Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian GP sacked from drugs panel over views on homosexuality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good news, but it will sadly just feed into the Gays Are Trying To Take Over The World And Convert Your Children And Your Children’s Children agenda, as put forward by the likes of Melanie Phillips.

  2. Jock S. Trap 7 Feb 2011, 11:24am

    Glad to see common sense taking hold. This doctors attitude has no place in the 21st century and his bigotted views are not worthy of public attention.

    Notice the ‘they’re only picking on me coz I’m Christian’ attitude again. It’s getting so very boring when they continuously use the ‘religion card’.

    So out of touch people deserve out of touch treatment of the ignored kind.

  3. good pleased your sacked -you failed to declare your pass work which cannot be substantiated with any authority. why did you fail to mention your previous work?

  4. hooray! Wonder what Melaniebitch will say to this one!

  5. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear some expression of tolerance from Christians?
    It really seems as though the bigots gravitate to religions to ratify their nasty, bullying beliefs.

  6. And how long will it be before certain Christian factions start yelling “help I’m being oppressed.”

    Not only is his understanding of homosexuality risible, but he felt comfortable lying about it when asked professional questions. Does this demonstrate dishonesty? Or the kind of cognitive dissonance that tells him that his opinions/faith are nonsensical claptrap?

  7. Nope, not “sacrificed on the alter of political correctness”. Hoisted by your own petard mate.
    You are free to have whatever bigoted views you want in private, but as a public servant you don’t get to use your political influence to lend credibility to them.

  8. Christine Beckett 7 Feb 2011, 11:56am

    “Are we saying that being a Christian is now a bar to public office?’”

    No, but being a bigoted, moronic, lying arsehole is…

    He could always try for a job with the Daily Mail, though.

    chrissie..

  9. LordEgbertNobacon 7 Feb 2011, 11:57am

    religion/race/gay card can`t see the difference ,all boring, self advantage seekers.

  10. TheSuburbanBi 7 Feb 2011, 11:58am

    Good.

    Bigots no longer have a place in forming and informing the public discourse of any society that hopes to live up the label ‘civilised’.

    There are a good many loving, progressive, decent Christians (some of whom are LGBT as well) who don’t want to be tarred with the brush of these religious bigots anymore than the rest of us want to have them inflicted on us.

  11. Jock S. Trap 7 Feb 2011, 12:09pm

    Surely more proof these people want to be treated differently and be above the law.

    No Dr. Raabe you wasn’t sacked for being a Christian. You were sacked for lying on your CV/interview and got caught. Thats not making you a victim that say ‘Welcome to real world of right and wrong and what us ‘ordinary’ folk have to go through if we just as irresponsibily.

    Stop playing the victim and man up to your mistakes. Stop blaming everyone else for your own dishonesty.

    Typical hypocrite!

  12. Dan Filson 7 Feb 2011, 12:12pm

    I would have thought the selection process for these advisory panels might have picked up on “Maranatha Community, a Christian movement which believes homosexuality can be cured” as an indicator he was not exactly sound as a professional adviser! The Home office should review how it picks its professional advisers.
    Yes, no doubt he will be another ‘victim’ of PC-ness; to parade his crucifixion to all

  13. Lucio Buffone 7 Feb 2011, 12:21pm

    I love a good news story on a Monday!

  14. Where are all the “Theresa May and the Home Office are raging homophobes” people today?

  15. Good News

    Which highlights how taking action on an issue can bring about change!

    I made my views know about this doctors conduct through e-mail complaints.

    I am glad that the Goverment has finally realised it had made a mistake. I am also glad that the goverment are endorsing the view that, “Homophobic Christians” have no place in Medicine; or politics in the 21st century

  16. Hans Christian Raabe is an activist for the anti-gay industry, spreading it’s homophobic propaganda.
    So it’s good to see the Government distancing itself from his prejudiced and discredited, unscientific opinion.

  17. Now let’s sack the incompetent anti-gay bigot who appointed another bigot in the first place.

  18. Great news! And I wonder why he failed to mention these beliefs if he holds such store by them? Surely it couldn’t be because he knows they’re unacceptable bigotry and a pile of rubbish?

    And the only “altar” he’s been “sacrificed” on is the very same one that those poor racists get sacrificed on too.

  19. I am sorry that a good man has lost his job and for the sake of bowing to notions of political correctness. His alleged views on homosexuality should have no bearing on him doing a job, which I am given to believe he is well qualified to do. Of course if there are factors I have missed (e.g. he did indeed mislead the interview panel) then I will retract my statement but it seems to me there is an anti-Christian agenda here and that sucks. I am interested to find out more though.

  20. Make no mistake, this government with its many homophobic supporters will not stop providing the anti-gay industry with tokens to feed their anti-gay spin and martyrdom machine.

  21. He is a advocate for fake christian based junk science. He was in effect a witch doctor on a government medical science panel.

    Will the government be turning to voodoo doctors to tackle cancer?

  22. @john – he was an idiot and not a good man, is he a good man just for being a christian?
    I am glad he was sacked, many daily wail readers aren’t which is no great surprise as they are only interested in that he is an idiot christian who cherry-picked to an evil agenda

  23. @john – he was an idiot and not a good man, is he a good man just for being a christian?
    I am glad he was sacked, many daily wail readers aren’t which is no great surprise as they are only interested in that he is an idiot christian who cherry-picked to an evil agenda

  24. Based on that photo his definition of healthy life style would be high fat food, little to no exercise, professional course in bigotry and making a prat of yourself in the national media.

  25. “I am sorry that a good man has lost his job and for the sake of bowing to notions of political correctness”

    Utter rubbish, John. He lost his job, John, simply because he put belief above the medical science and reason he’s supposed to be an advisor of. He’s a doctor. His duty of care is to those he treats, and if that conflicts with his belief, and he’s not willing to put aside his beliefs, then he is not suitable for the role. Its a choice after all, like to believe in sky pixies and gods that ask you to eat them, that’s a choice too. I have read his “research” and its highly flawed and utterly biased, totally unbecoming a man of science.

    Beliefs are for “in-private” only, not to corrupt a body responsible for the medical needs of others, christian or otherwise.

    And the mention of “anti-Christian agenda” here is offensive to anyone with reason. What’s wrong with you people and “agendas” you see them everywhere. Why is that, do you think? Is paranoia now the mainstay of christians, is it?

  26. is it any wonder lgbts have a higher rate of depression and suicide thanks to idiots like him?

  27. You know, I don’t think it’s the LGBT community who should be most offended by this man’s pronouncements. Sure, they’re prejudiced, bigoted, scientifically unsubstantiated and potentially dangerous, but that’s only what we would expect from a bigot like Raabe. And in any case, as this piece of good news proves, our society is getting to the point where such views are thankfully unacceptable in public discourse.

    No, the people who should be most angry are the liberal, tolerant, decent christians who are just as appalled by Raabe’s homophobia as the rest of us. By claiming that he’s being discriminated against because he is a christian, he is implicitly saying that homophobia is an essential part of any christian belief. Admittedly it is a very common one, but there are christians who are not homophobes and if I were one of them I would be quite annoyed at this.

  28. Well, he has certainly done his boit to contribute to the “higher burden of depression, [and] attempted or completed suicide among the ‘gay population’.”

  29. 1. Ths man did not ‘lose his job’. The ACMD is an advisory body comprised of experts and people in the field – hence why they like a couple of GPs on it. It is unpaid voluntary work and the Council meets a few times a year.

    2. Clearly this man did not disclose something whilst being interviewed for the advisory post – and this is the reason for his departure. He is not being ‘sacked for being a Christian’

    3. It is reported he takes a hard line on drugs. ‘Say no to drugs!’. This is hardly a new approach and is generally discredited. Telling people not to do things is too simplistic and young people also need to be made aware of harm reduction approaches so that they can inform themselves of the decisions they are making. This is not condoning drugs – merely realising the facts of life.

    4. Clearly the selection procedure could have been more thorough, but although Home Office officials may screen applicants it will be Ministers who make the final decisions re selection.

  30. John wrote

    “His alleged views on homosexuality should have no bearing on him doing a job, which I am given to believe he is well qualified to do.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    John, this is nothing to do with political correctness or victimsing Christians. Moreover, this has every thing to do with medical incompetence, and unprofessional conduct

    John, the BMA and Royal College of Psychiatrists do not support reparative therapies for homosexuality; and have agreed to discipline and investigate doctors practicing such therapies.

    John, the Christian GP was promoting reparative therapies through his involvement in the Marantha Christian community; for which he was also a medical advisor and director apparently.

  31. theotherone 7 Feb 2011, 2:00pm

    is it just me or does this stink of a Christian Voice set up?

  32. Well there goes common sense…

    I guess one can now by judge on what they think, and not just on how they act.

    Oh well.

  33. Jock S. Trap 7 Feb 2011, 2:30pm

    @ theotherone

    Your right. I reckon a serious case of ‘entrapment’ if you ask me.

    :)

  34. Jock S. Trap 7 Feb 2011, 2:32pm

    Ironic isn’t it, for all the Christian homophobes it is them that are truely ‘away with the fairies’!

  35. LU – he was sacked because of how he ACTED, or rather, failed to act. He did not disclose information he was asked for at his interview.

  36. “Well there goes common sense…”

    Using the term “common sense” and “christianity” in the same sentience is a bit of a contraction in terms, LU. But then again, we’ve seen you’re venom towards gay people on this site before, so you’re hardly an authority on common sense, my dear.

  37. He’s clearly not a very educated Doctor either. Imagine letting your beliefs interfere with medical science.

    It’s sick to link gay people with pedos too. Mind you I’m not in favour of 4 year olds being taught about gay people. I think some anti-gay people have some very strange ideas about gay people.

    This chap needs educating though.

  38. “Mind you I’m not in favour of 4 year olds being taught about gay people”

    Why, do you think its better to surprise them at 34 as to our existence? Why would telling a 4 year old that gay people exist be a problem? They might be corrupted by our very existence? Why would you need to hide it, its not sex we’re talking about here!

    Sometime the stupidity of statesman made here makes me weep for humanity’s future……..

  39. I just checked out the Maranatha community website… i presents misinformation about homosexuals and homosexuality that is quite astounding.
    Hateful anti-gay propaganda presented as the results of legitimate research (which it is not at all) to show that homosexuals are more diseased, more immoral, unhappier than the rest of the population and that homosexual orientation can be cured.
    Hans Christian Raabe should be prosecuted and struck off.

    (Maranatha references research by discredited NARTH as evidence for alleged gay cures.)

    .

  40. LU Wrote

    “Well there goes common sense…

    I guess one can now by judge on what they think, and not just on how they act.

    Oh well.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    LU the Dr’s actions are very clear!!!

    LU in what way is supporting a Christian community, which claims to cure homosexuals; not an action?

    LU, which bit are you unclear about exaclty?

  41. Read this anti-gay tripe for yourself.

    “Statement on
    Gay affirmative therapy”
    Maranatha Community

    http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html

  42. Firstly, I am a Christian, I’m also LGBT. This group says homosexuality can be cured, well, I don’t think much of their treatment rates for a start, plus, I’m guessing part of the treatment plan is prayer. Now if I wasn’t already a Christian, someone telling me about the man in the sky who made everything so we should worship him, wouldn’t put much faith in me that he could cure my apparent “illness”.

    Faith is a choice, sexuality is chemical, your body tells you who you are attracted to, not some kind of illness

  43. Amber Thompson 7 Feb 2011, 3:22pm

    Has he ever heard of the 8Th commandment?

  44. He got the sack because he withheld information in the recruitment process for the position. It has nothing to with his views on gay people, its about his lack of integrity and honesty.

    Should this not raise questions in christian circles about his ability to be a leader? Or are all christians dishonest!

  45. “Gay Affrimative therapy”

    http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html.

    The Marantha’s use of the term “Gay Affirmative Therapy” is twisted attempt to appear legtimate.

    In therapy circles, “Gay Affirmative therapy” is term used to indicate that the practioner does not view homosexuality as a pathology; or that it should or can be cured.

    Clearly the Marantha Christian Community are twisting words to suit thier homophobic agenda, by appearing to be gay friendly; which they clearly are not!

  46. Ok, he failed to mention his views in interview. But this wasn’t an ordinary job interview. Why didn’t they research him first and not bother to invite such a neanderthal to the interview?

  47. Both NAMBLA and PIE used to march in Gay Pride.

  48. @Iain – homophobes also attend gay parades, pride etc and also has nothing to do with LBG folk you silly idiotic bigot

  49. christians are so evil and mentally deranged.

  50. @John (7 February 2011, 1:01pm) — when you say “good man” this is your opinion. Others would consider someone who has written “While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable” to be evil. It is a disgusting lie.

    John, do you believe it ? Do you think someone who writes such a thing is a “good man” ?

    His views on homosexuality are not in question. Why do you think they’re “alleged” ?

    Why do you say there is an anti-Christian agenda here ? Is it because you think that Christianity is intrinsically homophobic, and therefore any rejection of homophobia is a rejection of Christianity ?

  51. Satan is a Christian

  52. I believe that Dr Raabe SHOULD have been dismissed for not mentioning the previous prejudiced studies of his that compromised the position he was sacked from. However, the Home Office, in the way the phrased the question, did actually allow him to express his opinion, rather than give a direct answer. Note the word EMBARRASSMENT in the Pinknews excerpt. “The Home Office said he was asked in interviews for the post whether there was anything about his professional or personal history that could cause embarrassment to the government or the advisory panel and did not mention the work.” The home office should also have researched his links before they had the interview, so they are all at fault & need to improve!

    I’m a gay Christian myself though & am fed-up with all the immature intolerant anti-Christian feelings from the gay community! Tolerance does work two ways! Just because alot of us have been prejudiced against, doesn’t mean that we’re never prejudiced towards others! So would those of you who think it’s acceptable to generalise all Christians as evil and intolerant, go and have a good look at yourselves and stop being so smug & self-righteous!

  53. “@Iain – homophobes also attend gay parades, pride etc and also has nothing to do with LBG folk you silly idiotic bigot”

    Poor answer

  54. johnny33308 7 Feb 2011, 5:28pm

    Sadly, the truth of pedophilia is that the vast majority of these people are married men with children of their own-they identify as heterosexuals. They are not gay as these sorts would have you believe. This is pure bigotry not ‘religious freedom’.

  55. @Tony D — “So would those of you who think it’s acceptable to generalise all Christians as evil and intolerant … ”.

    Of course some Christians are kind and tolerant, whilst some are evil and intolerant. But it is always going to happen given the huge diversity of Christian beliefs. I often compare the beliefs of an English Quaker with those of a Westboro Baptist. There’s near no overlap, and yet both describe themselves as Christian. Both have read the Bible and yet come to such antithetical views.

    When there is such diversity of belief, the worst parts are going to characterize the whole. That’s just the way things are. It is, I’m sorry to say, a consequence of using the same word to describe yourself as others with less pleasant beliefs. People then conclude that you may have some sympathy for their beliefs.

  56. @tony d, don’t be so stupid , how can you be christian and a practising homosexual? its a direct contradiction to the bibles scriptures. Have you actually read the bible ?and don’t come back with the old cliche lame response that its a matter of interpretation. Bloody hypocrite.

  57. I now hate Christians just as much as they hate me

  58. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Feb 2011, 6:12pm

    “Tolerance does work two ways!”

    - Tony D

    Well it is not us gays who are actively attempting to prevent basic rights and services to christians.

    I do not see much in the realm of “tolerance going both ways”

    We are just trying to get on with our lives.

    Christians are actively preventing that.

  59. @ Tony D

    The problem is these tolerant Christians you are part of are as quiet as a mouse. The day I see you stand up publicly and admonish the Christian bigots, then I will believe you are supportive of LGBT people.

    Until then I will continue to see LGBT Christians as misguided fools equivalent to African members of the BNP.

  60. This is another case which demonstrates that religious faith is a mental illness!

  61. @johnK, The Maranatha statement on affirmative gay therapy is basically that they disapprove of it if you read to the end and it would seem they would prefer to scare people about the dangers of a gay “lifestyle” first to encourage them into ex-gay “therapy” and be “cured”…they basically seem to believe homosexuality is an addiction and compare treating homosexuality to treating alcohol addiction
    legitimate studies do not support these beliefs nor that sexual orientation can be deliberately changed.

