Total visitors right now: 94

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

First Winner of Mr. Gay UK contest ‘chopped up man and then planned to eat his flesh’

Friday, May 2, 2008 • 10:59 am


As normal as normal can be, yessirree Bob…

The first winner of the Mr Gay UK contest has been charged with murdering a man amid fears he planned to eat the corpse.

Anthony Morley, 35, was held after Damian Oldfield’s body was found at a house in Harehills, Leeds, with a chunk cut out of the right leg.

Police are said to have found human flesh diced as though “for cooking”.

Officers are now having to consider the possibility that the killer had “eaten some of the flesh.”

They were alerted after a man, covered in blood and wearing a white nightgown and slippers, went into a nearby kebab shop.

Police discovered advertising executive Mr Oldfield, 33, had been stabbed to death.

Morley, from Doncaster, was crowned Mr Gay UK in 1993 when he was 20.


176 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Greg, I consider myself fairly theologically conservative, to the point that I’m starting to think that the whole English Reformation was excessivly liberal to begin with, but the connections and implications you are trying to make are simply absurd and unfair.

[1] Posted by AndrewA on 05-02-2008 at 11:12 AM • top

This is not the sort of thing I come to StandFirm to read about.

[2] Posted by Miss Sippi on 05-02-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

Agreed.  What is the implication?  Would this have been posted had not the man been elected “Mr. Gay UK”?  I think postings like this buy into the perspective that the current disagreements are all about sex.

Fr. Darin Lovelace
St. Paul’s, Durant

[3] Posted by frdarin on 05-02-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

Yeah, this is sort of a pointless and irrelevant news story to post here.

Unless you can demonstrate some objective connection between homosexual activity and cannibalism, passing around anecdotes like this amounts to little more than hate-mongoring and irrelevant ad hominem reasoning.

For every wacko homosexual you can find a wacko heterosexual—indeed, probably several wacko heterosexuals, given how many more heterosexuals than homosexuals there are.

The fact that some random homosexual committed a weird crime doesn’t prove homosexuality is wrong any more than the fact that some random heterosexual commits a crime proves that heterosexuality is wrong.

Let’s stick to substantive issues and news and not headline irrelevancies that pander to mere emotional prejudices, okay? Leave that to the liberals and apostates. Besides, they do it so much better.

pax,
LP

[4] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 11:19 AM • top

The integrity of Stand Firm is seriously diminished by the inclusion of content like this article which are theologically USELESS. Please do not allow Stand Firm to become the “Jerry Springer” of Anglican blogs.

[5] Posted by archangelica on 05-02-2008 at 11:20 AM • top

Yes, but if I didn’t post it, my mailbox would be full of people bleating about how could I possibly ignore such a thing, and what am I doing, covering for the homosexuals?

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 11:21 AM • top

Yes, but if I didn’t post it, my mailbox would be full of people bleating about how could I possibly ignore such a thing, and what am I doing, covering for the homosexuals?

Wouldn’t it be better to reply to them—you could even have a “stock” reply that you fired a off a copy of in 5 seconds—that StandFirm is not about hate-mongoring or irrelevancies, but that its mission is to focus on issues of substance and of actual relevance to the Anglican communion… rather than dragging StandFirm down toward the level of those who would pester you with such emails?

If you really think that mentality is worth catering to - or if it’s too much administrative responsibility not to cater to it - at the very least create a “side bar” of “weird news” to post such things on… but keep it off the main site and article list, where people are coming for relevant and constructive issues & discussion.

Just my $0.02.

pax,
LP

[7] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 11:25 AM • top

StandFirm bloggers have always been publicly clear that we believe SSA to be a serious disorder.  And certainly disorders tend to cluster.

So we’ll continue to point out examples of such clustered mental illnesses whenever we have the time.  Of course—there are far far more out there that we don’t choose to post, but when we get the time and energy, we’ll continue to post a few of the many that we note.

[8] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:25 AM • top

#2 Miss sippi,
Agreed, however this is the world we are living in and we need to be reminded that things are not all hunky-dory all over the world. I mean I had a bishop tell me that Americans are not looked upon kindly and that we westerners are viewed as destructive….reading this tells me we are not alone in the destruction arena now are we? I hope that bishop reads this and then re-thinks his discouraging converstion he and I had.

[9] Posted by TLDillon on 05-02-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

I will also go on record in saying that this story has no constructive value to what StandFirm is about.  Posting this story does not enhance StandFirm’s credibility.  Homosexual practice is wrong, in and of itself, because it violates God’s order for creation; and not because a miniscule minority of homosexuals engage in cannabalism.  By posting this Greg, you are being drawn into a dark alley with no exit, unaware of the guy behind you who is blocking your escape.

