Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Canada: Church volunteer dismissed for being gay in case he made parents ‘feel uncomfortable’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hans Miniar 25 Sep 2013, 6:34pm

    Except being gay is NOT a choice, and there is NO reason that being gay makes you in any way likely to pose any threat to any child over any straight person.
    The church has chosen to favor the side of “potential” bigotry, instead of the side of fairness, honesty and justice, and that’s why it’s getting flak for it. If it doesn’t like getting flak for favoring the side of “potential” bigotry, then it shouldn’t do so. Simple!

    1. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 12:10am

      When the APA decided to change their label of homosexuality to an accepted lifestyle, I would like to see the research they did using psychoanalysis, neuropsychiatric examination and specialized psychological testing to arrive at their change of labeling homosexuality as not abnormal. There were a number of psychiatrists that did not agree with removing homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
      So there seems to be a lack of scientific research to show that homosexuality is inborn because there is no genetic or medical factors to prove homosexuality rationale — there’s nothing more than anecdotal or personal stories to show a simple inclination for same-sex behavior. There is no scientific or medical proof that homosexuality is not a complex illness with many factors in understanding this behavior. I believe there are many degrees of sexual development that are yet to be understood after more scientific studies.

      1. bobbleobble 26 Sep 2013, 12:51am

        It’s not just the APA though is it? The World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the World Health Organisation, hell even the Chinese Society of Psychiatry all classify homosexuality as an ‘accepted lifestyle’ and they all came to that conclusion based on research. But of course they haven’t delivered their evidence to you for approval hey Hank, if only they’d thought to do that. There is no lack of evidence Hank, just a wealth if ignorance on your part.

        For something to be an illness it needs to be harmful and there is no evidence that homosexuality is in and of itself intrinsically harmful to the person in question. The problems gay people have come from people like you who want to believe that we are ill. There is plenty of evidence that being gay is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality but I have no doubt that you would dismiss all of that evidence because it doesn’t comply with your world view.

        1. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 7:20pm

          Hey bobb….you state, “an ‘accepted lifestyle’ and they all came to that conclusion based on research”
          What research. There are no fully accepted research results that make homosexuality “not a psychological deviancy but a normal lifestyle.” There have not been serious psychoanalytical studies, no neuropsychiatric investigations, no complex psychological tests that show homosexual preference is a normal process of psychosexual development. Only organizations that have decreed it to be — but NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Just because they agree on something doesn’t make it scientific truth — look through history and see all the mistakes, corrections, frauds that the sciences have admitted to.
          See my next comment.

          1. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 7:23pm

            Tenfold increase in scientific research papers retracted for fraud
            Study of 2,047 papers on PubMed finds that two-thirds of retracted papers were down to scientific misconduct, not error. The Guardian, Monday 1 October 2012 15.15 EDT
            Fraud in UK scientific research did not seem to be as significant as other countries, but officials warned against complacency.

            The proportion of scientific research that is retracted due to fraud has increased tenfold since 1975, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of how research papers go wrong.
            The study, published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), found that more than two-thirds of the biomedical and life sciences papers that have been retracted from the scientific record are due to misconduct by researchers, rather than error.

          2. bobbleobble 26 Sep 2013, 7:38pm

            All very interesting but I’m not sure what relevance that has to anything whatsoever. You’re original point was that homosexuality is an illness which is what I was addressing. Every organisation that I mentioned has moved away from the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness because it causes no harm to the person who is homosexual.

            Research is ongoing into the causes of sexuality but nothing that has come out so far shows that homosexuality is anything but a normal part of human sexuality. If you can provide any evidence that genuinely shows homosexuality is an illness then please knock yourself out.

        1. “There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation; however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both combinations. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is “unnatural” or “dysfunctional”, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects”

        2. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 3:14pm

          Hey Mr. P, I read your sites, and nothing scientifically proven:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
          Epigenetic theories of homosexuality (Theories, not proofs)
          Biology and sexual orientation
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions—but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.
          (cont. below)

          1. florifdahank 26 Sep 2013, 3:15pm

            Biology and sexual orientation
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions—but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation
            Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both combinations

          2. floridahan 26 Sep 2013, 3:24pm

            When professionals in psychiatry, sociology, neurobiology, etc. make such a significant change to a category that was considered an illness, how did they arrive at scientific results to qualify their change? I would assume they would do serious psychoanalysis, neuropsychiatric, specialized psychological testing, etc. with many homosexuals to arrive at a consensus that would not be disputed by experts and professionals in the fields that study sexual development. Are there any detailed, accepted studies that examine the various stages of sexual development, for hetero and homo behavior. I don’t mean simply suppositions, theories, case studies, I mean SCIENTIFIC PROOF? There is no homosexual gene or any other specific biological marker for homosexuality. Human sexuality is too complex.