  62. @helen lgbt christians are treachery personified.

  63. Harry: in response to your questions …

    John, do you believe it ?
    [I don't know enough - it is not my area of expertise]

    Do you think someone who writes such a thing is a “good man” ?
    [since when does writing what in one's professional opinion is the case make that person a bad? There seems no evidence of malicious intent - other things I have read suggest he is a good GP who cares for his patients and community which in my book makes him one of the good guys.]

    His views on homosexuality are not in question. Why do you think they’re “alleged” ?
    [I don't have all the facts and will try to find out more but my understanding was that this GP's views on homosexuality was the key issue behind his dismissal, despite claims to the contrary - but I am open to be corrected if I am worng]

    Why do you say there is an anti-Christian agenda here ?
    [Following, numerous strories in recent months when LGBT "rights" appear to have trumped those of Christians, I am suspicious. I feel that if this GPs brand of Christianity was that which went along with the status quo he would still be in post but perhaps only half the man God intends him to be]

    Is it because you think that Christianity is intrinsically homophobic,
    [No it isn't]
    and therefore any rejection of homophobia is a rejection of Christianity ?
    [No, it doesn't necessarily follow although sadly some reject Christianity because they believe it is homophobic, which is regretable]

  64. Maranatha Group…against affirmative gay therapy and for ex-gay “therapy”
    10. Conclusion

    10.1. Gay affirmative therapy starts from the false assumptions that “gays are born that way” and that homosexual orientation is unchangeable. Recent biological research — even by those sympathetic to the gay movement — shows very clearly that homosexuality is not an innate condition and that environmental factors play a major role in gender development. Recent studies and much anecdotal evidence show clearly that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation following therapy.

    10.2. The homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious consequences for physical and mental health. Due to high rates of promiscuity coupled with high risk sexual activity, especially (often unprotected) anal sex, there are high rates of often incurable STDs among homosexuals. For example, the majority of AIDS cases are among homosexuals and the majority of recent outbreaks of syphilis are observed among the homosexual population. Furthermore, homosexuality is associated with significantly increases risk of major emotional ill health such as major depression, suicide, and drug addiction. It is therefore not surprising that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to two decades. This is equivalent to or even exceeds the shortening of life span that is observed in smokers.

    10.3. Among adolescents, temporary homosexual feelings are not uncommon. These are usually fleeting and decrease significantly with increasing age. We consider the danger of gay affirmative therapy in that this therapy affirms rather than questions fleeting homosexual emotions. We therefore consider that this therapy could encourage young people to embark on a homosexual lifestyle, which is associated with many serious and adverse health outcomes.

    10.4. We are aware that young people struggle with problems of sexual identity, and sexual orientation as part of their sexual development. We consider it to be unethical to only offer young people “gay affirmative therapy” without informing them fully:
    a) of the many serious adverse health consequences of the homosexual lifestyle and
    b) that it is possible for homosexuality to be changed and that many homosexuals indeed have changed their sexual orientation and now live fulfilled heterosexual lives.

    (The above is all bit of a lie though isn’t it because it has not been shown that sexual orientation can be changed either by deliberate choice or by “therapy”)

    http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html

  65. Call to action!

    Sacking this man from the panel is NOT ENOUGH!

    Please let’s complain about him to the General Medical Council and get him struck off the medical register.

    He is not fit to be practicing as a doctor and should not be allowed free reign to harm patients.

  66. @John —I asked you if you believed that there is a “disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable” and you said “I don’t know enough – it is not my area of expertise”.

    Well can I suggest you go away now and confirm that this is a nasty vicious lie.

  67. Bye Dr Raabe. Don’t let the door smack you on the ass on the way out.

  68. Harry: when I have engaged with LGBT folk in PN and elsewhere, I have never made connections between homosexuality and paedophila as it seemed irrelevant. Even if there are were, I am not aware of it and, besides, it would not have affected my arguments.

    I am certainly open to suggestions for reading material re. whether or not there is a link but I would not normally do the research as it is not one of my priorities or interests. However, if this is an issue re. this GP’s worthiness to be in post as a drug advisor then this is another matter and I may rethink. I agree truth is the key issue and if it turns out this GP has propogated a lie then that too will affect my views.

  69. @Harry: I Agree with you. For the record, I DON’T have sympathy for people with prejudiced, bigoted, narrow minded views, even if I understand their false viewpoint.
    I don’t think that there is a definite anti-Christian bias in society, but there’s definitely an imbalance…!

    @Dr Robin: I agree with you that SOME Christians are preventing us gay people from benefiting from many essential services. SOME is not all, though. That was one of the main points I attempted to make, but not as successfully as I’d hoped.

    @Rapture: Actually, the Bible HAS been misinterpreted lots of times to justify hate, fear, prejudice, violence and death threats towards us gays. It’s all in the The Old Testament, which is very similar to the same oppressive texts also in the Koran and the Jewish book. Most Genuine Christians follow the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, which are about Love, compassion, hope, understanding, faith & forgiveness. Being non-judgemental is essential too. Hate is anti-Christian, as well as anti-human, whoever you are. So perhaps you should do some more research before accusing me of being a traitor! It’s the hateful evangelists who are the traitors!

    @Helen: I admit I haven’t done enough regards speaking out against bigoted Christians. I’m trying to work on it. Hopefully I’ll succeed in the future…! Us LGBT Christians are NOT ‘misguided fools’ though! We just happen to still believe in Jesus and God. Why should being gay change that fact?

  70. @John — I suggest you re-read what you posted. You’re suggesting it as a possibility. You must have real contempt for gay people, or you must have no scruples.

    I’m not dignifying you request for reading materials, to do so would suggest that it’s a plausible idea. It isn’t. It’s a nasty little lie, propagated by nasty little people.

  71. @Pavlos

    Thanks for message about the Maranatha community article, which attempts to dismiss the idea of Gay Affirmative therapy . . .

  72. The Telegraph has a good analysis of why he was unsuitable; see

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100075023/dr-hans-christian-raabe-of-the-acmd-it-doesnt-matter-that-youre-a-christian-youre-just-no-good-with-evidence/

    It is an age old problem for Christianity that anyone can identify as a Christian and thus claim devine justification for anything they like. Plainly this man is so far from living in imitation of Christ as to be off the scale….

  73. I think the Marathana community’s paper on gay affirmative therapy should be banned from the internet as incitement to a hate crime..if homosexuals are equated to pedos then we are hated, we all know what society thinks of pedos and homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia…It’s outrageous to be promoting such stuff and still have it on the internet! I think it should be banned!!!!

  74. Here’s the link to his ‘paper’:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

    It’s not a piece of science, it’s a laughable piece of cherry picking of all the most negative stuff he could lay his hands on.

  75. Bengo . . . thanks for the Telegraph link

    “What a Nasty Christian Bigot”

    is the general tenor of the article

  76. “You must have real contempt for gay people, or you must have no scruples.”

    Harry: Neither is true and I am disappointed you think it is. I certainly don’t want to squirm out of what I have said because you happen to take exception to what you think seems to be implied.

    For what it is worth, I do not see more evidence of paedophilia or other generally agreed unacceptable behaviour among gay folk than I do with straight folk.

    Also, one the “lies” some religious folk have been subjected to is along the lines:
    1. being gay is unnatural and perverted.
    2. paedophilia is unnatural and perverted.
    3. therefore gay people are paedophiles.
    I have never subscribed to that logical fallacy (and I also challenge it) but I feel I need to examine any evidence first before I accept or refute it. I have yet to do so in the case of what this GP has supposed to have said.

  77. It would be interesting to make a comparison of some of the Marantha papers with 1930′s german National Socialist party theories about homosexuality …

  78. …but I feel I need to examine any evidence first before I accept or refute it. I have yet to do so in the case of what this GP has supposed to have said….

    John, I also felt some initial unease at the idea that someone could be sacked for writing a scientific paper that just wasn’t what people wanted to hear. But as the Telegraph blogger so admirably points out (and you can tell yourself by reading the piece) it’s all bigotry ridden nonsense: not something that would stand up for two seconds, or be accepted by any scientific journal. He’s using his job to scrape together some sort of credibility among the very ill informed for his opinions. That’s a good reason to remove him from a government panel. If I was the most heterosexual person alive, I also wouldn’t want him as my doctor….

  79. Greeks: funnily enough I just looked at the same Telegraph aricle, which came across as scathing but also pointing out some worrying things this GP has written. I would have liked to have given the GP the benefit of the doubt, especially given it seemed that he subscribed to a similar brand of Christianity as my own, but fairs fair – we need to look at the different factors and judge on the evidence – I will do some further checks and come back …

  80. John Wrote

    ” I would have liked to have given the GP the benefit of the doubt, especially given it seemed that he subscribed to a similar brand of Christianity as my own, but fairs fair – we need to look at the different factors and judge on the evidence – I will do some further checks and come back …”

    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    John, what does this really say about you?

  81. @John — you aren’t exactly a neutral contributor on this forum. I think it’s quite reasonable to be robustly challenged if there’s the faintest hint of black propaganda in what you say. And this supposed connexion between homosexuality and paedophilia is the blackest of black propaganda.

    I take it when you say religious folk‭ you mean LGBT people ? I don’t understand why you’ve put the word lies in quotation marks.

    You say you reserve judgement on the GP “I have yet to do so in the case of what this GP has supposed to have said” yet your first post on this thread was to describe him as a “good man”. He’s a good man who thinks that gay people are more often paedophiles than straight people, apparently.

  82. I was annoyed when BBC Radio Manchester gave this revolting excuse for a human air-time this morning thinking “here we go again, the BBC having a go at the queers”.

    The host (Alan Beswick) then tore shreds off him, demanded he give a straight answer (which Raabe couldn’t) and then cut him off. Made my day.

    Raabe tried to disguise his obscene comments in 2005 by saying he writes hundreds of papers. It was clear that this man was inappropriate in his role, and that his extreme (and rather strange) views would not allow balanced judgement in dealing with a complicated issue like drugs.

    The sad thing is that some other revolting excuse for a human will write some vitriol in the Daily Mail column about it.

  83. He’s being sacked because he’s a epic crackpot.

  84. I suggest that the Maranatha Community should be listed as an anti-gay hate organisation for the beyond vile anti-gay propaganda it is putting about.

  85. Good riddance –

    The main reason why this idiot Raabe lost his position should be because of his contempt for evidence, reason, logic. The Maranatha community of which Raabe is a member, wants to ruin children’s life chances by brainwashing them with creationism in science classes. And as seen in his paper on gay marriage, he selects evidence to fit his superstitious views on life. The paper isn’t peer reviewed and thus not scientific; it has been debunked long ago in any case.

    Actually, it’s a shame he was fired – his appointment, I thought, was the final nail in the coffin of this pointless drugs body, which lost credibility when the previous government fired doctors who presented the findings according to what the evidence says. Raabe’s presence would have accelerated its demise which, alas, is now in some sort of limbo. The most basic of google checks would have raised some questions about the man’s suitability.

    I cannot imagine why anyone would be sorry to see the back of someone who maintains that gay people are more likely to be child rapists. (No point being surprised at John’s comments – he would say all those things, and in any case, he thinks the world is 6000 years old.).

  86. Thank heavens he’s not my GP …does he still practice? I wonder if he has had anyany run ins or complaints from the GMC/BMA, with this kind of attitude towards homosexuality I dread to think what he prescribes as a GP!!!

  87. It seems he is in the habit of not fully disclosing all his details, he’s been found out before for conveniently not disclosing his outside interests in the Marantha community so why on earth was he employed in the first place:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/30/health.homeaffairs

    Experts who testified to MPs failed to reveal abortion links

    “Hans-Christian Raabe, a GP from Manchester, gave evidence on whether parents should be notified if their child goes to a doctor for an abortion. In his initial submission he did not list any campaigning organisations but when asked for his affiliations he listed membership of the Maranatha Community, an anti-gay Christian pressure group that pledges “to re-establish Christian values in society”

    Eveything he produces has to be biased and skewed, he shouldn’t have been employed in thefirst place

  88. Bye, Bye, Dr Rabies!

  89. The Tory coalition has failed thus far to produce any advancement in equality. It managed in a very short time to appoint a few anti-gay stumbling blocks, just to appease its homophobic base, and they are directly involved in this one fiasco. Raabe’s head has rolled, but when the dust settles we need to notice an elephant called Theresa in the room.

  90. John, he’s a liar so? All the best christian’s are these days :)

  91. Wills – I guess so but I think Berberts has a point, it wouldn’t have taken very long to discover the info on Raabe..why employ some fantical christian lobbyist from the Marantha community in the first place…..he’s not an ordinanry Chrisitan , he’s a political person, stood as an MEP and has constistently contributed to the gababge produced by the Maranatha community to lobby govt bodies….it’s a lot more than just somebody who attends church once in a blue moon like the normal Chrisitan does…

  92. who says attending church once in a blue moon is normal christianity?

  93. Mark Easton’s blog yesterday sheds a little more light:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_was_dr_raabe_sacked.html

    Easton says that Raabe’s “anti-gay views led a number of other ACMD members to question the suitability of Dr Raabe for the council”, and that the Home Office said that Raabe’s “failure to disclose a report which he co-authored which links homosexuality to paedophilia raises concerns over his credibility to provide balanced advice on drug misuse issues and impacts on the smooth-running of the ACMD.”

  94. Well John, a report on “Churchgoing in the UK” published by Tearfund in April 2007 shows that 15% go to Church at least once a month. While belief in Christianity in the UK is at 58% of the population, albeit declining year on year. The decline for attendance forecasts a 55% fall from the 1980 level by 2020.

    You can conclude most people who call themselves Christians do not attend regularly.

    John’s comment is valid and correct.

  95. Jock S. Trap 8 Feb 2011, 9:57am

    “Tolerance does work two ways!”

    Really? SO maybe you could tell me how exactly the Christian faith has been ‘tolerant’ with the LGBT community over say, the last 2000 years.

    How is that it is only the Christian faith that constantly stands in the way of progress and equality?

    How is that Christians have used there Bible as an excuse to presecute, murder, torture the LGBT community.

    Gay people don’t do this, Christian people do. We can’t say it’s a minority because if that was true wouldn’t we ALL be equal?

    Thats your idea of ‘tolerance’?

    Mores to the point, who the hell derserves to be ‘toleranted’ for the way they were born by people who Choose to be religious?

    People should be accepted for who they are not ‘tolerated’ but of course we will never be accepted by a large number of Christians. You only have to look at how many times the Christian Card has been played recently to see that.

    Isn’t it right that how people are born Should be accepted. If anything shouldn’t it be religion that should be ‘tolerated’?

    I’m not here to be tolerated by anyone who clearly feels they have the right to be so judgemental because they choose to read it in some book and decide its ok for them to be hateful bigots.

    I think if anything it is the Christians who should be reminded tolerance is a ‘two-way street’ because they certainly don’t believe it and use that as an excuse to treat the LGBT community extremely badly. The very same LGBT community who, I feel, have been Very tolerant of them!

  96. Jock S. Trap 8 Feb 2011, 10:17am

    “We consider it to be unethical to only offer young people “gay affirmative therapy” without informing them fully:
    a) of the many serious adverse health consequences of the homosexual lifestyle and
    b) that it is possible for homosexuality to be changed and that many homosexuals indeed have changed their sexual orientation and now live fulfilled heterosexual lives.”

    And they can’t see why Gay people suffer depression and have suicidal tendancies will such negative comments being throw at them.

    These particular Christians are nothing more than savages waiting to prey on vunerable victims.

    Tolerance my arse, they neither want to know or care what their actions do.

    Evil, plain and simple. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  97. ‘NARTH Distorted My Research’

    (message to Dr Nicolosi of NARTH who deliberately distorts legitimate research results so that it appears to support his false claim that sexual orientation can be changed)

  98. Dr Hans Christian Raabe, the Maranatha Community and NARTH are all linked to each other, work with each other and share the same anti-gay agenda.