[10] Posted by jamesw on 05-02-2008 at 11:30 AM • top

Hi JamesW,

RE: “Homosexual practice is wrong, in and of itself, because it violates God’s order for creation; and not because a miniscule minority of homosexuals engage in cannabalism.”

So you would say, then, that SSAs are not at all clustered with other serious disorders?

[11] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:33 AM • top

Creepy/psychopathic behavior is not unknown amongst heterosexuals, either.

That said, this sounds a lot like Jefferey Dahmer, where the cannibalism in a way was an attempt to fill this huge void and psychotic loneliness.

I don’t think there is a coincidence that Chist shared his body and blood with us at the last supper.  Jesus understands the depth of human depravity, and He alone is the answer to our deepest yearnings. 

Everything human’s come up with for fixing ourselves is just a way of treating the symptoms of our brokeness.  Jesus Christ is the cure for our brokeness. 

Stories like the Mr. Gay UK story show us the psychotic extreme, but it is on the same contiuum of all attempts (no matter our sexual orientation) at wholeness without complete surrdender and obedience to Christ.

DoW

[12] Posted by DietofWorms on 05-02-2008 at 11:33 AM • top

I agree that this is not necessary, and implies a causality that is not necessarily there.  It’s guilt by association.  And the rationales of both the SF bloggers are lame in this case, to be blunt.

[13] Posted by Connecticutian on 05-02-2008 at 11:33 AM • top

RE: “How does one become a poster on Stand Firm?”

I’d suggest you go out and found a blog, as Greg Griffith did, and then you too can post whatever stories you wish.  ; > )

[14] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:34 AM • top

eck

[15] Posted by FrVan on 05-02-2008 at 11:37 AM • top

Cannabalism is now to be “clustered” as related to homosexuality?! What proof have you to substantiate such a ridiculous claim? Is Stand Firm “clustering” other sins as well (greed, glottony, sloth, envy, deceit, etc.) Good Lord deliver us!

[16] Posted by archangelica on 05-02-2008 at 11:39 AM • top

Yes, but if I didn’t post it, my mailbox would be full of people bleating about how could I possibly ignore such a thing, and what am I doing, covering for the homosexuals?

I would say it’s much easier to defend your moral high ground than to acquiesce to the demands of the irrational masses that require you to descend to the level this article takes you.

[17] Posted by Mike L on 05-02-2008 at 11:45 AM • top

If we do a walk through America’s death rows, we will find perpetrators of horrible crimes, most of whom are straight.  Should we then use the intended implication of this post and conclude heterosexuals are all ‘abnormal?’

FWIW
jimB

[18] Posted by jimB on 05-02-2008 at 11:47 AM • top

Disordered behavoir can only be healed if it is named…like naming the demons and calling them out.

Luke 12, if we want to hear from you, we’ll go to your blog, but this blog belongs to these people whose judgment and ministry we trust, which is why we subscribe and participate…and we know who they are because they post by their own names…

[19] Posted by Dr Crestwood on 05-02-2008 at 11:48 AM • top

RE: “. . . that StandFirm is not about hate-mongoring or irrelevancies . . . “

Not certain what that has to do with posting a news story.  As has been pointed out in great detail before, the MSM goes to a whole lot of trouble not to mention the sexual orientation of men caught molesting young boys, and committing other horrific crimes, but that’s not going to happen here.

[20] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:49 AM • top

Hi Luke 12—stories get posted at SF through one of five bloggers.  You’re welcome to send a story suggestion to Greg through your Private Messaging system.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

RE: “Cannabalism is now to be “clustered” as related to homosexuality?!”

Archelangica—didn’t make that claim.  You’ll need to read more carefully.

[22] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 11:52 AM • top

I have to agree with the other posters—this is not constructive.  Sarah, I’m afraid I don’t think this particular article helps your (largely correct) point about
a cluster of disorders.  A single piece of anecdotal evidence doesn’t make much of an argument.  Now, if there was a scientific study showing a correlation between cannibalism and SSA’s, or if you could point to a significant number of other cases, this might be newsworthy.
(I don’t think J. Dahmer + this guy = a significant number.) I have no idea how many cannibalism cases there have been in , say, the last 50 or 100 years, but if you looked them up and found that the majority of these murderers were gay, you’d have found something significant.  Right now, it just looks like a coincidence that Dahmer & Morley were both gay. 
I love you and Greg, but this was not a good thing to post, at least as an isolated incident.