          3. Really Hank, ‘theories not proof’ — where is your proof that heterosexuality is normal, or that it is healthy, or that you don’t just choose to be non-gay?

            Theories in science are a bit more than “I sorta like this idea” which is what you are suggesting they are. For examples consider the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Theory. Theories in science have STRONG EVIDENCE for them of the sort of thing that cumulative consitutes PROOF. Please cease your masturbatory and frenetic efforts to justify what is simply prejudice. Say it “Gay people are icky I don’t like them!” and move on. No Proof Needed for that. Or go to those articles and look at the bibliographies and read the studies that support the position that gay is normal…wait, that’s too complicated and scientific. Let’s just stick with ICKY.

          4. Yo, Flo. Why should we provide you with SCIENTIFIC PROOF for anything? You’re a religionist – indifferent to the lack of SCIENTIFIC PROOF for your god/s – and therefore you only place value in faith, which clearly includes faith in your oft-repeated prejudices as well. Now run along and stop annoying the grown-ups.

      2. So if we are too assume that Homosexuality is a “Complex illness” does it not make it even more worse that a church discriminates against you because you have an illness?

        The church should have said that the young man was not welcome rather than say they were frightened that the childrens’ parents would object. They are therefore admitting that they are spineless and that the “parents” are wrong…

        I wonder if the same church in its over 100 years ministry objected to people with “Coloured” blood working for them in the past…. I really would not be suprised

      3. Why should anyone care whether any human experience is ‘inborn’ or not? Why is that relevant to its value?
        Of course there is no proof that homosexuality is not an illness. There is no proof that religious belief is not an illness. I cannot prove that unicorns don’t live in my garden. Negatives cannot be proven. Take your idiotic waffle elsewhere.

        1. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 7:05pm

          Hey Ri: I can’t find any scientific proof that the homosexual behavior is a normal choice or lifestyle. I cannot find any studies conducted on sexual development of humans. My question is does The Bell Curve have any significance in the development of human sexuality. Does the B.C. apply the same for heterosexual development and for homosexual development? As far as I can research there was no such longitudinal research done on this question. There are many unanswered questions regarding the interaction of heredity and environment, so you cannot state that homosexuality is an inborn characteristic and that it cannot be changed. You do a disservice to those homosexuals who have very little desire for same sex attraction, and would like to eliminate it totally. Big questions, small answers.

          1. Why don’t you read my post before responding? I have made it fairly clear that I think that whether or not any human trait is innate or acquired is irrelevant to its value and nothing to do with any supposed obligation to change it. And I can hardly be accused of doing a disservice to people to whom I owe no service in the first place. I am not responsible for anyone who wishes to change some aspect or other of him or herself, more especially regarding a trait I value and don’t see the need to change. It’s not, as we British say, my pigeon. But it could well be yours, to judge by your posts.

      4. I think you have missed a thing or two, or more like two hundred or two thousand studies of homosexuality and gay people done in the last 40 years since that decision was made — based on the knowledge available at the time which was surely adequate — that show gay people are no different from anyone else. The only bad part of homosexuality is how other people perceive it and treat people who are gay. Like you. Ignorant, buffoon, mind slave, homophobe, pick your own label, your lifestyle is of course your choice. A sad one though.

        1. floridahank 26 Sep 2013, 6:31pm

          Hey Phil, you said, “gay people are no different from anyone else.”
          In one major respect they are exceptionally different, they prefer men over women for their love life. Whether a homosexual has great artistic talent, intellectual genius, etc. is not the question as history has shown homosexuals can excel in many areas and I have no argument with that and give them due credit. But when it comes to normal social/sexual/relationship attachments, homosexuals have a major problem. Whereas history has shown that man-woman relationships is necessary for continuation of humankind, homosexuality does not fit in with nature’s way of existence. So, homosexuals can be 99% the same as heterosexuals, but the 1% sexual preference is abnormal, no matter how one perceives it. You can be normal like the rest of us, except for your sexual preference, which as yet has not been scientifically validated to be an acceptable lifestyle.