    NARTH’s Nicolosi is sort of like the wizard of OZ, a small undistinguished man with dubious credentials misinforming people with his very loud microphone, primarily his role.is as an activist for the anti-gay industry.

    “NARTH distorted my research”

  99. Read the twisted defence of the GP from the Christian Institute

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/

  100. id love it if he was my GP, i would go to him on a regular basis asking gay related health questions,

  101. The DailyMail seem to be spinning the “Poliical Correctness” line into outer orbit, with regards the GP’s sacking . . .

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354325/Christian-drug-expert-Hans-Christian-Raabe-sacked-Government-advisory-panel.html

  102. John Wrote

    “who says attending church once in a blue moon is normal christianity?”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Who said Christianity was normal?

  103. Jock S. Trap 8 Feb 2011, 11:46am

    I see this religious idiot is considering legal action!!

  104. First of all I am out, proud and very happy in my sexual life. But this doctor has a point in saying that to many of “our population” is choosing wrong attitude and life style and are very self destructive. If you’ve ever been to mayor gay club or sauna you need to agree at lest a little bit. Of course it gives no ground for discrimination or bullying. Gay life being a healthy one? Maybe it could become if we got treated as human beings without stigma.
    Love you all.

  105. @myself — “But this doctor has a point in saying that to many of “our population” is choosing wrong attitude and life style and are very self destructive. If you’ve ever been to mayor gay club or sauna you need to agree at lest a little bit.”

    I don’t agree. Why do you think the people who go to gay clubs or saunas are representative of all gay people ?

    And, why do you think it is the business of anyone else how people live their own lives ?

  106. myself wrote

    “But this doctor has a point in saying that to many of “our population” is choosing wrong attitude and life style and are very self destructive. If you’ve ever been to mayor gay club or sauna you need to agree at lest a little bit.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    @myself . . . do heterosexuals not have night clubs or saunas?

    @myself . . . do heterosexuals have the right attitude and life style?

    @myself . . . do heterosexuals never lead destructive lifestyles?

  107. @myself . . . is there not a biblical saying about . . .

    “taking the log out of your own eye, before commenting on the speck in the other persons eye”

  108. the haters are happy that you feel you need to justify your existence to them why not just tell them to fcuk off

  109. I would say a large proportion of those who use saunas and go cottaging are probably living a straight closeted lifestyle and may even be married with kids.

    To tar everyone with that brush is ridiculous myself.

  110. Evan Harris says:
    “”When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience and worse still has an ideological position on drug policy that he has declared his intention to force through the Council. That’s why he wasn’t fit to be an expert adviser, not because of his wrong and offensive views on homosexuality.”

  111. If only one from “our population” needs to resort to sauna sex or drug fueled meaningless shag because he feels unaccepted or rejected from society it is “to many”. And this is only my opinion from experience not attack so no need to be so thin skin guys. And of course straights do similar stupidity but usually from different reason. We still need to hide even just in our mind. And until everyone walks down the street expressing his or hers love to chosen partner we have no right to ask people to accept us. Self hating is the worst enemy. Show your affection and you will receive respect. I do!

  112. Wills: you say “you can conclude most people who call themselves Christians do not attend regularly.” You are quite right and in fact the majority of respondents from the 2001 Census claimed to be Christian. Yet Jesus said it is those who keep his commandments are those who follow him (Bible definition of a Christian).

    JohnK: you wrote “read the twisted defence of the GP from the Christian Institute”. Thanks for this link. I note one of its points is:

    In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”. Given that official figures released last year showed only one per cent of the population is homosexual, supporters of Dr Raabe say same-sex child abuse is significantly over-represented.

    Is that an accurate statement or not? Does any of Dr Raabe’s views on the links between paedophilia and homosexuality have a bearing on his fitness to be a drug advisor? – some would say his tough stance on drug usage is what is needed.

    Btw: I note some derogatory comments regarding the Maranatha Community, which Dr. Raabes is associated with. In fact I found what I read on its website: http://www.maranathacommunity.org.uk to be most refreshing and in fact a cause for hope for our nation.

  113. @tony d, you clearly are brainwashed belonging to a cult that does not want you as a full member. You are very deluded in your naive rhetoric.

  114. @John — You note “In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.

    I take it you’ve read the report, and noted that it also says:

    “Individual studies must be viewed cautiously before generalising from them“

    and this is one of several studies cited in the report. Of course if one was seeking to confirm a belief, one might be tempted to cherry pick research, and publicise only that which confirms one’s belief. It is interesting to note that a google search of the phrase

    approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature

    returns these links

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/child_abuse.htm

    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_was_dr_raabe_sacked.html

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

    I’m sure you’ve looked into the matter yourself, and discovered other researchers have failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases. This suggests that gay or lesbian people are under represented.

  115. “Is that an accurate statement or not? ”

    No. For starters the 1% is another christian inspired lie. Something they are never short on.

    The fact you believe this tripe is quite enlightening, despite your impassioned pleas for tolerance, John.

  116. I wonder if there is a Mrs Hans-Christian, or is he dating Thumbalina and her four sisters.

  117. “This suggests that gay or lesbian people are under represented.”

    Harry: if this is true it would indeed cast dispersions on the integrity of some of the research Dr Raabes has been engaged in.

    It is unlikely I can do a full investigation within the next couple of days but I would like to get to the bottom of where the truth lies and have already made some enquiries. I agree with you that to do so is important.

    Btw: can anyone tell me what is the figure for the percentage of the population who are gay. Is it indeed 1%? and whatever the figure is, how do we know for sure?

  118. “Btw: can anyone tell me what is the figure for the percentage of the population who are gay. Is it indeed 1%? and whatever the figure is, how do we know for sure?”

    You can’t know for sure, because people who are able to identify themselves as gay are always lower then those who are closet – and evening in a public park will show you how many damaged “Ted Haggards” there really are out there who are too quick to engage in homophobia to make themselves feel better about themselves.

    But here are some (there are many more) scientific estimates:

    Denmark – 1992 – A random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience.

    Norway – 2003 – According to Durex Global Sex Survey for 2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex.

    UK – 2005 – HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry completed a survey to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act, and concluded that there were 3.6 m gay people in the United Kingdom – around 6% of the total population or 1 in 16.66 people homosexual.

    USA – 2010 – The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior interviewed nearly 6,000 people nationwide between the ages of 14 and 94 found that 7% of women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, and that by age 50, 15% of men have had at least one encounter with another man.

    If you were to take an average of all the scientific studies, I’m guessing you could have a range between anywhere between 2% and 12%, depending on how much you need to believe a minority gay people really are to validate your persecution of them.

    NARTH and their like are the ones that seem to believe if they can identify gay people as a lower percentage of the population, then persecuting them is okay – as if numeracy dictates the level of human rights of the individual. Very enlightened.

  119. People who are members of minorities are often demonized as dangers to the most vulnerable members of the majority. Jews were accused of ritually murdering Christian babies in the Middle Ages, black men were often lynched in the United States after being falsely accused of raping white women. Similarly, gay people have sometimes been portrayed as a threat to children.

    You have to hold people in the minority in such contempt — whether out of fear, or ignorance, or hatred — to even think things like that of them. And you have to have no scruples to promulgate it.

    But the real issue is this. When people demonize gay men and wrongly accuse them of child abuse, they let the real abusers hide and continue their abuse. It is more important to them to stigmatize gay men than to protect children from the real danger — literally they sacrifice children to their own homophobic beliefs. Their homophobia is more important to them than their own moral code.

  120. Even those figures under report I think. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 57% of men who had sex with another man did not consider themselves to be homosexual or bisexual. A recent random survey of 4,193 men in New York City revealed that while 91.3% claimed they were straight, 9.3% of those “straight” respondents had sex only with other men in the previous year, while another 0.8% reported having sex with both men and women.

    It’s hard to escape the conclusion that even now there is so stigma to being gay that people still identify as straight despite the evidence of their own actions.

    And some people wonder why LGBT people have a higher incidence of mental health issues.

  121. @Jock S. Trap: Referring to:
    How is that it is only the Christian faith that constantly stands in the way of progress and equality?

    I find it ridiculous that you state ONLY the Christian faith stands in the way! How can you really think that ONLY Christians are discriminating against our gay community? I know loads of straight Christians who are accepting of gay people and am aware of lots of non Christians who are homophobic! Please stop generalising! It doesn’t do our fight for equality any good. It just makes us look immature, insecure, ill-informed, selfish and narrow-minded!

    @Rapture: referring to:
    @tony d, you clearly are brainwashed belonging to a cult that does not want you as a full member. You are very deluded in your naive rhetoric.

    You’re still not listening to my point that just because SOME Christians discriminate (5% is a realistic figure, not 100%), it doesn’t mean that MOST of them do! So how about you stop generalising and stereotyping those who are different to yourself? How many Christians do you actually know? Do you like being stereotyped? NO! Have you bothered to even consider that most of us Christians have a mind of our own and do not get any pleasure of discriminating against other people?

    Christianity is mainly about values and spiritual guidance, not laws and rules. It’s definitely not a cult! Extremists are not true Christians if the preach hate. I know it’s not perfect, but no religion is perfect, because it’s been adapted from divine inspiration by man, so has been corrupted down through many ages.

  122. @Tony D — the argument that Christians who preach hate are not true Christians doesn’t work. The reality of the situation is that there are many groups, all of which describe themselves as Christian, but who possess wildly divergent views.

    It is rare to find one group speaking out against another. I would be glad to see evidence to the contrary. As a result, people naturally assume that the ones who state their views are representative.

    When the Christians with more liberal, tolerant, loving views start speaking out, then people may stop tarring all of them with the same brush.

    We’ve had a Muslim group speaking out against the arrests in Bahrain against gay men, but nothing — as far as I can see — from a Christian group.

  123. The Heretic Philosopher 9 Feb 2011, 5:12am

    Harry, I do speak out and more besides.

  124. Will: thank you for your helpful response re. the percentage of the population who are gay.

    Harry: you write “people who are members of minorities are often demonized as dangers to the most vulnerable members of the majority”. I agree this happens and I also oppose it. But this is not the issue here. That is not what I believe and having just re-read Dr Raabe’s report: http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html I don’t that is what he is saying either. The issue is whether or not he is fit to be a drug advisor, the real reasons behind his dismissal and the accuracy of his findings.

    Re. the Bahrain “gay” arrests, I agree there is a case for Christians to speak out so if that hasn’t happened let me start the ball rolling!

  125. Regarding what Christians believe / do regarding homosexuality: there is a wide divergence of views as can sometimes be seen in these forums.

    I sometimes find myself on committees representing Christians and often have to remind folk that while I try to do so fairly, contrary to what people think or like to think: Christians do not all sing from the same hymn sheet.

    Also, while I come from a more conservative strand of Christianity, I believe I stand against homophobia and regret it when gay folks call me homophobic just because they take exception to my views on the appropriateness of homosexual relationships.

  126. “regret it when gay folks call me homophobic just because they take exception to my views on the appropriateness of homosexual relationships.”

    I’m sorry, you cannot condemn “homosexual” relationships and not be called homophobic. And I don;t care what the bible says, it says just about anything to support everything. Do you even know a gay couple? I find it patronising , insulting, offensive and rather blinkered of you to make a judgement on my 10 year loving, magnanimous, and caring relationship with my partner simply because you don’t have the wisdom to move your nose out of an archaic book that also supports incest.

    Understand this:- my relationship has endured and flourished despite people like you. And if god has an issue like you says he does, god can quite frankly fcuk himself, because then he’s no god at all if her thinks love is a problem for him. And quite frankly, so can you, John, because I wont be giving up my partner any fictitious god!

    I’m reminded of Stephen Green in this circumstances:- he maintains gay relationships are weak, evil and not loving, yet his was loving enough to beat twenty colours of blue out of his wife. Now remind me again, who has the more meaningful and loving relationship?

  127. Dr Huck Pagano Steere using similar research techniques and interpretation of statistics as employed by Dr Hans Christian Raabe in recent documents Christian evangelism is described as “destructive” and is associated with disease and drug use.

    One states: “The media and the Christian evangelical movement portray the prosetylising evangelical lifestyle as happy, healthy and fulfilled. However, the evangelical lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences.”

    It adds: “A high proportion of evangelical men engage in a destructive lifestyle, for example contracting HIV/Aids or other STIs, and develop addictions to drugs or alcohol. There is a higher burden of depression, [and] attempted or completed suicide among the ‘evangelical population’.”

    Another paper, co-authored by Dr Huck Pagano Steere, claimed: “While the majority of evangelicals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of evangelicals among paedophiles and an overlap between the evangelical movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.”

    It also stated: “Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of Christian evangelicals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of evangelicals to be only 0.1-0.3 per cent of the population.”

  128. Typo: “proselytising” perhaps.

  129. @John — ‘Harry: you write “people who are members of minorities are often demonized as dangers to the most vulnerable members of the majority”. I agree this happens and I also oppose it. But this is not the issue here. That is not what I believe and having just re-read Dr Raabe’s report: http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html I don’t that is what he is saying either. The issue is whether or not he is fit to be a drug advisor, the real reasons behind his dismissal and the accuracy of his findings.’

    Of course it happens and it continues to happen. One fights against it or one supports it. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

    “But this is not the issue here”. Really ? You were the first person to bring this up on the thread. No right thinking person thinks gay men pose more of a threat to children. Most people dismiss the idea out of hand: it’s disgusting and shocking. And like Raabe you were using it as another way to stigmatize and demonize gay men. I sent you a rebuttal and you responded:

    “If this is true it would indeed cast dispersions on the integrity of some of the research Dr Raabes has been engaged in.It is unlikely I can do a full investigation within the next couple of days but I would like to get to the bottom of where the truth lies and have already made some enquiries. I agree with you that to do so is important.

    And I guess you’ve done the research now, and seen it doesn’t support this evil idea. So now you say it is not the issue here, and just drop it.

    Sorry it is the issue. You “regret it when gay folks call me homophobic”, yet we’re still having to defend ourselves against this nasty little lie. You say repeatedly you respect gay folk, and yet you’re prepared to believe that they’re child abusers.
    “… having just re-read Dr Raabe’s report: http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html I don’t that is what he is saying either.”
    Why do you say that ? In section 6 6. Homosexuality and pedophilia, Raabe says, after “Greek mythology is saturated with stories of pedophilia”:
    “… homosexual behaviour is associated with a significant increase in (usually) same sex pedophile child abuse …”
    “Re. the Bahrain “gay” arrests, I agree there is a case for Christians to speak out so if that hasn’t happened let me start the ball rolling!”

    Where have you spoken out ? On what forum ?

  130. Jock S. Trap 9 Feb 2011, 9:15am

    @ Tony D

    Way to avoid the questions and the point. Clearly to suit your own end ie you must be right and us Gays must be wrong.

    The assumption was that it’s Christians vs the LGBT community but way to turn it into a different arguement to suit your end.

    Guess thats your idea of ‘tolerance’ if you feel you can’t win an arguement make something up.

  131. @The Heretic Philosopher — “Harry, I do speak out and more besides.”

    Of course. And nowhere have I suggested Christians never speak out.

    But there seems to be a reluctance to do it. Demonstration rather than discussion is the way to refute my claim.

    Show me the Christian groups who’ve spoken out against the arrests in Bahrain. At the moment, on this thread, a Christian has been using the spurious claim that gay men are paedophiles as a political club, to demonize them. I’m sorry but I can’t see any condemnation of him from other Christian people on the thread.

  132. Jock S. Trap 9 Feb 2011, 9:26am

    @ Tony D

    If intolerant Christians are only 5%, how come we still don’t have full equality? Your sums don’t add up.

    Point is it isn’t the LGBT community that is stopping progress and equality it is Christians and if this is we’re taking the word of 5% of hateful Christians surely there’s problem. I think you need to add about 70 – 80% onto that 5%.

    May I suggest you stick to the Daily HateMail. Clearly a paper true to your needs.

  133. “At the moment, on this thread, a Christian has been using the spurious claim that gay men are paedophiles as a political club, to demonize them”

    Harry: I’m not sure what you are reading and suspect you may be referring to me but noone on this thread, including me, has done that. The issue is whether the research that there are proportionately more padephiles among homosexuals than non homosexualities. As far as I am concerned the jury is out and if it that is true it would still apply only to a minority, and a likely a small one at that.