[23] Posted by In Newark on 05-02-2008 at 11:54 AM • top

I, too, find this article unhelpful to the extreme.  I don’t see how highlighting the cannibalism of a man who happens to be homosexual fights the good fight.

[24] Posted by Jason Miller on 05-02-2008 at 11:58 AM • top

Sarah, if you were not trying to cluster cannibalism and homosexuality, you might wish to elaborate on #8.  To the casual reader - and even on a 3rd careful reading - it does seem to make that connection, especially within the context of a debate on the merits of a story about homosexuality and cannibalism.  Maybe you posted on the wrong thread?

[25] Posted by Connecticutian on 05-02-2008 at 12:02 PM • top

I should add that I retract my “lame” pejorative, since I may have possibly misinterpreted #8.

[26] Posted by Connecticutian on 05-02-2008 at 12:03 PM • top

Irrelevant, unnecesary, and demeaning to the other members of Stand Firm.

[27] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 05-02-2008 at 12:07 PM • top

It’s this type of posting that will cause lots and lots of people to discontinue reading SF.  I’ve now removed SF from my RSS reader.

[28] Posted by Charles on 05-02-2008 at 12:11 PM • top

[21] jimB,

You wrote

…perpetrators of horrible crimes, most of whom are straight.

I assume that, by “straight” you were using that word euphemistically to signify heterosexual. If not, your statement quite clearly becomes illogical, because most “perpetrators of horrible crimes” would rightly be described by the opposite of “straight” in a less euphemistic sense, i.e., as bent, a thought that occured to me directly upon reading the quoted sentence. That rather immediately raises the issue of what any of us means when we use euphemistic contrasts such as straight versus bent, or straight versus gay.

Fundamentally, what I am suggesting is that all of us who are interested in reasoned discourse would likely be better served if we restricted our blog posting vocabulary to the use of the actual names assigned to the objects and behaviors which we are discussing. The problem with euphemistic language is that it is inherently inaccurate, carrying with it, as it does, subtly differing connotations between writer (or speaker) and reader (or hearer).

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[29] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 05-02-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

My my my… how excitable some of us have become.

Sarah’s correct: Disorders tend to cluster, and there appears to be such a cluster-link between homosexuality and murder/cannibalism. Why? I have no idea. But there is, so there we are:

We all know about Jeffrey Dahmer, who lured young men for sex, killed them in the most gruesome ways imaginable, and ate them.

Then there’s Armin Meiwes, a gay man in Germany, who butchered his victim and cooked his parts in garlic.

And these guys in England:

A gay Yorkshire man has been charged with murder in the death of a man he picked up.

The naked body of Damian Oldfield, 33, was found in a house in Harehills following remarks the suspect made at a local takeout restaurant.

Police said that part of Oldfield’s right leg had been cut out and pieces of diced meat were discovered in pot on a kitchen stove.

Forensic tests on the meat showed it to be human.

Investigators say they do not know how much of the leg had been eaten.

Clusters.

[30] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 12:19 PM • top

I emailed Greg to let him know about the NPR podcast of Terri Gross’s interview of Gene Robinson, but he didn’t post about it.

And yet he posted this item, which has no connection whatsoever to the Anglican Communion.

To say that I’m disappointed is to understate the matter.

—-
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

[31] Posted by PollyPrim on 05-02-2008 at 12:25 PM • top

I agree with the majority of the comments here.  This is an awful story but one that does not belong here.  It smacks of sensationalism, adds nothing whatsoever to the on-going debate of sexuality, and is an unnecessary and gory example of our fallen nature.

[32] Posted by Bill C on 05-02-2008 at 12:27 PM • top

The characteristic of most serial killers and cannibalism offenders are generally:

White
Heterosexual males
In their 20’s or 30’s
Have sexual dysfunctions
Have psychological problems
Have low self-esteem
They usually murder strangers
Are sadistic in nature
And finally cool off between each killing.
http://psych.unn.ac.uk/books/py071/www01/cannibal/Cannibalism.htm

[33] Posted by archangelica on 05-02-2008 at 12:27 PM • top

Cannibalism In The Bible (never in the context of homosexuality)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Cannibalism_in_the_Bible

[34] Posted by archangelica on 05-02-2008 at 12:36 PM • top

Wow! archangelica ae you an FBI profiler?