          1. bobbleobble 26 Sep 2013, 7:51pm

            It’s only a problem because you say it is.

            And how do you know homosexuality doesn’t fit in with ‘nature’s way’ whatever that means. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in many animals which suggest to me that it is very much a part of nature’s way.

            Also acceptable lifestyle is not a scientific phrase but a societal one. Science will tell you why, society decides what’s acceptable. And like it or not, most societies in the west view homosexuality as acceptable even though no one yet knows the causes.

          2. “Acceptable lifestyle”, heh. Show us how to do it first, Flo: kindly provide us with all the scientific evidence that validates Christianity, or belief in deities, as an “acceptable lifestyle.”

    2. Well he isn’t getting flak apparently you know, it’s a POTENTIAL uproar he’s avoiding, I think the uproar is in his pants, personally.

  2. Churches: Avoid them, they only want your money and to feel superior without any actual reason.

  3. I hope people there stop helping and leave the church to its own corrupted thoughts.

    Yet another example of religious morals in action.

  4. Ah Christians, spreaders of love, understanding and tolerance the world over

  5. 1000 right moves don’t magically negate a horrendous wrong. Instead of trying to justify himself in that pathetic speech, why did the preacher not remind his congregation that such fears were misguided? That gays are actually less likely to be child molesters? Instead of trying to spread understanding and compassion, he basically gave into fear mongering and ignorance.

    1. Not only did he give in, he provided talking points for those who agree with him, for use in their own “outreach.”

    2. Because he is the one who is likely to be part of the POTENTIAL uproar…this is a self-generated case of homophobia. He probably prefers to meet this young man at a truck stop where there are no children present….

    3. Precisely. The pastor said there are great reasons for the church to be in the paper. Thus, he’s admitting this blatant discrimination isn’t good. Were it good he’d be proud and boasting he was doing the right thing, and glad to get it into the newspaper.

  6. Selfish religious bigots always expect others to adapt rather than to address their own hang-ups rather than attempt to deal with their own dysfunctional discomfort and making an effort to overcome it.

  7. The idea should have been to tell any “uncomfortable” parents that their gay people wont rape their kids.
    Y’know, dispel the myths kind of thing, not do everything you can to validate them.

  8. Christopher Coleman 25 Sep 2013, 7:04pm

    Very strange. In my church we are constantly urged to get out of our comfort zone and get involved in society. Here we have a pastor who wants to preserve the comfort zone for some of his parishioners. Too bad. A missed opportunity to do some good.

    1. Dave North 25 Sep 2013, 7:12pm

      Please keep your hate mongering poison out of society.

      It is neither needed nor wanted.

      Just how much damage does the Abrahamic religions need to do before you people get it.

      By alll means have your “faith”.

      STOP proselytizing your 2000 year old ignorance onto the rest of us.

      1. Christopher Coleman 25 Sep 2013, 10:23pm

        Dave: I am sorry if I appear to you to be a “hate mongering” spreader of “poison”. I actually intended to be critical of this pastor, but I suppose I did not write well enough to satisfy you. Also, I am not proselytizing. I never do. Nor would I claim to have “faith”. You clearly see more in me than even I am aware of.

        As to the post that has got you so needlessly steamed up; perhaps you should have taken it at face value and judged my comments in light of the news story, rather than come to imaginary conclusions about me and then criticize me on the basis of that fantasy. I am not offended by criticism, as I frequently deserve it. Next time, criticize me by the facts you know about me, and not by what you suppose to be true.

        No offence taken. Chris

        1. David Waite 25 Sep 2013, 11:02pm

          Thank you. That was a genuinely Christian response. Though now an atheist, I am a gay child of Dominionist missionaries and I know the followers of Christ when I see them. You are one.

  9. So being gay is a “choice” according to Mr Brewer and we have to respect him for his intolerant and discriminatory decision?
    I will say this, Mr Brewer: NO respect for intolerance, EVER!

  10. Shame on you clergyman, you have failed to grasp the very basics of what you are supposed to teach and embody.

  11. Paul Essex/London 25 Sep 2013, 7:47pm

    “Having an openly gay MALE working in the children’s ministry may feel some parents to feel uncomfortable,”

    Meaning: Some folk might be concerned he’ll molest them or ‘groom’ them into homosexuality. (I’d say it’s the former)

    such decisions “often have deeper and more complex issues than what appear on the surface.”