    I actually believe there are proportionately more Christians with mental health issues than non-Christians but that does not demonise them. The question should be what is true and if something is true is it relevant? Noone should fear the truth.

    As for condeming something that we agree is wrong, it seems to me there is a long string of all sorts of social injustices in this world and while we may publically condemn some we always can’t condemn every wrong.

  134. “Noone should fear the truth.”

    Ironic statement given your less then erudite understanding of evolution.

  135. @tony d, “divine inspiration” you gotta be on some medication? you gotta a better chance of convincing me of the easter bunny. i pity you because you must be very vulnerable to all this phoney christian love bombing that is the norm in sects. you need to be deprogrammed.

  136. TonyD “most of us Christians have a mind of our own”

    What an odd thing to say. Isn’t being part of a religion all about been spoon fed how to think in the first place?

  137. I suspect me and TonyD may be examples of Christians with quite different perspectives but I think his points are right and have been well made.

    Christianity in its purest sense is as far remote from easter bunnies and spoon feeding people how to think as I can imagine. Frankly, Will’s and rapure’s latest comments are insulting and disingenuous.

    There is nothing incompatible between accepting scientific and religious truth (and please don’t tell me that my views on evolution are erroneous when I have even expounded them on this site).

    Moreover, there is nothing more challenging than applying these truths to how we should live in this world and be prepared for the world to come. Christians who “get” this message will be in the forefront of all working out these things, notwithstanding the challenges.

    I feel sorry for you non-believers, when you pontificate on what is right and wrong, fair and unfair etc., without have any authoritative basis for doing so.

    … but we are going a long way from the why’s and wherefores around this Christian GP being sacked.

  138. “The media and the gay movement portray the homosexual lifestyle as happy, healthy and fulfilled. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences.”

    All these serious physical and emotional helth consequences can be directly linked to the effect of homophobia on gay people rather than directly to being gay. Homophobia creates an atmosphere where gay people can’t experience life as their straight counterparts do. I have heard many gay people being shouted out for expressing affection in public…”Why do you have to flaunt it in public?” when they are holding hands with their partner. having to hide their feelings deep for worry of abuse….THAT’S WAHT CAUSES MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS!!!!

  139. Ric: your point “all these serious physical and emotional helth consequences can be directly linked to the effect of homophobia on gay people rather than directly to being gay.” is well made.

    I would like to agree and to a large extent I do. If there are other factors, I am still not clear and in any case this may be a lot less significant than that of homophobia.

    According to my understanding of the meaning of homophobia, it is about people fearing or acting in a prejudicial or otherwise hateful way toward gay folk. The important issue is how we can reduce / elminate this?

  140. @John — “The issue is whether the research that there are proportionately more padephiles among homosexuals than non homosexualities. As far as I am concerned the jury is out.”

    There’s actual doubt in your mind ? Have you any concept how disgusting and offensive that is ? You’ve read a statement on a fundamentalist Christian website that selectively quotes from a Home Office paper that cites research that purports to show this, and that’s enough for you. You ignore all other research, you ignore what the American Psychological Association says, you don’t bother to look at anything else, because now you’ve got something to demonize gay men with, and support your beliefs. Yet you still cry crocodile tears with “I regret it when gay folks call me homophobic”. And then you have the nerve to say you believe there proportionately more Christians with mental health issues than non-Christians. What’s that got to do with anything ?

  141. Tom Hennessy 9 Feb 2011, 5:04pm

    In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act. In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals. In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals. These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM. The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE. The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**. There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years. This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’. One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.

    “Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”

    “81 Words ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81_Words

  142. @John — I wondered whether a Christian group had spoken out against the arrests in Bahrain against gay men. You then said:

    “Re. the Bahrain “gay” arrests, I agree there is a case for Christians to speak out so if that hasn’t happened let me start the ball rolling!”

    So I asked where you’d spoken out, on what forum, and you replied:

    “As for condeming something that we agree is wrong, it seems to me there is a long string of all sorts of social injustices in this world and while we may publically condemn some we always can’t condemn every wrong.”

    So I wonder whether you have actually spoken out, as a Christian, against the arrests in Bahrain, and if so, where ? You’ve said there is a case for Christians to speak out, but then you’ve said you can’t always condemn every wrong ! Just what are you saying ? You take your statements together and they’re contradictory. You say you believe you stand against homophobia, and yet as soon as someone presses you for details you backtrack !

  143. “There is nothing incompatible between accepting scientific and religious truth (and please don’t tell me that my views on evolution are erroneous when I have even expounded them on this site”

    No you haven’t. You have done nothing of the sort, John. You preach that’s all. All you’ve done so far is claim evolution is wrong because there “must” be a god, and this is “obviously” an inalienable truth. That, and a few cut and pastes from badly written pseudo-science’s sites by way of some ridiculous proof of your stance, which has all been shown to be wrong. So forgive me if I say you’re not exactly an authority on science, and what “is and isn’t” compatible with christianity.

    You see, John, your mistake is in thinking science is like a bible, you can’t pick and mix your “beliefs” in science because it doesn’t suit you, just like christians do with the bible.

    “Frankly, Will’s and rapure’s latest comments are insulting and disingenuous.”

    Well, I find you insidious and ignorant views on gay relationships to be equally so. The only difference is that I’m not banging my drum on a christian site.

    And besides, its has been well documented that the more religious you are, the lower your intelligence.

    In sixteen studies (conducted from 1927 through 1980 that examined college students’ degree of religiosity and their intellectual ability as measured by test scores and grades) 81%, showed an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That is, the aggregate scores were consistently highest among the least religious and non-believers, and lowest among the more religious and most religious.

    Its not insulting if its true, John. Its been theorised that if you have “all the answers”, you don’t bother to seek the truth.

    Point in case, your refusal to understand and see the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, simply because it conflicts with your “truth”.

  144. @John — “According to my understanding of the meaning of homophobia, it is about people fearing or acting in a prejudicial or otherwise hateful way toward gay folk. The important issue is how we can reduce / elminate this?”

    Maybe stop peddling lies and myths John ?

  145. *Sigh* More pompous and sanctimonious condescension crap from our newly resident preacher-man John. Why is it with this site there is always a Christian to replace one that just leaves. Last year it was Skinner, now it’s John – it’s like a tag team of the insane idiots.

  146. @Tom Hennessy — very good. Not sure what your point is, but well done you. Just like what you posted on change.org, and latimes.com. As someone there said:

    sounds like your WAAAAAY back in that closet yourself Tom. Good luck with your journey brother.

    which I would certainly echo ! And well done you ! Cutting and pasting on web sites everytime a gay issue comes up.

    When you look back on your life you’ll be able to comfort yourself that it was well spent !

  147. @ John
    “There is nothing incompatible between accepting scientific and religious truth ”

    But actually science and religion are not reconcilable.

    “Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory—but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.”

    Ken Ham (above) makes it easy to be a lazy atheist, The only time his reasoning is sound is when he tries a reductio ad absurdum.

  148. @Harry: Thanks. You’re making the best arguments on this discussion. You’re listening to what others are saying without jumping to any false conclusions, unlike some others…!

    @rapture: Ref : “I pity you because you must be very vulnerable to all this phoney christian love bombing that is the norm in sects. you need to be deprogrammed

    You’re generalising again! Yawn! How about you read everything I say more carefully before you make such ridiculous suggestions! Do you know any gay Christians? I’m guessing that you don’t, as maybe you wouldn’t be so dismissive, cold, judgemental or nasty if you did!

    @will: “Isn’t being part of a religion all about been spoon fed how to think in the first place?”

    Just because that’s happened in the past, it doesn’t mean that most of religion is about being spoonfed!
    my faith in God is more important to me than the religion, because as far as I’m concerned, Man gave us Religion, but God gave us faith. They are not the same, but have been confused with each other so much, which is very unhelpful to us.

    @Jock S. Trap: “Way to avoid the questions and the point. Clearly to suit your own end ie you must be right and us Gays must be wrong”.

    How about you read what I’ve typed more carefully and stop taking it out of its true context? There are still tens of thousands of gay Christians who believe in God, despite the fact that our religion isn’t as welcoming as it should be, which is a disgrace. How many Christians, especially gay ones, do you actually know? When you generalise Christians as all being the same you weaken your argument, because there are loads of diverse beliefs in Christianity that don’t contradict each other or spout hate. It’s not all about what’s in the bible. I know that you don’t have to be a Christian or follow religion, as to be a good person means having a genuine loving set of values, whoever you are. The phrase ‘Loving the sinner and hating the sin’ has been abused countless times down the ages and used as an excuse to ‘justify’ persecution etc

    I’m gay myself & am in a loving monogamous relationship. I’m also actively involved in helping our gay community within my local area & nationally. I stayed in the Catholic church because I fortunately met hundreds of gay Christians on my wavelength, whom I could share my experiences & friendship with.

    For the record, The Daily Mail is my least favourite newspaper, closely followed by the Sun and I agree that Dr Raabe should’ve been sacked. Also, anyone who makes links with paedophilia and homosexuality is a liar, prejudiced and hateful because it’s a false conclusion to come to.

  149. John Wrote
    “Also, while I come from a more conservative strand of Christianity, I believe I stand against homophobia and regret it when gay folks call me homophobic just because they take exception to my views on the appropriateness of homosexual relationships”

    THEN

    Later John Wrote
    “According to my understanding of the meaning of homophobia, it is about people fearing or acting in a prejudicial or otherwise hateful way toward gay folk. The important issue is how we can reduce / elminate this?”

    . . . . . . . . . . .

    John . . . When you call homosexual relationships inappropriate, this is acting in a way which is both hateful name calling; whilst at the same time spreading a myth about homosexuals which fuels prejudice.

  150. TonyD wrote

    ” I stayed in the Catholic church because I fortunately met hundreds of gay Christians on my wavelength, whom I could share my experiences & friendship with.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    TonyD . . . I am struggling to understand why you want to stay in a church which refers to homosexuality as a disordered and instrinsic moral evil . . . unless there is a part of you which feels you need to be called such names?

  151. John the debate in Britain is no longer about the appropriateness of homosexuality

    John the debate in Britain is whether it is appropriate to allow Christians to occupy positions of professional responsibility.

  152. Dr Robin Guthrie 9 Feb 2011, 10:20pm

    On Gay web sites, their is always a John.

    Sitting in judgment of gay people just defending themselves from the crap that he and his God bothering friends spew at us.

    He can sit and defend his holy insanity as far as he wishes,

    Time; Life and Education is not on his side.

    Hi John.

    I’m a 45 year old man, and my partner of 6 years just violated your 2000 year old book.

    We got married.

    I grew out of the brainwashed rubbish you spout as a child.

    You and your kind continually perpetuate this hate.

    And in all honesty having read and studied your “good book” it is all hate.

    Now go away. You pathetically sad idiot. and get educated.

    I’m off to Noah’s ark to get my 2 by 2 .

    Perhaps a bit of the Adam rib woman , with snake to follow.

    PS: John.

    By day I look after handicapped children.

    The UK Catholic church stopped their cash due to Gays getting adoption rights.

    How holy is that.

  153. @tony d yes i have known gay christians and once i knew of their dirty double life as a christian, i kept my distance. And to call me “nasty” thats so unchristian of you and not very loving like you proclaim u lot are. you are hilarious, a christian calling me “judgemental” .think your mask is slipping. you are the one making generalisations about people who think that you need therapy to seperate fantasy from factual reality. Why don’t u go pop in some vicars “burning bush” ye lot believe all that rubbish.

  154. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 12:09am

    Harry quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than go round issueing statements of condemnation against every two bit religious homophobe who really isnt worth the time and energy it would require to continually issue and reissue statements of condemnation. The position of various Christian groups on gay equality is very clear, MCC – Quakers – Unitarians and others – they have campaigned and protested in various ways and continue to do so. I think the real question is why dont you and more gay people support these endeavours.

  155. @The Heretic Philosopher — I’m sorry, but if as a Christian, you don’t counter the disgusting arguments of other Christians, then they set the public perception of what Christianity is. Your silence will be perceived as tacit support of their views.

    “I think the real question is why dont you and more gay people support these endeavours”.

    Really not sure how you think this support would be demonstrated. What are LGBT people who don’t believe, meant to do when a Christian organization supports LGBT rights ?

  156. I should have added — I’m absolutely aware of some of the impressively tolerant and inclusive Christian groups, and I’ve often made favourable mention of English Quakers.

    I disagree strongly with some things that some Christians say. That does not mean I am anti-Christian, and in fact, as the diversity of opinion amongst Christians is so great, it is difficult to understand what being a Christian actually means. And as such, it is difficult to understand how people can be meaningfully called anti-Christian. I would describe myself as anti-fundamentalist, anti-bigot, anti-intolerant.

    My point still stands. People like you and Tony D don’t define Christianity in most people’s minds, whereas people like John probably do.

  157. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 12:58am

    I have and continue to counter the arguements of prejudice veiled in religion. Perhaps you could tell the press and media to stop ignoring us and only giving a platform to those with extremist views.

  158. Happy to. I’m currently having a discussion with the BBC over their choice of Stephen Green as a commentator.

  159. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 1:07am

    I resent the implication that I am doing and saying nothing about prejudice vieled in religion. I have started various initiatives and projects in the last few years with an intention of challenging and undermining prejudice and intolerance.

  160. That may be true, but how does anyone know about them ?

    Most of your posts on this thread have been about trying to convince me that you are fighting against prejudice veiled as religion, rather than actually fighting against that prejudice.

    My only point is that Christians can’t expect non Christians to defend their beliefs, and if some Christians are blackening the name of Christianity is the responsibility of right thinking Christians to challenge them.

  161. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 1:38am

    Excuse me I have posted loads of comments and started groups on this site challenging prejudice and intolerance both under the name The Heretic Philosopher & 21stCenturySpirituality. Dont you sit there and say I haven’t because I have.

  162. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 1:49am

    “My only point is that Christians can’t expect non Christians to defend their beliefs”

    I never asked anybody to.

  163. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 1:58am

    People like you and Tony D don’t define Christianity in most people’s minds, whereas people like John probably do.

    I’m not responsible for other peoples ignorance, intolerance and unwillingness to listen, to hear, to see.

  164. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 2:02am

    I’m not responsible for the seemingly never ending platform given to these people in the press and media.

  165. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 2:11am

    I’m not responsible for the fact that other people dont take the time and trouble to inform themselves or challenge their prejudices, preconceptions, assumptions, judgements and generalisations.

  166. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 4:50am

    “And in all honesty having read and studied your “good book” it is all hate.”

    “He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.”

    “Let us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and in truth.”

    “Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrong doing. It does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres.”

    Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

    “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”

    Dr Robin Guthrie, does anyone of that sound like hate to you because it doesn’t to me.

  167. Katie Murphy ex cath family 10 Feb 2011, 5:20am

    Just another closeted gay homophobe feeding his anger. give it to him.

    And he’s doing the usual trick of blaming the victim for the problems he and his type of worm create.

    BTW here in MD I saw Peter Spriggs of the FRC at the MD legislature. He is one of the most virulent homophobes, and involved inthe geneocide bill in uganda. He was consorting with a baptist minister and an asshole Presbyterian.

    And he looked terrible compared to last year – like he aged 10 yrs. Does make one wonder whats wrong wtih his health. I think you know what I mean

  168. The Heretic Philosopher 10 Feb 2011, 5:27am

    @ Harry….from readers comments to the other thread related to this story:

    “Why has someone with such dangerous and insidious beliefs been given a position of responsibility that impacts on other peoples lives? The taxes I pay line this hate preachers pockets. I am not happy at being dehumanised and demonised by someone who doesn’t know me. How dare you make such accusations against me Dr Raabe. I am an upstanding and honorable citizen who makes a valuable contribution to the community and society. How dare you sh*t on my life with your nasty insinuations.”

    “I don’t give a flying f$%k what your agenda led research tells you Dr Raabe, I am a human being not a statistic!”

    Is that plain enough for you Harry?