[35] Posted by TLDillon on 05-02-2008 at 12:38 PM • top

Don’t get me wrong, I am not denying that disorders tend to cluster.  What I am suggesting is that when one side of an issue tends to resort to evermore outrageous and shocking examples of something, it usually desensitizes the public to the basic wrong (to whit, VGR can say “oh, but I am not like that, I am just a simple country bishop”) and undermines your basic case.  I like to call this the “Dr. Phil Syndrome” - his TV show has had to create evermore bizarre situations in order to maintain its ratings.  Additionally, by bringing this up you give ammunition to the other side who can claim that you are engaging in “hate” and exaggeration, because none of the pro-homosexual groups in TEC advocate cannabalism.

[36] Posted by jamesw on 05-02-2008 at 12:39 PM • top

But I’m sure this guy would be offended if anyone ever called him “deviant”.  Or worse.

[37] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 05-02-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

This is a logical fallacy called “Affirmation of the Consequent”. 
1) If A (cluster disorders) then B (Homosexual Cannabals)
2) B (Homosexual Cannabal)
Therefore: A (cluster disorders: homosexuality and cannabalism)

It can be put another way:
P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent: P implies Q   Q is true

An example:
1) Conservatism and sex scandals are common disorders that appear together in clusters.
2) There have been many shocking conservative sex scandals.
3) Conservatives have a problem with sexual misbehavior.

[38] Posted by John316 on 05-02-2008 at 12:41 PM • top

Not sure I quite understand the reaction here, but here goes…

Have I made an assumption I shouldn’t have made? That most people here were aware that there appears to be an unusually high incidence of homosexuality surrounding crimes involving cannibalism? It seems I have.

So no, I didn’t post this story to ask, “Gee, does anyone else here think there’s an unusually high incidence of homosexuality surrounding crimes involving cannibalism?” The answer to that question should be self-evident.

Just as, wherever your find paganism and Wicca - be it inside or outside the church - you also find a high dose of homosexuality.

So I’m not grasping at straws, trying to connect dots here. The dots were connected long before I decided to make this post. Why this should outrage anyone is frankly beyond me.

[39] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 12:42 PM • top

I think it is wonderful that all these people have stopped to read the article and comment upon it ... and think the article has no business here.  Ha.  I think the Canadians are more known for their cannibalism but what about gay Canadians?  I bet no study has been made.  What am I blathering about, you ask?  Well, I read an PDF article that claimed that cannibalism is central to the Canadian psyche.  So prevalent in fact is cannibalism throughout all aspects of Canadian life they even have a special Canadian term for such:  Windigo.  If you do a Google search on Canadian cannibalism you get 2,190,000 hits.  Granted, a search on “gay Canadian Cannibalism” only returns 869,000 hits.  I think this is all pretty good reason to dump NAFTA and close the borders.  smile

[40] Posted by monologistos on 05-02-2008 at 12:43 PM • top

TGIF

[41] Posted by monologistos on 05-02-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

John316,

I’m not asserting that argument at all. Please see my previous comment. I’m not saying, “I have found a story about a cannibal; he happens to be gay; therefore gays have a problem with cannibalism.” (Also, if I were, I would more accurately be committing the Fallacy of Composition, not Affirming the Consequent).

What I am saying is, “hey, look here… yet another story about a gay man convicted of killing and eating a young man. What a shock.”

I’m sure many people here are shocked at the nature of the crime; I hope that explains several of the outraged responses. This is just one of several themes in which there is more than a coincidental pattern of association with homosexuality. As I mentioned above, paganism and the occult is another. Physical and sexual abuse as children is another. Wherever you find these things, you also find homosexuality, out of all proportion to its incidence in society in general.

If anyone who’s decided that posting this is reason for outrage, let me encourage you, in the interest of fairness, to spend half an hour on the web looking into it, and tell me if you find something different.

[42] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 12:51 PM • top

Greg, you and archangelica appear to have conflicting data sets. Other than cultural cannibalism, the most common cases of cannibalism appear to be in times of war, famine or both - in which case there is no sexual/gender bias, I would think. Happily, cannibalism for pleasure seems to be rare enough that there is not a lot of data to go by. I’m with Br’er Rabbit on this one.

[43] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 12:52 PM • top

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”  Matthew 10: 16

A fallacious argument is niether wise nor harmless - to either side in this situation.

[44] Posted by John316 on 05-02-2008 at 12:53 PM • top

The truth is what it is…I don’t see why people are so eager to keep their heads stuck in the sands of self-satisfied ignorance…

[45] Posted by Dr Crestwood on 05-02-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

I’ve seen dozens and dozens of other off-topic posts on this blog, but none of them has ever generated the kind of backlast I see on this one.