    Meaning: We don’t want to come across as outright backward thinking bigots so we’ll try and say it’s really complicated to explain.

    “We respect the rights of people to make their own personal choices in these matters, but we request that we receive the same respect as a church in making these decisions”

    Meaning: Either he’s choosing to be gay or he’s choosing to insist on being open and honest about being gay, or both. That doesn’t mean we have to like it or indeed (despite saying the contrary) tolerate it. And people should tolerate the fact that we don’t want to tolerate it! We’re allowed you know, we run soup kitchens!

  12. Colin Briggs is still “welcome to attend services at the church.” And welcome, no doubt, to renew his pledge and drop his money into the collection plate.

  13. Children should be kept away from a church where they may be corrupted by such obvious adult homophobia.

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Sep 2013, 8:14pm

    The statement by the pastor would be more aptly directed at catholic clergy. However, the fear he mentions is more to do with homosexuality equals paedophilia, end of. He didn’t even have the guts to tell this decent young man so.

  15. I’m pretty sure the parents would probably be much more uncomfortable with the idea of leaving their children under the care of the priest and not the 20 year old gay volunteer (who is very cute no?)

  16. What a VILE cowardly lot ‘believers’ can be. Mind you, what the HELL is someone gay doing in a church anyhow? It’s akin to a Jewish person joining the Nazi party. Find yourself a hobby that puts you among people less judgemental and bigoted. How about the Republicans?

  17. A Black guy volunteers at the KKK club and the members complain and want him to stop……

    Come on, why is this guy volunteering with these people in the first place?

    Pull their tax status – THEN, let them do (kick out) whom ever they want.

  18. yes…. better a closeted pedophile than an openly gay man

  19. David Walsh 26 Sep 2013, 2:06am

    Leave a message for this discriminatory pastor. This church will only change if they know how bigoted they are.

    1-506-452-7110

    Then press 1 for a list pastors, then 102 for Mr. Brewer.

    1. David Waite 26 Sep 2013, 3:59am

      A great idea, Mr. Walsh. When I call I’m going to say only “Matthew 7:21-23.”

  20. Strange – wesleyan church probably means methodists. About 1000 methodist ministers early this year petitioned their national body to allow them to do equal marriage ceremonies

    it didnt pass but other denominations have taken 2 or maybe 3 votes to allow equal marriage

    And some methodist churches will marry gays anyway Lets not scream too loud on this one

  21. When the APA decided to change their label of homosexuality to an accepted lifestyle, I would like to see the research they did …

    What’s stopping you? I find it hard to believe such information is secret.

    Though you might like to note that the APA is unlikely to determine the acceptability or otherwise of “lifestyles”.

    1. (That was intended for Floridahank above.)

  22. The double standard of this whining ‘pastor’ is extraordinary – intolerance can also be 2-way street matey, and if no-one is talking about your good works, maybe you should get your own priorities in order.

  23. This ‘Putin Style’ homophobia is against the law under the 2010 Equality Act in the UK

  24. avoid any POTENTIAL uproar.

    Just like we jail people who potentially might commit a crime. We want to avoid complaints at all costs.

  25. Maybe by saying ‘He made parents feel uncomfortable’ he meant that a gay presence would be a daily reminder of how outdated and bigoted their religious views are.

    Even so, why would one say that a bit of discomfort was a greater pain than violating a person’s human rights?

  26. Barry William Teske 1 Oct 2013, 11:29am

    “…the decision to stop Mr Briggs volunteering had been made to “avoid any potential uproar” from parents of children at the ministry.”
    In other words there was already an uproar but it was not getting the reaction they believed it should.
    Instead of looking within as to why, it was easier to point outward:
    “…No one seems to write stories about how we love and serve our community, and have done so for over 100 years.”
    Translation:
    They do not believe in others.
    If so it would have been those very beliefs that extended an understanding to include.The love and service to community was self serving. Hence the statement that the church is greater than the people attending:
    “I will say this: tolerance is supposed to be a two way street. We respect the rights of people to make their own personal choices in these matters, but we request that we receive the same respect as a church in making these decisions.”

  27. Christopher in Canada 2 Oct 2013, 4:34am

    He`s a star now. He was interviewed this morning on Canada AM.

  28. Robert White 8 Oct 2013, 10:43am

    Because, no matter the advances, the poisionus message that gay equals child molestor remains intact in the religious and “conservative” sid of things

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