  169. “*Sigh* More pompous and sanctimonious condescension crap from our newly resident preacher-man John. Why is it with this site there is always a Christian to replace one that just leaves. Last year it was Skinner, now it’s John – it’s like a tag team of the insane idiots.”

    Alas, I tend to agree David.

    Its also worth noting that when they are confronted, John has particular culpability in dodging points, by a direct questions about their appalling attitude towards gay relationships or proven incorrect with a particular point on science, they just disappear. Its seems preaching (i.e. cut and pasting) is more their forte than actually addressing the failings of their belief system when it comes to a “live and let live” philosophy or the hypocrisy of their religion “of love”…. its the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting “la la la la la la”.

  170. @The Heretic Philosopher — I’m completely aware of your excellent views and positive contributions ! The point I was trying to make is that most people’s perceptions of Christianity will be formed by people like John. And if other Christians don’t challenge them, that situation won’t change.

  171. “The point I was trying to make is that most people’s perceptions of Christianity will be formed by people like John.”

    Harry: you credit me with more influence than I think is the case. While Heretical Philosopher and TonyD have offered alternative perspectives than that of my own, both have referred to awesome, amazing love of God, which I completely agree with.

    I have just looked at some of the responses to my last post and it seems clear most don’t see that in what I post. I am sorry if that is the case because God is Love and those who truly follow him also encapsulate that love. While my focus has tended to be engaging with truth (and God’s holiness) (despite people accusing me of avoiding doing so) I also agree that love is the key.

    Fyi, today I sent the following email to Maranatha community about the article that seems to have give rise to some of the fury I have noted. It may backfire as has happened in the past sometimes but I’m hoping it will help folk understand “where I come from”:

    I have made further contributions to the Pink News discussion and have received a largely hostile response despite my best attempts to engage with the folk in a winsome manner. I am not sure now where to go next. While I am ok with being a fool for Christ, I dont want to be foolish. It was your article that brought up the relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia and even I couldn’t anticipate how affronted some gay folk are about this association. Understandably they see this as fueling homophobia which is still prevalent in our society, which I, and I hope you also, strongly oppose. The question is: is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia (there seems to be evidence either way, which I suspect is part down to the world views of the researchers despite in principle being neutral)? And if there is, what is the point bringing something up that might only enflame a situation were feelings are already running high and adding fuel to the homophobes?

    I recognise all too well that “gay rights” and “Christian rights” have recently often come in conflict and this country, in the main, is drifting further away from its Christian heritage, evidenced by a significant number of recent high profile cases, but how to engage in this debate? What has come through to me is that most gay folk who have posted in these discussion forums view Christians in a negative way and few if any stand back and glorify God for what is good among Christians. It is true we have to expect opposition but we need to be wise also and (I speak to my self here) be more about prayer and good works than dealing in what some percieve to be harmful words.

  172. “While my focus has tended to be engaging with truth (and God’s holiness) (despite people accusing me of avoiding doing so) I also agree that love is the key.”

    Well, then John, perhaps you can explain to me, if I am in love with my partner, then why would you god have an issue with any loving relationship? Seems to me the endless contradictions of christianity is more about “love who I tell you to love, becuase I know what god thinks”.

    No doubt you will ignore this as well, as you do all issues that contradict your faith…

  173. “No doubt you will ignore this as well, as you do all issues that contradict your faith…”

    Will, given that I acknowledge “this” is evidence that I am NOT ignoring you.

    If I have a working axiom it is that all truth is to be received – even if it contradicts what I already believe or is any way inconvenient – because truth doesn’t contradict itself even if we don’t always reconcile it v.well.

    I don’t doubt your love for your partner or want to begrudge you in any way. I would like to meet you and talk through our differences and maybe even discover common ground.

    The way I see it is that the reoccuring issue in these forums is the right to exercise conscience of belief (which for a long time the formed a consensus in this country) and this (I think) is where the conflict lies.

  174. John wrote
    “Harry: you credit me with more influence than I think is the case. While Heretical Philosopher and TonyD have offered alternative perspectives than that of my own, both have referred to awesome, amazing love of God, which I completely agree with.”

    JohnK’s response
    John your influence is consummate with that fact that you have been posting on this site every day for many months now, John you know this; why deny it?

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    I have just looked at some of the responses to my last post and it seems clear most don’t see that in what I post. I am sorry if that is the case because God is Love and those who truly follow him also encapsulate that love. While my focus has tended to be engaging with truth (and God’s holiness) (despite people accusing me of avoiding doing so) I also agree that love is the key.

    JohnK’s response
    John, When you call homosexual relationships inappropriate, sinful abomination etc, this is acting in a way which is both hateful name calling; whilst at the same time spreading a myth about homosexuals which fuels prejudice.

    John this sort of behavior has nothing to do with love or holiness, because all you are doing is legitimizing hate in the name of religion. John this behavior ultimately makes a mockery of religion, and cheapens and defiles love; because contempt as nothing to do with love.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    “Fyi, today I sent the following email to Maranatha community about the article that seems to have give rise to some of the fury I have noted. It may backfire as has happened in the past sometimes but I’m hoping it will help folk understand “where I come from”:

    JohnK’s response
    Post the e-mail on line, we are very curious about this.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    “I have made further contributions to the Pink News discussion and have received a largely hostile response despite my best attempts to engage with the folk in a winsome manner. I am not sure now where to go next. While I am ok with being a fool for Christ, I dont want to be foolish.”

    JohnK’s response
    John, when you call homosexual relationships inappropriate, sinful abomination etc, this is acting in a way which is both hateful name calling; whilst at the same time spreading a myth about homosexuals which fuels prejudice.

    John all you appear to be playing is the homophobic bigot . . .

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    It was your article that brought up the relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia and even I couldn’t anticipate how affronted some gay folk are about this association. Understandably they see this as fuelling homophobia which is still prevalent in our society, which I, and I hope you also, strongly oppose.

    JohnK’s response
    John you do not oppose homophobia your promote homophobia. John, when you continue to believe that it is ok to call LGBT people sinful, inappropriate and abomination in Gods eyes, and continue to assert your right to call LGBT people by these names; you are promoting homophobic hatred

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    The question is: is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia (there seems to be evidence either way, which I suspect is part down to the world views of the researchers despite in principle being neutral)? And if there is, what is the point bringing something up that might only enflame a situation were feelings are already running high and adding fuel to the homophobes?

    JohnK’s response
    The real issue here is the fact that most cases of child sexual abuse occur within the heterosexual family, due to heterosexual paedophilia. John, by focusing on homosexual paedophiles, you avoid the heart of the issue as usual.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    “I recognise all too well that “gay rights” and “Christian rights” have recently often come in conflict and this country, in the main, is drifting further away from its Christian heritage, evidenced by a significant number of recent high profile cases, but how to engage in this debate?”

    JohnK’s response
    John if you were really committed to engaging in the debate of “Christian Rights” as you so put it, you would be taking this up with the government at both a local and national level; not spending every day posting on a LGBT news website.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    “What has come through to me is that most gay folk who have posted in these discussion forums view Christians in a negative way and few if any stand back and glorify God for what is good among Christians. It is true we have to expect opposition” but we need to be wise also and (I speak to my self here) be more about prayer and good works than dealing in what some percieve to be harmful words.

    JohnK’s response
    John most gay folk on these forums are going to view Christians in a negative way, when Christians come on to this forum and think they have a right to refer to LGBT people as sinful, inappropriate or an abomination.

    John I see that despite posting on this site, everyday now for many months; you are still clueless as to why we dislike Christians like yourself.

  175. “I would like to meet you and talk through our differences and maybe even discover common ground.”

    Might be somewhat difficult given I live in Ireland, but I understand what you mean.

    However, I disagree there are differences here:- differences imply an ideological debate with common ground. This is nothing of the sort. All I ask, and all any gay person asks, is that christians (and other religions) stop imposing their belief stricture on others. What I do, and the rights I have an a tax paying citizen (and I do pay substantial tax!), is quite frankly my own business. Its not up for judgement or debate by other who think they understand the mind of a supposed creator. I fail to see how my relationship with my partner, for 10 solid and happy years, is of any interest, let alone any concern to another when that relationship has no bearing positively or negatively on their lives. And certainly I have strong objections to those who oppose my right to exist within that relationship without undue interference or threat.

    There is no such thing as gay rights. There is human rights and democratic rights to non-interference and my right to self determination.

    You confuse the “right to exercise conscience of belief” with the right to interfere to limit the rights of another. I am also at a loss as to how my rights to protect MY relationship, with MY money, is of any ones business to the stage they think their their religion can impost restrictions on those rights or dictate morals that I am forced to abide by.

    You are free to believe what you want, but the second you begin to impose them on another, its becomes a dictatorship of belief, not a democracy. And I for one will not support the loss of hard earned human rights be interfered with by a few christians nut jobs who think they have a phone line to god, when in fact, more than likely they are suffering from schizophrenia.

    So forgive me if I don’t think there is some meeting of minds here, differences to resolve. You are either in support of a free democratic society, or you are driving the agenda of a christian theocracy. Which do you support, John?

  176. @John — if you couldn’t anticipate how affronted some gay people are about the suggestion of an association between paedophilia and homosexuality then you are either stupid or cynical. I strongly suspect you’re very cynical, and feel no shame in making such claims to support your world view. It is no use saying you respect gay people and then even entertaining such a disgusting idea. Your decision to write to the Maranatha Community for clarification confirms your lack of scruple.

    Have you read the Home Office report ? Do you know what it actually says ? If you have read it, why don’t you paste the relevant paragraph. You should be able to do that straight away. If you can’t you’ve probably not read iit.

    If you’re prepared to stoop to such depths as these, you can expect hostility. It is fully justified. You may not care what the people on this forum think of you. But you contaminate their views of Christians. You say that this country is drifting away from its Christian heritage: do you think you’re encouraging it and discouraging it ?

  177. Will’s line

    “I am also at a loss as to how my rights to protect MY relationship, with MY money, is of any ones business to the stage they think their their religion can impost restrictions on those rights or dictate morals that I am forced to abide by.”

    says it all quite eloquently and makes perfect sense to me. Is this not the crux of the argument instead of the right to impose ones conscience on others?

  178. @John — and two further things.

    1. People aren’t affronted by suggestion of a link because it fuels homophobia. They’re disgusted because it’s a reprehensible obscene suggestion without foundation.

    2. People aren’t after gay rights or additional rights or reducing other people’s rights. They’re after equal rights.

  179. Since John is a self confessed Plymouth Brethren minsiter . . . and his church movement has connections with the city of Plymouth – I thought he might like the following response in a local Plymouth newspaper, with regards the B&B Christian rights argument.

    http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/features/Religious-revival/article-3207310-detail/article.html

    The question I am raising is the following contradictory statement from the article, which John also frequently uses as an argument; and evidence as to why he is not homophobic

    “Given the openness of their Christian position, and the clear declaration of their faith, it seems to me that the two people were testing the water. I am not homophobic, and would go to the defence of any homosexual being physically attacked for his sexual orientation; nevertheless, to me, homosexuality is a perversion.”

  180. John is the master at saying

    I support X
    I negate X

    John, in my world you cannot have your cake and eat it

  181. @ JohnK
    I liked this comment in response to the article you provided a link to
    in which John Jones wrote…

    “In my opinion, we need a mighty religious revival in this country, and a massive return to the Bible, before we all descend into the abyss” (John Jonres)

    And to which John Dale commented:…

    “I am grateful to John Jones for reminding me that there are still far too many narrow minded bigots in the world who seem to think they can justify themselves by their ludicrous superstitious beliefs.
    In my opinion, we need a mighty religious clearout in this country, and a massive return to compassionate rationality, before we all descend into the abyss.”(John Dale)

  182. Christian people are supposed to loving, peaceful and tolerant. Where are these qualities in this man? And then he has the audacity to say he’s being discriminated against because he’s Christian?? He’s a disgrace to his own faith.

  183. “You are either in support of a free democratic society, or you are driving the agenda of a christian theocracy”

    Will: I’m a bit baffled which Will you are as there is more than one who posts in PN? In my early forays into PN I exchanged with a Will from Ireland. Was that you? Even though we have disagreed in the past and you have called me names I have appreciated some of the points you have made (and I would love to have that discussion on evolution). I found I was agreeing with much of what you said in your last post although my points about legitimate Christian concerns being squeezed in our present culture remain. As for your question, I am reminded that Winston Churchill once said that democracy was not a particularly good form of government BUT it is better than any other form, including theocracy (except when Jesus comes back to reign of course!).

    Harry: I haven’t read the Home Office report and I couldn’t find it on the internet. Do you have a link? I was going by the report made by the Christian Institute, who have in the past proved reliable, in particular the statement: in 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and I have enquired of them. If the report does indeed correlate some of what Dr Raabes has stated, he can hardly be blamed for misleading the people who employed him over embarrassing revelations. I have already said that in my postings I tend to say very little on the purported harmful effects / links of homosexuality because I don’t feel qualified to do so, other from what I believe to be how God intended things. The issue is whether or not what Dr Raabes wrote in his Maranatha report correct or not and that is something I want to find out.

    JohnK: thank you for the Plymouth link, which I read with interest and mainly agree, especially his opinion we need a mighty religious revival in this country, and a massive return to the Bible, before we all descend into the abyss. I didn’t particularly like his statement homosexuality is a perversion though and felt it was insensitive. But there is nothing in what he wrote that I see as being homophobic. Btw: I don’t post on PN every day (maybe at least once a day on average – especially when people pick up my points and ask questions) – since you like trawling through my past statements maybe you can check this out :-)

  184. @John — Yes I have a link, and yes I have read the report. I found it — despite it no references being given by Raabes in his Maranatha report, which in section 6.6 begins “Greek mythology is saturated with stories of pedophilia” — hardly cutting edge research, and not confidence building !

    The Home Office report cites several studies, and cautions “The proportion of men who fall in each group is difficult to determine” and “Individual studies must be viewed cautiously before generalising from them”. Why do you think none of that’s mentioned in Raabe’s report ? Might suggest he’s biased ? Why do you think he didn’t provide references ?

    Who do you think would be more reliable ? Raabe or the American Psychological Association, who say:

    “Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or bisexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals.”

    Now John, you’ve a bit of a tendency to go quiet when you’re asked some questions. There are four in this post. I wonder if you’ll do me the courtesy of answering them ? And there a few left over, like “You say that this country is drifting away from its Christian heritage: do you think you’re encouraging it, or discouraging it ?”

  185. “Now John, you’ve a bit of a tendency to go quiet when you’re asked some questions. There are four in this post. I wonder if you’ll do me the courtesy of answering them ?”

    Ok Harry, I will have a go, although from my perspective when in the past I have you have had a tendency of not recognising my attempts to do so. Moreover, I sometimes get the impression you ask questions in order to make a point or entrap rather than find out what I think. Please confirm the latter is the case this time. Also, I would be grateful if you can provide the home office e-link so I can check this out myself. One more point, while in my professional life I read and write reports and understand what is needed to satisfy academic rigour etc., this subject is not my particular field of expertise – but here goes …

    1. Why do you think none of that’s mentioned in Raabe’s report ?

    I suspect Raabe is trying to focus on what his report is about – a statement on gay affirmative therapy and I am not his spokesman.

    2. Might suggest he’s biased ?

    Possibly, although he does try to back up many of his statements. Having read many reports in my line – community work, I am often staggard how often even the most “objective” ones are biased, in order to support a particular agenda, notably ommitting material that might undermine the case being made – I note there is an element of this being so in Raabe’s report.

    3. Why do you think he didn’t provide references ?

    Am I missing something? There are 32 references in the footnotes!

    4. Who do you think would be more reliable ? Raabe or the American Psychological Association

    One would expect the Association but I am old and cyincal (as you point out) enough to feel that might not necessarily be the case.

    5. You say that this country is drifting away from its Christian heritage: do you think you’re encouraging it, or discouraging it ?

    I am trying to encourage this country to rediscover its Christian roots (how successful is for others to judge) – I thought that was obvious or am I missing a subtle innuendo!?

    Hope this helps :-)

  186. @John — sorry you’re saying that Raabe provides 32 references in the footnotes, but you can’t find the report ?