You’ve obviously hit a sore-spot here…

[46] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 05-02-2008 at 12:59 PM • top

What truth do you see here, Dr. Crestwood? One benighted soul has committed a heinous crime. I don’t see any data that allow me to extrapolate further from that. No sores sport, just regret that this is a topic without much of a topic and no credit to any of us.

[47] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 01:13 PM • top

I think Greg has driven an arrow straight into the hide of that elephant in the room.  Not pleasant reading, no.  The real story is not the incident and/or any relationship to clusters, etc.  The real story is that such stories are politically incorrect because they show that victims can, indeed, victimize.

[48] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 05-02-2008 at 01:15 PM • top

I wonder what one serves with this meat, white or red…

[49] Posted by FrVan on 05-02-2008 at 01:21 PM • top

This is just one of several themes in which there is more than a coincidental pattern of association with homosexuality. As I mentioned above, paganism and the occult is another. Physical and sexual abuse as children is another. Wherever you find these things, you also find homosexuality, out of all proportion to its incidence in society in general… let me encourage you, in the interest of fairness, to spend half an hour on the web looking into it, and tell me if you find something different.

Now, see, if you’ve done that research and can present the studies and figures to demonstrate the connection you describe here, post it!

That would be a relevant and objective presentation—as well as a service to all those who don’t have the free time to reduplicate research you’ve already done.

I don’t think the people who post here object to the suitability of posting such a study—or even to the possibility that the connection you describe actually exists—but rather objecting to the fact that you haven’t done that with this story: all you’ve done is post a single case; an inflamatory story which doesn’t present or establish that objective, factual, numerical overview.

pax,
LP

[50] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

So basically, this site exists not to keep members of the Anglican Communion informed as to the world-wide consequences of TEC’s departure from scripturally-based theology, but to educate us about the clusters of sociopathic behavior Greg and Sarah feel are associated with homosexuality.

Interesting.
—-
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

[51] Posted by PollyPrim on 05-02-2008 at 01:28 PM • top

Greg, you are damnded if you do, and damned if you don’t.  You can’t win.  It is impossible, I am sure, to post every thing sent to you.  This might not be a nice occurence, but facts are facts.

[52] Posted by terrafirma on 05-02-2008 at 01:32 PM • top

Fr. Van - I think you’d have to ask the Anglican cannibal that question, because the Baptist cannibal surely wouldn’t have the correct social graces.

[53] Posted by jamesw on 05-02-2008 at 01:33 PM • top

So is this story supposed to be the Pallet Cleanser for this week?

Good Grief…  Greg you hit bottom with this one!

[54] Posted by Spencer on 05-02-2008 at 01:34 PM • top

I didn’t read many of the posts, but I will say this - DEVIENT BEHAVIOR OFTEN BEGETS DEVIENT BEHAVIOR.  If you are “off the reservation” with regard to trying to follow God’s plan for your life, then what is to keep you from having horrible thoughts that turn into horrible actions?  If you are behaving in an unnatural way in one area of your life, what’s to keep that from “creeping into” another part of your life?  Once satan gets his hooks into you, there is no limit to the debachery that can occur.  Is it any wonder that VGR suffers from alcoholism as well as homosexuality?  If God “turns you over to your lustful desires” then what is the “end point”?

[55] Posted by B. Hunter on 05-02-2008 at 01:35 PM • top

I just spent some time on Google and found this statistical analysis of homosexuality and cannibalism:
<a >adherents.com/misc/hsk.html#source </a>.
I wish I knew more about who produced the article, but it seems solid enough to give some consideration to. It has a rather long list of homosexual cannibals, but says that because the crime is so rare, and because it isn’t always possible to be sure if someone is homosexual, it is impossible to draw statistically significant conclusions.

It would have been helpful if at least some of this background were included as introductory comments to the post—it is news to me, and apparently many others at SF.

[56] Posted by In Newark on 05-02-2008 at 01:35 PM • top

#30 Br_er Rabbit Totally concur “Irrelevant, unnecesary, and demeaning to the other members of Stand Firm”
Greg suggest removing

[57] Posted by AnglicanRon on 05-02-2008 at 01:40 PM • top

This is going to be difficult to say without causing even more offense, and I hate that, because so many of the outraged responses here are from people whose presence and participation here I’ve long valued; but this general reaction of “This proves nothing about homosexuals… you can’t extrapolate this in to any greater meaning… you can’t impugn a whole group by the actions of one man…” sounds oddly like something I would expect to hear from our Worthy Opponents.

Note that I am not making any case that can even vaguely be characterized as a generalization against all homosexuals. Nowhere have I said, “Because this one gay man cannibalized someone, we have to be on our guard against ALL gays, especially around the A1 and the silverware.”

