to be bad then good.

In the words of scripture in regards to character "quit ye like men". In regards to Australian law. It has long been known that divine law (in-fact it was taught as part of law) was and still is to some degree couched in the law of the land. This goes for America as well. Although thanks to a minority groups like the GLBT and feminism it's slowly being unwound.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130324-gay-marriage-protest-france-paris

Almost a million people showed up to protest. Is this happening in the US anywhere??

Excellent. That's what needs to happen in America. :)

 

[Groundzero]

I acknowledge having read the story that you took the time to print but I'm still left to say, "So what?" I don't know what the tale of one person - who is obviously bi-sexual anyay - has to do with every gay person in the world. People are people and they come in all shapes and sizes, temperaments, personalities, varying degrees of sexual orientation, etc. I don't know what such stories are supposed to prove other than what I just said about people . . .



Well, this is a great opportunity for you to prove your rather silly "across the board" remark. Either retract what you say or prove it with facts. If you can't provide the latter then it will show to one and all that you have no idea what you are talking about. I already know that you don't know what you're talking about but here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Perhaps we need to get a couple of things clear with regard to this subject. Firstly, and MOST importantly, it's NO ONE'S business - and 'no one' includes YOU, ZebraHug - who two adults are intimately attracted to and wish to commit themselves to ...and that really DOES need to be emphasized! Secondly, and relative to 'Firstly', it MATTERS NOT whether such an attraction is due to nurture or nature, normal, a disorder or a choice. Who one chooses to commit themselves to in a life-time relationship is THEIR business and NO ONE ELSES!

Anyway, ZebraHug ...back to you and your remark. Either prove or retract. Over to you . . .

You know, it's rather funny, but I've had several people try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about lately. One was an offended Trinitarian who kept sticking his foot in his mouth. The second was some unknown who tried telling me I didn't know a thing about natural selection, breeding, or evolution (and when I asked him to give an example of 'beneficial' mutations, all he could do was swear and curse at me.).
Prove or retract. Lol. I don't retract. I never retract unless it's clear that I'm wrong ACCORDING to Scripture.

From Scripture:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

According to Romans, the homosexual lifestyle (and a host of others) is an UNNATURAL lifestyle. It's NOT the way God made us to be. Anything that goes against God's will is not the way we were made to be, and though we may adapt to it because of our fallen nature, we eventually will be destroyed by it.


Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The homosexual lifestyle CANNOT be natural because it's a sin in God's eyes.



You know, before I'm misunderstood (that statement is probably too late), I really don't have any quarrel with homosexuals who keep to themselves. My issue lies with Christians who claim the name of Christ and yet compromise in order to be crowd pleasers. My issue is with the aggresive pro-homosexual movement that's attempting to destroy the family unit that the Almighty God instituted. My issue is with the homosexuals who won't keep to themselves but are pushing to influence and educate children to grow up into their sinful lifestyle. Unlike many of the Christians I've met, I will not lie down. God's still alive, and he's watching everything that's happening.

My question to you is this: what Christian are you? Because right now, I'm far from convinced.

 

[KCKID]

You know, it's rather funny, but I've had several people try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about lately. One was an offended Trinitarian who kept sticking his foot in his mouth. The second was some unknown who tried telling me I didn't know a thing about natural selection, breeding, or evolution (and when I asked him to give an example of 'beneficial' mutations, all he could do was swear and curse at me.).

Well, I'm not likely to do that. However, one needs to back up what they say or believe. In your case you gave a supposed 'positive' one-liner that said homosexuality being a choice is rubbish. Now, if anyone takes your word based on a comment not substantiated in any way whatever - in other words just a wild opinion - then they are as foolish as the person who made it. The same that I expect from others also applies to me, of course.

Prove or retract. Lol. I don't retract. I never retract unless it's clear that I'm wrong ACCORDING to Scripture.

I see no text in scripture stating that homosexuality being a choice is rubbish. Nothing has changed simply because you mentioned the word 'scripture'. Funny thing, many Christians seem to believe that as long as they use the word 'scripture' they can basically say anything whether it be fact or fiction. So, you need to prove or retract.

From Scripture:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

According to Romans, the homosexual lifestyle (and a host of others) is an UNNATURAL lifestyle. It's NOT the way God made us to be. Anything that goes against God's will is not the way we were made to be, and though we may adapt to it because of our fallen nature, we eventually will be destroyed by it.

Well, while I don't give the words of Paul any particular divinity (why do YOU, by the way?) his understanding of MANY things, including sexuality, would have been VERY limited. Therefore his opinions on such things would carry little weight or no weight at all for we of today. Simply because Paul's letters made it into the NT Canon of scripture - nothing to do with God but men - does not necessarily make Paul a mouth-piece for Jesus. Indeed, many Christians of today have given Paul the status of God/Jesus!

Be that as it may, the texts you present below are only partial and have been cherry-picked by you in this case but usually cherry picked in a similar way by other Christians and are therefore not representative of the whole picture. While I haven't yet learned on this forum to isolate certain parts of one's posts and respond to a specific piece as opposed to the entire paragraph (can this be done?) I have to say that the piece you present below has little or nothing to do with homosexuality per se just as it has nothing to do with heterosexuality per se. But it IS critical of both homosexual and heterosexual acts and other pagan practices that are affiliated with temple prostitution and idolatry. If you don't know this then I can't help your ignorance on this matter. I don't mind being corrected if I'm shown to be wrong - well, like most people I'd prefer NOT to be wrong - but I don't want to involve myself in a debate of who is right or wrong where the other person doesn't know what they're talking about from the outset. I realize that when I say, "those texts don't mean what you think they mean (or, more likely, have been TAUGHT to think what they mean)", I leave myself open to a barrage of retorts screaming that I'm pro-gay and twisting the scriptures for this purpose ...yadda, yadda, yadda. To that I say in advance, "Poppycock!" I have no agenda except to expose falsehoods where I see them that are used by Christians time and time again to demean other human beings. It really DOES sicken me that Christians have lost sight of the Gospel message and instead force militant and unnecessary pious viewpoints on the rest of the world! They don't seem to realize that THEY - and NOT those they LOVE to target - may well be the ones who Jesus tells, "Go away, I never knew you ..."

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The homosexual lifestyle CANNOT be natural because it's a sin in God's eyes.

You know, before I'm misunderstood (that statement is probably too late), I really don't have any quarrel with homosexuals who keep to themselves. My issue lies with Christians who claim the name of Christ and yet compromise in order to be crowd pleasers. My issue is with the aggresive pro-homosexual movement that's attempting to destroy the family unit that the Almighty God instituted. My issue is with the homosexuals who won't keep to themselves but are pushing to influence and educate children to grow up into their sinful lifestyle. Unlike many of the Christians I've met, I will not lie down. God's still alive, and he's watching everything that's happening.


My question to you is this: what Christian are you? Because right now, I'm far from convinced.

What Christian am I, you ask? Do I have to pass muster with you before I can use the term? As for you far from being convinced, I'm not here to convince you of anything.