  187. Harry: Perhaps one of us is missing something? My responses were regarding Raabe’s “Maranatha” report (2005): http://www.narth.com/docs/maranatha.html

    I believe the home office report (1998) is something else and is what I thought you were asking me if I have read. I understand it refers to a number of reports including Raabe’s. The Christian Institute link refers to both reports: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/

  188. @John — we’re talking about the Home Office report, you know, the one Raabe writes about, and misrepresents.

    I was surprized you couldn’t find it — as you said, Raabe provides 32 references in his footnotes. Are you saying they don’t tell you about the Home Office report ?

  189. @John — You were the first person to mention the Home Office report ( remember your post 8 February 2011, 6:12pm ? ). I’m saying that the Christian Institute misrepresents it. I can say that because I’ve read it. You can’t because you haven’t.

  190. Harry: that is a fair point. Yes, I need to read it to judge myself. Please tell me where it is on the Internet please? I put a degree of trust in organisations like the Christian Institute because they are do have the time and expertise to look at issues that concern their “constituency”. So if they have mis-represented I would like to know and it will be something I will take up with them. Some have accused Christians of peddling lies. While I think that is not the case generally, when it is I want to know. Also, I have answered your questions (as I did earlier in this thread). Can you acknowledge this please and also answer the questions I asked?

  191. PS Harry, I was just checking if Raabes had referred to the 1998 Home Office report and the answer seems no. It is baffling that the Christian Insitute refers to the Home Office report (in support of Raabes) but Raabes does not mention it. He does, however, make the statement:

    6.6. There is a disproportionately high number of homosexuals among pedophile offenders. While the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is in the region of 1-3%, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.25 Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.

    and gives the reference: 25 Blanchard, R et al., “Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.

    Incidentally, saying there is proportionately more homosexuals among convicted paedophiles is not the same as saying this figure reflects the profile of the gay community as a whole. My instinct is that people involved in paedophilia are more likely to adopt less conventional sexual habits anyway.

  192. “Even though we have disagreed in the past and you have called me names I have appreciated some of the points you have made (and I would love to have that discussion on evolution)”

    Sorry you feel that way John, but I call out a lack of understanding any demonstration of stupidity when I see it. It is a side effect of formal university education, alas. The “debate” on evolution you had with me, and others, was not based on existing evidence – as in ours was, but yours wasn’t. Sorry if that offended you.

    You still didn’t explain why a “loving god” would have an issue with a loving relationship?

  193. John said: “I put a degree of trust in organisations like the Christian Institute ”

    Ah, well, that may be the problem, John :D I’m not having a particular go at the CI but I remember you linking me to sites that were American fundamentalist before. They were full of that patronisingly nice and transparently false attitude that the more mainstrean Religious Right adopt – ie “We just CARE about you, evil gay people”. To me the CI is modelling itself on them, particularly in its drumming up of a problem/threat from gay people.

    You talk about being able to exercise conscience according to your beliefs. But there is a limit *for all of us* on how far we’re able to do that. If you could show me that Christians were being singled out and EXTRA laws put on them that didn’t apply to other people in the UK, I’d agree that you were being persecuted. But you can’t because quite simply you’re not.

    And – most importantly – no LGBT person would WANT you to be. All I want is the same rights as everyone else in the UK (particularly as regards civil marriage) and to live my life in peace and without interference or aggression.

    Will, your post above (10 February 2011, 1:18pm) was excellent.

  194. @John — This Home Office report is one you first mentioned ( 8 February 2011, 6:12pm ) and you reported the Christian Institute as saying “In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.

    I found the report, and I bothered to read it. It says:

    “Individual studies must be viewed cautiously before generalising from them”

    and this is one of several studies cited in the report. Of course if you were seeking to confirm a belief, you might be tempted to cherry pick research, and publicise only that which confirms one’s belief, especially if someone else has gone to the trouble of misrepresenting it. It is interesting to note that a Google search of your phrase:

    approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature

    returns these links

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/child_abuse.htm
    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_was_dr_raabe_sacked.html
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

    If you’d bothered to research the matter, you’d have discovered other researchers have failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases. This suggests that gay or lesbian people are under represented.

  195. The Heretic Philosopher 11 Feb 2011, 9:47am

    @John I would dispute your contention that the Christian Institute is reliable. They selectively edit debate on their facebook page in favor of more fundamentalist and extremist views. Anyone with a more liberal and progressive Christian view has there remarks removed and is banned from their facebook page. This has been going on for quite some time which is why I started a facebook group called Banned and Censored on the Christian Institute Facebook Page. It has now got almost 50 members. They may promote themselves as an organisation that supports freedom of speech but the truth is very different. Double standards, hypocrisy, censorship and repression of freedom of speech are the order of the day for the Christian Institute if those who have joined my page since it was established are to be believed.

  196. Will: thanks for your response, which I appreciated. As for disagreeing, I am happy for that and expect it, especially coming as I do to a gay website with the views I have. My main gripe is when people make personal attacks or unfair remarks. But as for honest debate and rebuke if need be, that is perfectly ok!

    About evolution discussions in the past, your recollections are likely better than my own. I suspect most Bible believing Christians don’t think through the issues but my guess there are two main camps: the creationists who literally interpret all the Bible, including the early chapters of Genesis, and thus rule out any meaningful evolution and those who while supporting intelligent design and the authority of the Bible believe it is possible to accommodate scientific findings.

    Recently I read a book titles: “An Orthodox Understanding of the Bible with Physical Science” by Geoffrey Stedman, a retired Professor of Physics, and also a member of the Plymouth Brethren (which might amuse JohnK). Stedman is quite erudite explaining the concepts of quantum mechanics, relativity and the origins of the universe, and is well aware of modern scientific findings. His main thesis is that it is possible to reconcile religious truth and scientific truth such that the question which one to adopt does not arise. I agree with his findings.

    Stedman’s background, like my own, is in the physical sciences and he does not say too much on topics like evolution, not being his area of expertise, but by agreeing with the scientific consensus on subjects like the age of the universe and how it came into being, he does allow for evolution to occur. Another Plymouth Brethren friend, a research scientist in the area of genetics, while having orthodox Christian beliefs, also believes that evolution did take place, albeit under the guidance of a creator God. It was he that pointed me to a paper by Professor Spanner: http://www.creationandevolution.co.uk, which findings I mainly agree with.

    Back to your question about whether a loving God having an issue with a loving relationship, the best example I can find in the Bible is the story of David and Jonathan. That love, according to David, was greater than that of a woman – it was a beautiful relationship. The fact that God affirmed David makes me believe that God had no issue with this. While I am coming round to the idea that the Bible is less condemning of homosexual relationships than I had first thought, I still believe, based on the Genesis story and what Jesus said, that it is God’s intention that marriage and physical intimacy should be between members of the opposite sex.

    Iris: thank you for your comments. I always appreciate what you have to say. I recognize your objections about some of the “Christian” websites discussed between us. Regarding rights, ideally it should be about “human” rather than “gay” or “Christians” and should be applied equally. But as we keep seeing, gay rights and Christian rights do seem to clash frequently. I know, from speaking with fellow Christians, this is being felt.

    Harry: I did you the courtesy of answering your questions. Can you answer mine. My not reading the home office report is not because I’m not bothered but rather I can’t find it on the Internet. The points you made questioning Dr Raabes conclusions and his fitness (or not) to be a drugs advisor remain, but I do need to read and think further.

    Heretical Philosopher: Christian Institute seemed at one time to this Christian an answer to prayer. I liked the leaflet it produced: http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/solac_07.pdf and there is a need to engage with the wider society on the basis of knowledge. However, I am uncomfortable with you being kicked off because of your views, which I would have thought should have been welcomed, but then I don’t know all the facts. The fact that Pink News allows me to post, with any censoring, is very much to their credit.

  197. The Heretic Philosopher 11 Feb 2011, 12:11pm

    I think there is something to be said for the notion that Christianity is percieved in a negative way because of how it is represented by figures who shout loudest and get lots of attention in the press. I have intimated a number of times on this site that what these people say is not compatible with the central message of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. I would urge people here not to take their word for it but to examine and look into it themselves, to test and question all the assumptions and assertions made by such people. Look into theology, look into biblical scholarship and criticism, look into spirituality and religion, look into philosophy and ethics. You will find that the foundations on which these people make their assertions are very unsound indeed and are not as clear cut as they make out. Certain thought systems have their appeal in the fact that they negate the need to think, they offer a level of security and safety by trading in certainties and absolutes. When these so called certainties and absolutes are scrutinised more closely they are found to be illusory. Try to be a bit more gentle with those who have fallen into the trap of these kinds of thought systems, so many have. Its the thought systems that are at fault, not the people within them. Treat them with respect and compassion even while you critique and question the thought system they are caught up in. We all misunderstand, we all misinterpret, and have gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

  198. @John — so just to close the loop on this one: the reason you can’t find the report that was first mentioned by you is because where you read about it, The Christian Institute website, there is no information to allow anyone to identify it.

    This is a tactic of people who misrepresent research. They make a claim about other people’s research, but don’t allow it to be verified.

    I read the report you mentioned, and I told you that your quote misrepresents it. You replied:

    “Harry: if this is true it would indeed cast dispersions on the integrity of some of the research Dr Raabes has been engaged in.

    It is unlikely I can do a full investigation within the next couple of days but I would like to get to the bottom of where the truth lies and have already made some enquiries. I agree with you that to do so is important.”

    May I ask what your enquiries involved, and what — if any — has come of them ?

  199. “We all misunderstand, we all misinterpret, and have gaps in our knowledge and understanding.”

    Heretical Philosopher: I think I agree with that and much of what precedes. As one of those brought up in a setting where absolutes were proclaimed with great fervour and have done the same thing myself, I know how difficult it is to abandon them. However, to do so absolutely would be a mistake because you are then faced with relativism and the notion we cannot be sure of anything and one person’s opinion is as good as the next. My own axioms are that God has shown us the right way to go, principally in the Bible, but within that paradigm there is a degree of liberty and, moreover, we need to challenge and question when people say something is of God when it isn’t or may not be.

    Harry: I am still confused. You say you have read the Home Office report but still won’t say how to access it? I agree that both Maranatha and Christian Institute need to be accountable for what they say, which is why I have written to both. I hope to question them on my concerns, some of which you have raised with me. As for what else I intend to do, I will have a look at the links you gave me and will reflect further. I will come back to you, providing you are sincere and you can help to show that by answering the questions I raised earlier e.g. 10 Feb, 9.03pm I sometimes get the impression you ask questions in order to make a point or entrap rather than find out what I think. Please confirm the latter is the case this time? and of course how to access the Home Office report which you have said you have read?

  200. @John — I ask questions and you ignore them and talk about how badly you’re treated on this forum.

    I have read the Home Office report and quoted from it. I can’t be certain it’s the one that appears in your quote because you don’t know what it is and The Christian Institute haven’t told you.

    You made the original statement, and you said you needed to investigate further. Your investigation appears to amount to suggesting that Raab is less biased than The American Psychological Association.

    Have you looked into any other research into this ?

  201. “based on the Genesis story and what Jesus said, that it is God’s intention that marriage and physical intimacy should be between members of the opposite sex.”

    Sorry John, but I hardly think you can evaluate someone relationship, especially mine that has outlasted many so-called “god sanctified” marriages, based on a talking snake and the story which condones incest? That’s hardly plausible. And god forbid my relationship, which brings me great stability, happiness and strength, offends Britney Spears “just for giggles” 55-hour marriage.

    But having said that, I recognise your comment on “coming round to the idea that the Bible is less condemning of homosexual relationships”. There might be hope for you yet.

  202. “There might be hope for you yet.”

    Thanks Will :-)

    Realising your relationship brings you great stability, happiness and strength, it was with trepidation I wrote as I did but decided you would rather I give you straight answer.

    I wish I could buy you and your partner a guiness sometime and chat about the meaning of life.

  203. Dr Robin Guthrie 11 Feb 2011, 9:02pm

    Hi John.

    Coming from the stand point of both Private and Public mental health studies and having read all of your posts on these various fora , I find myself curious as to your need to gain clarification of your values, and indeed whilst offering these values, require succor as to affirm these religious values.

    Would you mind if I write a paper on all of the biblical comments you have written on this Gay web site in your attempt to gain your own entry into your own idea of what your heaven is as prescribed by your own definition of what your own bloody GOD is.

    ARE YOU GAY.

    ARE YOU GAY AND RELIGIOUS.

    If Religious ONLY the F OFF.

    Otherwise assistance is forthcoming

    I am tired of constantly going onto gay forums looking for peer assistance only to find religious nut jobs commandeering it telling us to defend our existence.

    You have a church. GO TO IT.

  204. The Heretic Philosopher 11 Feb 2011, 9:45pm

    I think what you need to understand and appreciate John is that the Bible and religious rhetoric has been used to bash gay people over the head with for a very very long time. Now the wounds created by that are going to take a long time to heal. Alot of gay people have been very hurt by parochial Christian prejudices around sex and sexuality. I’m seeing alot of hurt coming through here because of things your saying John though I realise thats probably not your intention. I have been hurt by Christian prejudices around sex and sexuality. I have dealt with those wounds and the anger over a period of time and have let alot of it go but I can understand why people are reacting to you the way they are. A few years ago I would have been reacting the same way. I think you need to be a bit more sensitive and aware of that.

  205. Dr Robin Guthrie 11 Feb 2011, 10:08pm

    Good evening.

    The Heretic Philosopher.

    You clearly are aware of the issue.

    One would have have hoped that the Publication known as Pink News
    would have prevented the religious abuse we keep encountering from these God believers.

    Clearly not. They encourage it.

    Readership of this web site is now rendered pointless, whilst this sorry rag flogs its advertising and allows its target audience to be abus

  206. The ire John raises is caused by what he says surely, not what he believes ? He may respond that what he says (writes, publishes etc) is predicated on what he believes, but the reality of the situation is that others have read the same source material, viz the bible, and reached radically different conclusions.

    The fact that John believes he’s receiving anti Christian abuse is not relevant. An atheist could write what John’s written and receive the same robust responses.

  207. The Heretic Philosopher 12 Feb 2011, 11:02am

    On the contrary Dr Guthrie I think we do need to have the opportunity to have dialogue on this issue. I got through my own pain not by running away from it but by pushing headlong into it, looking at it, feeling it. I have always had a strong sense of spirituality, a trust in something larger than myself so a part of me always held the notion that whatever this larger thing than myself thing was it accepted me as I was and did not condemn me for being me. So when it came to confronting religious prejudice I somehow knew it was all nonsense. I think we do need to confront these things, to bring them to light, to talk about them, even to talk about them with the people who say and think those things, they need healing as well. Healing doesn’t happen in isolation. We need to share our pain and work through it together. We are not separate from each other, we are all connected.

  208. Dr Guthrie – you can always ignore John’s comments – and here is how i dealt with someone just like John today:

    I was walking in East london this afternoon, and some smartly dressed middle aged gentleman, laden with pamphlets, approached me.

    - Hello! he explained, We’re from the ? Chorley Mission. Do have one of our newspapers, and you’re most welcome to come to our services tomorrow.

    Well, I have enough to read at the moment as it is – what with Jared Diamond’s ‘Collapse’ and Matt Ridley’s response to it. And besides, the rag was the same mish-mash of miracles, and answered prayers. (A tad sick as no prayers were answered for Dan, the poor cyclist whose memorial can be seen at Dalston Junction just now.)

    - Oh thank you for the offer, I said, but I’m an atheist, so it’s not really my thing.
    - Oh well we all have to start somewhere! he assured me.
    - Yes, and that starting place is Charles Darwin!

    With that, I bade him farewell and politely neglected the opportunity to look at his selection of free New Testamants, and headed back to the Overground.

    Happy Darwin Day, incidentally.

  209. Can we get back to the essence of this thread . . .

    “Christian GP sacked from drugs panel over views on homosexuality”

    i.e . . . the question as to whether Christians should be allowed to occupy postions of professional and political responsibility, in light of views from a sizable number; which are increasing hostile to equality and social justice?