I’m saying that when you look at several themes - among them children of divorce; physically/emotionally/sexually abused children; the occult; suicide; and yes, cannibalism - you find an incidence of homosexuality that appears to be significantly higher than you find in “normal” situations, and even among certain other dysfunctional situations. For example, it doesn’t appear that there is a higher incidence of homosexuality among carjackers; or among professional golfers; or among people who made B’s in college. But among certain, more troubling, things (and cannibalism appears to be one of them) homosexuality seems to be a theme that recurs quite frequently.

I can understand if this comes as a shock to some people; it did to me, too; but that was several years ago, and I guess in the meantime, a steady stream of such stories has lulled me into assuming that everybody else who keeps their ears to the ground about the goings-on in the gay community was also aware of it.

Again, I understand if many of you are shocked; but please… get out there and look into it yourselves before you go shooting this messenger.

[58] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 01:41 PM • top

There was a story out about two years ago of a male homosexual in Germany who advertised for someone to be cannibalized—and he got a respondent.  When the two were caught, they had just sauteed a portion of the respondent’s anatomy and were about to eat it.

Greg’s story is perhaps impolitic—but it is not immaterial.

[59] Posted by AnglicanXn on 05-02-2008 at 01:47 PM • top

PollyPrim,

So basically, this site exists not to keep members of the Anglican Communion informed as to the world-wide consequences of TEC’s departure from scripturally-based theology, but to educate us about the clusters of sociopathic behavior Greg and Sarah feel are associated with homosexuality.

To say that we don’t do the former is… well… a stretch at best. To characterize this site as being all bout the latter, on the basis of one post, is an even bigger stretch.

[60] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 01:48 PM • top

Greg, can you point to data then, instead of this story or as well as this story? I think John316 makes an excellent point in #41 - the same kinds of stories have been used to tar political and religious conservatives. Are there no non-war, non-famine cases of heterosexual cannibalism?

[61] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

I don’t think anyone is claiming that all homosexuals are cannibals or that all cannibals are homosexuals.

Helpfully yours

[62] Posted by monologistos on 05-02-2008 at 01:54 PM • top

When Sarah allows stuff lioke this to be posted, She Drives Me Crazy.

[63] Posted by Ed the Roman on 05-02-2008 at 02:02 PM • top

Hi Ed the Roman,
Sarah did not post this article.  Greg did.

[64] Posted by JackieB on 05-02-2008 at 02:04 PM • top

Greg: And I would have to respond to you that your original posting reminds me of something that our Worthy Opponents would use to smear us.  As in “all conservatives are really like Fred Phelps” or “all conservatives are really angry about racial integration, the end to slavery, women’s right to vote, etc.”, and when challenged respond exactly as you did:
“I’m saying that when you look at several themes - among them racism; support for the Confederacy; male chauvenism; lack of higher education; and yes, bigoted anti-gay violence - you find an incidence of theological conservatism that appears to be significantly higher than you find in “normal” situations.”

Personally, Greg, I agree with you that there is a good deal more dysfunction and perversion going on in the homosexual culture then most people realize.  I lived in San Francisco for a year, I observed the scene (keeping a safe distance mind you, even when the gay salesman in the eyeglasses store tried to hit on me in front of my wife in an exceedingly annoying way).  I have seen men walk down the sidewalk in San Francisco in assless leather chaps.  Revolting.  I grew up in Vancouver, one of the most pro-gay cities in North America after San Francisco.  I’ve seen it all (well not all, but I have read about it).  So, I am not shocked by what you wrote.

My point is how does this posting contribute to the discussion of the future of orthodox Anglicanism?  As others have pointed out, you are using observed anecdotal evidence, not scientific studies.  This story is gruesome and has a tabloid quality to it.  I am saying that you are being distracted from what needs to be our main concern and are being drawn into making postings that will be used against you down the road to undermine your credibility to “moderate” Anglican leaders.

[65] Posted by jamesw on 05-02-2008 at 02:04 PM • top

oscewicee,

Not sure there exist any studies as such, but there just seem to be more stories like this than there are like this (gruesome details at both).

But once again, I’m not here to say, “This proves the conclusions arrived at by Drs. So-and-So and cannibalism and homosexuality.” I’m simply pointing to the latest in what appears to be a steady stream of such stories in this particular theme. Go out there and look for yourself - you may be as surprised and disturbed as I was.

[66] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 02:06 PM • top

Greg
If the article had made the argument that there is a higher incidence of cannibalism among homosexuals than among heterosexuals,I might understand its relevance to the point you were trying to make.  As it is, it is a shocking story of the sick/perverted actions of someone whose sexual orientation may of may not have anything to do with his actions.  Withoiut the link, I don’t know why it belongs on this site.

[67] Posted by DaveG on 05-02-2008 at 02:08 PM • top

I know, but the song’s title is what it is.

[68] Posted by Ed the Roman on 05-02-2008 at 02:09 PM • top

jamesw,

Point taken.

I am, though, resigned to our fate when it comes to “moderate” Anglicans, especially of the “leader” stripe. They are, almost by definition, convinced that this sexuality debate is much ado about nothing, and while they don’t particularly cotton to the gay activist line, neither do they have any intention of putting a stop to any of the “progress” being made by them.

At any rate, I *do* have a palate cleanser ready today, and it’s a lovingly homemade one at that.

[69] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 02:10 PM • top

This is an interesting story, and I don’t understand why it has bothered so many. As a human interest story, homosexual implications or not, it has many facets related to morality, western European society, psychology, sexuality, and a myriad more. It is appropriate food for thought (pun intended). Apparently society does, at some level hold a fascination with cannibalism, look at “Silence of the Lambs,” and the later Hannibal Lector movies (he is depicted as an anti-hero, and is very popular—-probably a hero to some). Remember, too, the Vampire cults and drinking of blood. Maybe it is time that Christians deal with what drives this fascination, so that such darkness can be exorcised.

[70] Posted by FrVan on 05-02-2008 at 02:12 PM • top

DaveG,

The almost complete lack of connections made the mainstream media between homosexuality and deviant behavior is part of my point.

[71] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 02:17 PM • top

I am wary of trying to say a trend is detected based on my own perceptions of the daily news - simply because those horrible stories stand out and linger in the mind, giving them more weight than they perhaps deserve in the full range of human behaviour. Sorry, but to me this is a story that isn’t ready for primetime yet. Just my opinion, Greg.

[72] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

In Newark’s link looks to be broken, and while it doesn’t focus on cannibalism, it does focus on serial killers, and is well worth reading. Here is the repaired link.

[73] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 02:20 PM • top

Sorry, but to me this is a story that isn’t ready for primetime yet. Just my opinion, Greg.

Point taken here as well, but: We’re not “prime time,” never have been.  wink

[74] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 02:22 PM • top

My link at #59 didn’t work, so I’ll try again:  click here


The article says that while it is impossible to have exact statistics in such a case, it seems that 43% of all serial killers have had homosexual experience. (Which means some of them were bi-sexaul, or may have experimented with homosexuality and abandoned it.)  Usually, homosexual
serial killers have not been part of the GLBT movement or culture, so this particular murderer is something of an exception.  (The article says that the sample is too small to come up with any statistically significant results; but 43% certainly suggests a higher than normal incidence).

[75] Posted by In Newark on 05-02-2008 at 02:28 PM • top

Again, I understand if many of you are shocked; but please… get out there and look into it yourselves before you go shooting this messenger.

Speaking for myself, I’m neither shocked at the possibility of such a connection, nor am I going to dismiss the possibility out of hand. Neither am I going to accept it based on a single anecdote. Because the single anecdote doesn’t demonstrate anything one way or the other. Not if what you’re after is logical and rational presentation of an objective trend rather than mere emotional sensationalism.

.

I don’t know about others, but I’m not shooting the messenger—I’m simply criticizing the message he chose to bring. The anecdote, in isolation, is more or less useless. It’s one data point—which, any mathematician will tell you, is statistically meaningless.

Now, you say that the data point is useful in the context of lots of other data points, as even a cursory study of those data points show. Fine—then bring us the study not just one data point.

What you’ve done here is functionally equivalent to posting the average temperature for 1982 and then saying “aha! Global warming!” or “aha! No global warming!” People would react to that post—as they have to this one—not because they necessarily disagree with whatever you think is true of global warming, but because you’ve not said or shown (with the single temperature measurement you provide) anything about global warming at all.

In the same way, your post here does nothing to prove that homosexuality and canibalism are statistically connected. All you’ve done is to post a lurid story. And posting lurid stories doesn’t do anything to accomplish this site’s mission.  If the justification for that lurid story is that it’s part of the larger picture—fine, then… bring us the larger picture. Bring us the statistical information. Collect for us the sites where you’ve found the numbers and done your research.