  210. In my view and based on this thread to date, it appears that increasingly Christian view points and life style choices; are incompatible with 21st centrury liberal and secular Britian.

  211. They’re entitled to their views, JohnK, but I think the problem is when they insist on their right to disobey laws and regulations because of those views.

    Society doesn’t and can’t work like that otherwise we’d live in chaos with every person obeying their own personal god or motivation and thinking that ‘belief’ allows them to do what they want.

  212. Iris – I agree that the issue is not about “Thoughts,” but it has everything to do with “Actions”;

    Although the law does not license against view points per se, it does legislate against action; which may stem from a specific view points and life style choices.

  213. Although this is not a definitive statement . . . I do wonder about the necessity of a debate which continues to justify our existence as LGBT people, in light of a predominantly rigid Christian position; which cannot really justify its existence in the 21st century.

    In a sense, this is a reposne to THP argument earlier about working through anger.

  214. “I wish I could buy you and your partner a guiness sometime and chat about the meaning of life.”

    LOL! Not all Irish drink Guinness, there’s a reason we export so much of it :) But Indeed, the offer is appreciated.

  215. Will, presumable John would buy you and your partner a drink, then tell you that you are both sinful; and living in sin – so is Christian hospitality – lol

  216. “Will, presumable John would buy you and your partner a drink, then tell you that you are both sinful; and living in sin”

    Perhaps JohnK, and he’s entitled to belie so, no matter how naive and short-sighted that belief is. However, I’d draw the line in those beliefs directly or indirectly affecting the stability and well-being of my life and my relationship.

    To be blunt, my feelings on this are, no one has the right to discriminate, no one has the right to remove or impede the happiness of another, and if someone doesn’t agree with civil marriage for gay people, well then, they don’t have to partake in it, do they? I believe in a democracy, and christians believe along theocratic lines. Thankfully one is becoming more desirable and prevalent than the other, otherwise we’d still be burning innocents for “witchcraft” and “heresy” – neither of which exist in a civilised world.

  217. “Will, presumable John would buy you and your partner a drink, then tell you that you are both sinful; and living in sin”

    Now JohnK, that wouldn’t be very nice and you presume wrong :-)

    Will is right about people being entitled to believe … we can all claim the intellectual and moral high ground but if we end up imposing our ideas on those who don’t agree with us then little will be achieved.

    PS I realise that Christian crackpots like me posting on PN irritates some folk but it is to their credit that PN allows. I regret that some of the Christian websites, despite being more genteel, don’t allow this.

  218. Dr Robin Guthrie 14 Feb 2011, 2:40pm

    “I regret that some of the Christian websites, despite being more genteel, don’t allow this.”

    - John

    I think you would find that they would be a lot less “genteel”, but they dare not allow right to reply as it is entirely against religious indoctrination techniques.

    Every query must be under their control.

    No dissent allowed.

    In my day it was called Sunday School.

  219. John wrote

    “PS I realise that Christian crackpots like me posting on PN irritates some folk but it is to their credit that PN allows.”

    John, the debate in 2011 is whether or not Christian Crackpots like your self, should be allowed to occupy positions of professional; and poltical responsibility

  220. @John — “… we can all claim the intellectual and moral high ground but if we end up imposing our ideas on those who don’t agree with us then little will be achieved.”

    Yes but there’s a difference between the impositions. All LGBT want to be treated exactly the same way as non LGBT people. Some Christians want to treat LGBT people differently. Regardless of intellectual and moral arguments, these two wishes do not carry the same weight.

  221. John wrote

    “PS I realise that Christian crackpots like me posting on PN irritates some folk but it is to their credit that PN allows. I regret that some of the Christian websites, despite being more genteel, don’t allow this.”

    John, why do you think Christian websites are banning LGBT people from making comments?

  222. Dr Robin Guthrie: you obviously have a view about some Christians, especially those in power, disallowing any dissent, and you are opposed to it. If that view is correct, and I have no doubt in some cases it is, then I would share your opposition.

    In general and ignoring my own case, I think some of the personal attacks seen in Pink News is less likely to happen on the Christian websites. However, as you point out, Pink News does, to their credit, allow a dissenting voice (you being one of those who get annoyed when that happens I think).

    I suppose the ideal is for respectful discussion, majoring on establishing the facts, accomodating different viewpoints. One can but dream I suppose :-)

  223. John wrote

    “In general and ignoring my own case, I think some of the personal attacks seen in Pink News is less likely to happen on the Christian websites.”

    , , , , , , , , , ,

    John, I am not sure what you mean by personal attacks

    For clarity of debate, could say what you mean by that?

  224. @John — “In general and ignoring my own case, I think some of the personal attacks seen in Pink News is less likely to happen on the Christian websites.”

    When you say “personal attacks” what do you mean ? Can you give examples of any you’ve suffered ? Can you show us an unmoderated and open to all Christian website, frequented by non Christians, which doesn’t have postings of the type you’re talking about ?

  225. I have just been looking through the (currently 44) posts in the latest Melanie Philips thread. Quite a number of these contain what most people would see as PERSONAL attacks, and really is this necessary? Do people need to do this to make their points? To deny this takes place is either ignorance or hypocrisy. Which is it?

    JohnK: I’ve tried to answer your question and agree Christian websites are more censor prone but at least they usually avoid much of the sort of vitriol I saw on that thread.

    Harry: I would answer your questions if I felt you were sincere, but sadly you appear not to be (it might be different if you had tried to answered my questions rather than merely engage in put down) – pity as I felt you had made some valid points earlier and I was quite happy to want to get to the bottom of these!

  226. @John – with regards the Melanie Phillips thread

    . . . . . . . . . .

    In the DailyMail article
    Melaine Phillips is arguing

    “that people with different sexual lifestyles must be treated identically – is exactly the same [as the argument for legalising bestiality]“.

    Then Melaine says

    “Before the hate mail starts, I’m not suggesting gays are on a moral par with zoophiles.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    John, Melanie over steps the mark, then steps back from her comment; but Melanie had already insinuated that LGBT people are a king to animals.

    John, are you saying that LGBT people should not express their anger, when Ms Phillips insinuates that LGBT people are really just animals?

  227. @John — give examples please ! You are here to debate and argue your point, but when challenged you don’t seem to support your statements with any evidence. It’s no good saying something without backing it up !

  228. JohnK: when I read the article, I didn’t think Ms Phillips was insinuating LGBT people “are really just animals”. However, I can see why LGBT might take umbrage. But while I understand the all too human response is to give vent to one’s feeling, I don’t think remarks like: “loathsome old crone” (post 1), “moron” (post 3) etc. help the cause. While I regret Christians not being prepared to engage with respectful dissent in their public forums, I don’t see much of that sort of personal attack either.

  229. Well, I dropped back in to this thread to see John’s response to a question put to him earlier as to why a loving god would have a problem with a loving relationship. Still no answer. I’m not surprised. Selective hearing, have we? This question expose too much contradiction?

  230. @David — I know; I came back to see if John had got a reply to the email he wrote to the Maranatha Community, and to see if he’d answered my question about what other research he’d done into supporting his accusation about gay men.

    Nothing, apart from a post saying saying how unpleasant the posts disagreeing with him and Melanie Phillips were.

  231. @John — ‘when I read the article, I didn’t think Ms Phillips was insinuating LGBT people “are really just animals”’

    You’re happy with this kind of comment:

    “If still in doubt, try this thought experiment. Imagine the Government was planning to recognise polygamy and polyandry (marriage with more than one woman or man), or marriage between ‘zoophiles’ (people who have ‘loving and committed relationships with mammals’, or bestiality to you and me) and their, er, partners.”

    where she’s making a connexion in the reader’s mind between LGBT people and zoophiles ? This is a low technique — associating the group you hate with a something unambiguously foul. Jews with vermin, gay men with paedophiles, some people have no scruples.

    You complain about what you term personal attacks on Melanie Phillips, and offer the examples ‘loathsome old crone’ and ‘moron’. So on the Daily Mail website, I’ve picked the followed out:

    “ The bible is nothing more than a storybook, and to base laws around it is ridiculous. – Clarence, England, 14/2/2011 00:12 Do you have any clue whatsoever as to how naive that sounds? The ONLY reason we have morals today is they come from the Old Testament (Torah). Prior to the ‘Bible’ coming into the world, the ‘moral’ norms of the day included the sacrifice of young children and virgins (no difference in today’s society). Barack Obama, George W Bush, Hitler Mussolini, Napoleon… every single one of them is mentioned in the Tanach (the Jewish Torah). To think that the ‘Bible’ is a mere storybook is to exhibit a complete lack of understanding of how the world works. Proof: if conditions are right and a man and woman are together, the result is a baby; no matter how often same-sex couples are together, they will never, ever have a baby.”

    “It is time to say no more now. The long campaign by the homosexuals to be not normal but better than the heterosexuals is now over. We admit you exist, how can we not do? But marriage is as Melanie writes and most of us believe a contract between a man and a woman for the procreation normally of children to keep the human race going. The homosexuals’ campaign has gone too far. Never will I admit or acknowledge any homosexuals claiming to be “married” as being so and I will say so in public whatever the cost. They have civil partnerships for financial protection so why bother getting married in a church etc.? Why is it so important to them? So they can consider themselves normal? Well, we all have news for you. Mother Nature or God has been very cruel but then she/He has to those born blind or deaf etc.”

    which I presume you’re quite happy with ?

  232. David: get of your high horse! Many questions in these forums don’t get answered and I suspect I answer more than my fair share. I don’t recall your question or why I didn’t respond to you so I apologise if you had asked this sincerely. However, Will asked a similar question and my response is in my post of 11/2 11:51 and a further exchange.

    Harry: regretably, I am disinclined to engage with you because I have already spent a lot of time trying to answer your questions and you have more often than not afforded me the same courtesy by answering mine. It seems to me you are more interested in trying to undermine and belittle rather than getting to the truth and quite honestly I see no reason why I should waste my time and “cast pearls before swine”.

    I haven’t got a reply from maranatha or christian institute or from you telling me where I can find the home office report being referred to. I jotted down from yesterdays Daily Mail a purported extract from the Home Office report (and btw I’m not a natural Mail reader but it is the one the gym I go to gets): “Sex Offending Against Children Understanding the Risk states: Bradford et al (1988) suggested reasonably that approximately 20-33 percent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature.”

    Until I read that report I am unable to judge properly. The stakes are high of course because if this or Dr Raabes is misquoting or even distorting the research on a highly charged subject I will happily apologise. But if true it might also support Dr Raabes case for unfair dismissal as he would be referring to the home offices own research.

    As I said before, I have never made the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Rather, I focus on things I know and believe because of a higher (than medical science even) authority. I am merely arguing the possibility that Dr Raathe was wrong to be dismissed, I don’t have the time and experise to research all the material and facts behind the case but like any other concerned person I do have the right to question what appears to be LBGT interests trumping those of Christians (and would consider doing so if it were the other way round).

    While this may or may not help, I regret the tendency of twisting the words of people one disagrees with. Dr Raabes is NOT saying (as far as I can see) that a large percentage of gay people are paedophiles – rather than a large percentage of paedophiles are gay – quite different things. For the record, while like any parent I have to take precautions when my under-aged children are alone with adults. I have NEVER done so on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation.

  233. Oh, really? You think you answered this? Lets have a look at your answer:

    “While I am coming round to the idea that the Bible is less condemning of homosexual relationships than I had first thought”

    This is not an answer, and what you think is irrelevant to our relationships. You are not god, no matter how much you maintain you understand his mind.

    “that it is God’s intention that marriage and physical intimacy should be between members of the opposite sex.”

    So, a loving god does NOT agree with loving relationship, or are you saying tha a “loving god” would prefer “other” loving relationships to suffer if they are not married? This is your answer? Not a god I think I care for.

    In short, you cannot see the contradiction of your statements that god is loving, yet he only accepts “certain” love. And you wonder why you get abuse?

    I think someone else already picked you up on using the Book of Genesis of proof of anything. To believe in genesis as literal, is to condone many things, such as murder, incest, rape, racial strife, the enslavement of nations, and on and on. Hardly a book I would use as proof of anything other than a gods love of anarchy.

    But explain this for me:- if you are using Genesis, and I assume from your responses above you do not accept evolution as scientific, where do Neanderthals fit in? Were they in the garden of eden too?

  234. @John — “I haven’t got a reply from maranatha or christian institute or from you telling me where I can find the home office report being referred to.”
    Let me know when you’ve read the report that you quote from, the report that you first drew our attention to. I found the report, and read it. As a result, I can tell you that Raabe misrepresents it. I think the onus is on you to justify your position. You’re posting on a forum for LGBT people, for their support, and your position is that gay relationships are wrong and cannot be approved of, and that equality should not be supported. If the report is provided to you by the Maranatha Community, or The Christian Institute, it will establish your bona fides.

    “Until I read that report I am unable to judge properly.”

    Exactly. And given the obscene suggestion in it, it does not become you to quote from it. I have read the report, and it is misrepresented by Raabe, and the distortion is continued by you. “The stakes are high of course …” absolutely, but the risk is not carried by you, Raabe, but by every LGBT person. You’re increasing the risk to them.

    “As I said before, I have never made the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.”

    Sorry, but I beg to disagree. You’re repeating the foul accusation, and to do so betrays your contempt for LGBT people. And contempt it is — you’ve not sought to confirm your accusation — and frankly to even entertain it, let alone repeat it, is low. I ask my question again:

    What other research have you done to confirm the truthfulness of your claim ?

    This is quite an important question, and again will help to establish your bona fides. I’m sorry if you choose to believe it’s undermining and belittling you: that’s your decision, and I don’t think there’s any logic to it. If you disagree, please show me where I’ve undermined you or belittled you. Also, please let me know those questions of yours you think I’ve not answered. And please, don’t use phrases like “cast pearls before swine” and then complain of discourtesy.

  235. Harry, I can’t wait to hear about the Neanderthals…. this should be beyond interesting!!!

    Of course, hes probably having a “does-not-compute” breakdown in his mind, and when it reboots he’ll just ignore the question.

  236. John wrote

    “JohnK: when I read the article, I didn’t think Ms Phillips was insinuating LGBT people “are really just animals”.
    However, I can see why LGBT might take umbrage.
    But while I understand the all too human response is to give vent to one’s feeling, I don’t think remarks like: “loathsome old crone” (post 1), “moron” (post 3) etc. help the cause.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John thanks for your response. When you say that . . .

    “I didn’t think Ms Phillips was insinuating LGBT people “are really just animals”.

    And then you go onto to say

    “However, I can see why LGBT might take umbrage.”

    This is like saying I did not really want to see this, but I can see why gay people are upset; because you did see that Ms Phillips was referring to LGBT people in a derogatory way by referring to them as animals

    When you say

    “But while I understand the all too human response is to give vent to one’s feeling, I don’t think remarks like: “loathsome old crone” (post 1), “moron” (post 3) etc. help the cause.”

    John, again because you have only partially admitted that Ms Phillips said such things; then again is it not unreasonable to assume that you would only partially want to admit that LGBT have a right to express their anger?

  237. David, I’d be interested to hear any answer from John !

  238. David: I explained my position on evolution in my post to Will, mentioned in my earlier reply. The fact I had to search on Google to find out what a Neanderthal is shows how little I know about evolution. While I am not a pure literalist and will entertain evolutionary notions as I explained, I do believe Genesis and the rest of the Bible is God’s word, including the passages all of us find difficult.

    As for your other non rhetorical question, I fear whatever I say is likely to create more heat than light. I know full well that people You mention my “contradictions”: “god is loving, yet he only accepts “certain” love” which I will come to and as for getting abuse, no I don’t wonder and neither am I offended (else I wouldn’t persist). I am disappointed though as it isn’t really necessary. I would prefer respectful debate, agreeing to disagree etc. I really don’t what to offend you but equally it would be wrong if I said something you might find acceptable but I would know to be untrue. If I may, let me say this and I will then bow out of this thread…

    What I think about your loving relationship is hardly relevant but, for what it is worth, I do not begrudge you of it and in fact I am pleased you have found love. If we were to meet (I hope) nothing I will do or say will upset that relationship and I would want to honour and respect something that is clearly very important to you.

    But at the risk of sounding like a gramophone record playing on repeat, I say again firstly that (my understanding is) God wants us to love in all our relationships and, dare I say it, he will not condemn us whenever love is present. However, the love that is intended within a marriage is special and unique and while some will not marry or stay married, that generally is his intention for us. In Bible terms, this should be between one man and one woman and is meant for life. It provides the appropriate and preferred context for sexual intimacy, bearing and bringing up children, finding one’s lifelong soul mate, and is an important part of God’s design for a healthy society.

    JohnK, Harry: thank you for your comments which are noted but that’s it from me for the time being :-)

  239. “However, the love that is intended within a marriage is special and unique and while some will not marry or stay married”

    Simple solution, allow gays to marry, eh?

    “It provides the appropriate and preferred context for sexual intimacy, bearing and bringing up children, finding one’s lifelong soul mate, and is an important part of God’s design for a healthy society.”

    Yeah, so let gays marry. Gay people experience all this and more. And God didn’t design society, man did. The fact you take Genesis as literal is astounding. Really, it is.

    Spin, Portugal, SA, Holland, all allowed gays to marry, and did the sky fall? Did civilisation crumble? Did god blast the country off the planet?

    No. He didn’t. So, God is capable of doing so, and in the bible he did worse to cities for a lot less, one can only conclude god doesn’t care, or god doesn’t disapprove.

    Also, John, I fond that you have an “opinion” on evolution and yet you had to google what a Neanderthal was so revealing. You basically have an opinion on what you do not and chose not to understand? Hardly firm ground for the rest of us to believe one word out of your mouth. Would god chose the not so bright to be one of his spokesman? Hardly.

    I’m sure the hard questions mean you have to leave now.

  240. @John — is that it ? You make some unacceptable statements, and when challenged, become very defensive.

    As soon as you’re questioned or asked to backup what you’ve claimed, you complain of poor standards of behaviour and personal attacks.

    You actually think that offers to be friendly and have chats over pints balances out your abhorrent statements like gay relationships are wrong, and I cannot approve of them. You think it’s acceptable to repeat the foulest accusation without having the common humanity to check your statements. You’ve never challenged your own beliefs, and when others do, you run away.

    I thought there was hope for you. I thought we could reason with you. But you’re not up to challenging your beliefs, or maybe admitting to yourself that the world is not black and white, good and evil, right or wrong, and it appears you’re running away.

    I wonder whether you think you’ve raised or lowered the estimation in which Christianity is held by most people on this forum ?

  241. “So, God is capable of doing so, and in the bible he did worse to cities for a lot less, one can only conclude god doesn’t care, or god doesn’t disapprove.”

    Or god doesn’t exist, is the more likely outcome.

    “You’ve never challenged your own beliefs, and when others do, you run away.”

    Harry, I unfortunately agree. I do not believe what John does, very far from it in fact, but I though at one stage that he was willing to listen to reason. However, David has shown most brilliantly with the question on Neanderthal Man that John’s opinions on evolution are far from based in reason, rationale or any knowledge what’s so ever. Appalling. instead, and sadly, based in only what his beliefs allow him to believe. I was shocked an appalled that anyone needed to google Neanderthal Man!!!! My 6 year old nephew knows about human evolution, for heavens sake! So do most 6 years olds for that matter. Is a trip to a museum once in the life of these people too much to ask?

    I always wonder with the genetic deposition to religion by some people, is this in fact a genetic defect that served us once but now hampers humanity? The inability to see reason, when the rest of the species is evolving past the need for superstition? A lack of intelligence, a lack of curiosity, combined with an aggressive streak maintains this genetic weakness in humanity, perhaps?

    Oh well, John might be a preacher, but a teacher he will never be. Suffice to leave it at the safe knowledge that most rational people do not see evolution as anything but fact, and Genesis is hardly the angry scribblings of a troubled teenager, let alone someone that can create a universe.

    Would you agree Harry, David?

  242. @Will — “So, God is capable of doing so, and in the bible he did worse to cities for a lot less, one can only conclude god doesn’t care, or god doesn’t disapprove.”

    Well yes ! David Attenborough puts it far better than I ever could:

    I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.

    “… but I though at one stage that he was willing to listen to reason.”

    Again yes: I also did, or at least engage in debate with him. There are some people who post on this forum for which ridicule is the only response, because their statements are pathetic and not thought out at all. I think it’s quite reasonable to respond to them with a similar lack of thought. But I didn’t class John amongst these; I thought it was possible to conduct a sensible rational debate with him. But he seems to have no concept that some of the statements he made were truly shocking, and that it’s no good just saying something. That doesn’t make it true, nor does it convince. He didn’t back up any of his statements, became very defensive when challenged, and then finally ran away.

    “I was shocked an appalled that anyone needed to google Neanderthal Man.”

    Again: yes ! It’s beyond parody ! The evolution debate always seems to crop up, and there’s a very strong correlation between conservative religious views and disbelief in evolution. I’ve concluded that the way to approach the issue is to ask them to first demonstrate their understanding of what evolution is. Inevitably they don’t know , can’t describe it, and have never read an accurate account of what it is — let alone the evidence for it. I’m not going to waste my time debating something that someone’s not bothered to inform themselves about.

    “I always wonder with the genetic deposition to religion by some people, is this in fact a genetic defect that served us once but now hampers humanity? The inability to see reason, when the rest of the species is evolving past the need for superstition? A lack of intelligence, a lack of curiosity, combined with an aggressive streak maintains this genetic weakness in humanity, perhaps?”

    It’s an interesting question. I just don’t know. I’d certainly say curiosity and intelligence go hand in hand. It strikes me that places where there’s a free exchange of ideas and information seem to see a decline in these kind of beliefs, and that theocracies, or whatever flavour, always seek to suppress knowledge and prevent its flow.

    “Would you agree Harry, David?”

    Yes ! Until the next time …

  243. John said: “In Bible terms, this should be between one man and one woman and is meant for life”

    Ok, let’s say you’re right there (although I don’t personally think the Bible ONLY considers that as marriage, as we’ve discussed before). So you’re right and that’s how you and other Christians see marriage. That’s absolutely fine by me – BUT you should keep those beliefs in your own church and allow LGBT people CIVIL marriage.

    This would be an excellent idea because many Christian churches already reject divorcees and choose who they’ll marry. Those that the church ‘rejects’ or who have no interest in your church are perefctly free to go to have a civil marriage – except LGBT people. If we were entitled to a civil marriage too then that would not only be fair, it would have no effect on your church.

    Will – interesting question about a previous genetic reason for religion. It reminded me of this book:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297942232&sr=1-1

    I personally think that there is a gene or at least an inclination to religion and superstition, and that it did serve a purpose once. Maybe it still does if we are just talking about a spirituality, an awe of the world. But I consider that separate from Religion which is wholly a man-made invention to gain power and control.

  244. Origin of Consciousness — incredible book, thought provoking like no other.

    I can’t see any connexion between religious belief and a capacity to be amazed at the world. If anything there’s an anti-correlation. I’d add Dawkin’s Unweaving the Rainbow and The Greatest Show on Earth to Jaynes’ book.

  245. Harry et al

    I did say at one point I will let you know if I get anything back from Maranatha and Christian Institute. While I have only received an acknowledgement from Maranatha, I did get this reply from Maranatha two days back:

    “Thank you for your email to The Christian Institute about the Home office report we refer to in one of our news articles.

    Published in 1998 the Home Office report is called “Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk”.

    An online version can be found:
    http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf

    The quote we refer to in our news article is on page 14 of the report under the heading ‘Choice of victim’.

    Here Mr Grubin refers to a study carried out by Bradford et al. (1988)”

    Fyi: the pertinent text is:
    Bradford et al. (1988) suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about
    10% mixed.

    It does seem that the Home Office report concured with that finding but more importantly it could back up Dr Raabe’s point that he was only going along with the findings of an organisation that chose to sack him for having those same views.

    I have no doubt that there is other research coming to other conclusions but I am not in a position to evaulate this and come to a conclusion. As I keep saying, I didn’t make the link between homosexuality and paedophilia but do have qualms over “gay affirmation therapy”, which was what Dr Raathes paper was discussing.

    Regarding evolution: I have never claimed to be an authority in the subject. It is not my area of expertise. My knowledge is general and when people throw terms at me I’m not sure of it seems reasonable to get an authoritive definition. Until relatively recently I veered toward a belief in creationism and the attempts at exponents to explain way notions like “Neanderthal man”. Having looked more recently at some of the evidence in physical sciences (more my area of interest – at least to first degree level) I tend to concur with the general consensus regarding the age of the universe. While I believe in Intelligent design, the uniqueness of man and the divine inspiration of Genesis, I believe that evolution is a least, and probably more, a strong possibility – but I would need to do more reading and consult with folk I respect who know more than me.

    1. @John — thank you for getting back regarding this. Yes this was the paper I was referring to.

      1. You’ve taken a single sentence from the relevant paragraph of the Home Office Report. This is misrepresenting what the report says.
      2. Raabe didn’t make a statement about child sexual abuse being homosexual in nature, he made a statement about homosexuals (by which he means homosexual people) being child sexual abusers. This is again misrepresentation. Misrepresentation of the Home Office paper that you’ve already selectively quoted from.
      3. You were the person who brought this up on the thread. It’s quite hypocritical to now plead that you’re not in a position to evaluate it. Of course, if you were seeking to denigrate gay people, you would continue to whisper about some research you’ve read. Are you really so convinced that gay people are wrong that you’re prepared not to grant them the same moral standards as straight people ?

    2. Harry: thank you for your points. My responses are:
      1. Yes I agree there is more and it is not usually a good idea to pick out one point that would seem to back up one’s position and ignore those that don’t. I think what the Christian Institute was saying was that since Raabe was making a point the Home Office had also made that it was disingenuous to dismiss him on the grounds he had failed to disclose anything that could prove embarrassing. We shouldn’t forget the issue should be his suitability to do a job and that includes whether or not he has integrity, regardless of whether one agree with his views on homosexuality, and that was my main concern and why I referred to this report.
      2.I’m not Raabe’s apologist but my reading of a small part of what he wrote is not that he was saying homosexuals are child molesters but there is evidence that a higher proportion of child molesters are homosexuals (not the same thing). I agree, incidentally, there may be conflicting evidence and …

      1. if I were making that point I would feel compelled to consider this. I think also he is using this, along with a number of other examples, in order to argue against gay affirmation therapy. Just as you would expect me to look at the Home Office report and other evidence in its entirety it wouldn’t be unreasonable for you to look at Raabe’s report in the same way, deciding whether or not the entirety of or some of his arguments are correct and not just home in on one aspect because you take exception to what he says.
        3. As I say, I am not making the link and therefore I don’t feel compelled to have to come to a view. Sometimes we have to focus on some issues and not others but that doesn’t mean the things we don’t focus on aren’t important. There are just not enough hours in the day to do so and is why, incidentally, that I am disappointed that the folk in Maranatha whose area of expertise it is have not engaged with me…

        1. I assure you, I am not trying to denigrate gay people and regret that you might think I am. I believe that on the whole they are no better and no worse than non gay people. You once asked me what I am doing to help gay people – one recent example is that I have lent my support to the setting up an LGBT network in my own town. I have done so because I believe there are issues that need to be addressed and that it would be overall beneficial.

          PS Apologies for replying in 3 parts – something has changed and I wasn’t aware!

  246. Iris: of all the people I engage with in PN, you are one I particularly respect because of your courage and courtesy and despite our often disagreeing.

    The issue of same sex marriage is not going to go away as many recent postings on PN testify and mindful of our past exchanges. I do respect your view that LBGT marriage will not affect religious folk like me and those whose views are more traditional. My main interest is what is best for society as a whole and my instinct remains that strong marriages as traditionally understood is best and also best for bringing up children. I say this even though I think that if you were to marry your partner and bring up children you would it well.

    Like many ideas, institutions etc, the definition is all important. The reason I don’t believe I am discriminating in my views is that LGBT and marriage, as has been generally understood for thousands of years, is an oxymoron. Of course, if you were to redefine marriage that wouldn’t be the case.

    1. I don’t know whether CHRISTIAN marriage and LGBT people is an oxymoron, but marriage and LGBT people isn’t. LGBT people got married centuries ago. Also – and I know I’ve said this before :D – ‘one man, one woman’ and marriage would be an oxymoron for the polygamists in the Bible. And (please be assured I’m NOT mentioning this because of your family – it’s a general comment) interracial relationships and marriage would have seemed an oxymoron to many people in the US and elsewhere.

      Marriage, I agree, is a good institution to bring up children, and I also think it’s good as a means of support for the adults involved, let alone for the emotional/romantic reasons. Marriage exists in different forms already – ie I don’t expect a non-Christian/other religion marriage would ‘count’ for you (because it wasn’t a marriage under the Christian god). Marriage is a worldwide institution and exits in many forms already.

      1. Sorry – I meant “in the US and elsewhere IN THE PAST”.

    2. Therefore no one group owns marriage in my opinion. It’s a human institution and owned by no-one.

      I understand that to people used to the idea of one man, one woman anything else might seem strange, but I’m sure the same could be said of all recent changes in marriage – eg divorcees remarrying, people marrying at an older/younger age than in the past, people not being virgins when they marry etc etc.

      To me there is no difference between two people of the same sex marrying and two people of different sexes. I don’t say that because I’m gay, I don’t see any difference. What would be important to me personally would be that both people were committed to the marriage and things like that, NOT their gender. I’d rather see a good marriage between two people full stop than a bad marriage between two people of the ‘right’ sexes. Finding someone you love and wanting to spend your life with them is what’s important.

      You could marry whom you chose – imagine if you couldn’t…

      1. Thanks Iris for your thoughtful, as always, reply.

        For time immemorial, most societies have understood that marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman, even though there have been variations e.g. who one can marry, how many, and when one can divorce. Up to recently, only exceptionally has “marriage” between members of the same sex been recognised. For this reason, and in general, marriage has not been defined for legal purposes.

        If, as seems likely, recognises same sex marriage, marriage needs to be redefined or a new term needs to be coined. Whatever happens, I intend to obey the law but reserve the right not to recognise redefined marriage as marriage according because of the above definition.

        I don’t mean offence or to deprive you of happiness and would not feel threatened if you were to marry (seriously I would like to send you both my good wishes etc.), but feel marriage as traditionally understood should be preserved and fear the ramifications.

        1. “I intend to obey the law but reserve the right not to recognise redefined marriage as marriage according because of the above definition.”

          No problem, John. You’re entitled to your beliefs as long as you abide by the law, as is everyone. I don’t have a problem with that any more than I have a problem with some churches refusing to marry divorcees. In my opinion, the Christian definition of marriage can stay the same. But civil matters or the opinions of other religions are a different matter.

          I think there are plenty of rights to go round and I don’t feel any need to deprive you of your beliefs (although I may very often question them! :D )

          1. Thanks Iris. I appreciate your response. I recall some while back it was you that encouraged me to post on Pink News. I wonder in the light of some recent hostile responses (not by you I might add) if you regret saying this? I have certainly learnt a lot in these forums and while I question the extent I have made a difference I do hope I will be better equpped to debate LBGT issues and engage with LBGT folk. Strangely enough, LBGT issues hardly ever feature when I do my community work. There are many non-LBGT folks out there who are downtrodden and these need to be supported also.

  247. Harry: fyi today I sent these questions to Maranatha …
    1. the study citing the link between homosexuality and paedophilia has been refuted elsewhere. Have you considered this?
    2. given that making the link will be seen by some/many gay folk as offensive and provocative, why make the link in the first place?
    3. If it is indeed to back up the argument against “gay affirmation therapy” how relevant is this?
    4. I believe the BMA and psychiatric bodies are veering away from the idea that gays can be “cured” from being gay, how confident are you that this can happen?
    5. the report contends people aren’t “born gay” although many gay folk attest they have veered toward being gay for as long as they remember. How do you explain this and how can you justify applying other therapies that might turn them into being straight?
    6. Can you confirm the view that Dr Raathe was unfairly dismissed from his job as drug advisor and unfairly discriminated against because of his beliefs?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all