If that’s what gives this post any relevance or evidentiary significance, then bring us that relevant material. Not just boogeyman stories.

pax,
LP

[76] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 02:35 PM • top

My point is how does this posting contribute to the discussion of the future of orthodox Anglicanism?  As others have pointed out, you are using observed anecdotal evidence, not scientific studies.  This story is gruesome and has a tabloid quality to it.  I am saying that you are being distracted from what needs to be our main concern and are being drawn into making postings that will be used against you down the road to undermine your credibility to “moderate” Anglican leaders.

JamesSW nailed it.

Is this site about the future of the Anglican communion or is it for gay bashing? If the former, the story doesn’t belong unless the perp is an Anglican clergyman. If the latter, then the stories about who is or is not going to Lambeth don’t belong, unless Rowan didn’t invite them because they’re cannibals.

What’s the point of reminding us about Matthew 5:43-45 if you’re going to post articles that boil down to “Ew, homosexuals are creepy.” All you do is lose credibility.

[77] Posted by PollyPrim on 05-02-2008 at 02:39 PM • top

The question before us is: If we condone and even celebrate unnatural and immoral lifestyles then where do we stop? I think the posting of this story is not only legitimate but lies at the crux of that question. It does not, in my reading, point out a correlation between homosexuality and cannibalism but it does suggest that the physical acts which define both actions are not only dysfunctional but immoral and unnatural. Again, where do those outside Biblical morality draw the line?

[78] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 05-02-2008 at 02:42 PM • top

Sarah Hey wrote:

So we’ll continue to point out examples of such clustered mental illnesses whenever we have the time.

Are you seriously suggesting that murdering a man and planning to eat his corpse is a “mental illness” akin to clinical depression or post-traumatic stress disorder?!

[79] Posted by Regressive Neanderthal on 05-02-2008 at 02:46 PM • top

In this case fear of a homosexual should be considered a real fear, not a phobia.
We render the innocent defenseless if we consider every fear of any homosexual a phobia. 
A little fear and less gullible trust in homosexuals might have prevented this man’s death.

[80] Posted by Betty See on 05-02-2008 at 02:50 PM • top

Well.  No bites yet.

[81] Posted by Ed the Roman on 05-02-2008 at 03:06 PM • top

#33, #62. Greg.

While I also don’t personally see the direct relevance of this thread to the current Great Matter, in the interest of inclusion I would respectfully add to the list:

- Fritz Haarmann: The Butcher of Hannover
- Gilles de Rais: Colleague of Joan of Arc

Those with weak stomachs or nervous disorders need not look these folks up on the Internet. Trust me.

[82] Posted by Ralph on 05-02-2008 at 03:06 PM • top

Betty See, I’m sorry, but I don’t see this. How many cases of cannibalism have occurred in your city? How many homosexual people do you know? Frankly, the ones I know are very good citizens of their communities and not the least bit of danger to anyone, other than the harm their lifestyle does to them. To say we should be afraid of all homosexuals because of an exceedingly rare event that may or may not bear any correlation to homosexuality is to fully justify the label of homophobe.

[83] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 03:09 PM • top

What?  Still no pallet cleanser?  I guess I just have to “chew” on this a little longer. wink

[84] Posted by Spencer on 05-02-2008 at 03:09 PM • top

LP,

When it became clear that so many people were shocked by my implication that homosexuals are over-represented in cases of cannibalism, I posted a few more examples. But as I replied to another commenter - I didn’t post this story to buttress the conclusions reached by any published study, nor am I obligated to do so. I posted it as simply another data point in what I have seen, over the years, as a series of similar points.

I proceed from the assumption that, as a general rule, the mainstream media are reluctant to post stories that reflect poorly on gays. Thus, I also proceed from the assumption that stories of gay cannibalism which appear in the mainstream media do not appear because they involve gays, but rather, almost, despite it.

I’m not out there looking for stories of gay cannibals; I’m simply watching the stories that come through, and while others may be seeing a different pattern, here’s what I’m seeing in the way of the sexual orientation of the people involved in the cannibalism stories that have made the news in the past decade and a half:

- Jeffrey Dahmer - gay
- The Mexican story - gay
- Armin Mewies - gay
- The Oklahoma story - straight
- Mr. Gay UK - gay

Single data point? Hardly.

Statistically odd patter, to say the least? Absolutely.

Does it establish causation? That’s a much more complicated question, and really beside the point, because one thing that’s established beyond the shadow of a doubt is correlation. Is not correlation - of a crime so heinous, and a behavior so closely tied to our current crisis - not worth mentioning?

[85] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 03:23 PM • top

I’m worried about this alarming trend where heterosexual men are locking girls up and keeping them as sex slaves.

The MSM seems to be giving heterosexual males a pass on this.

[86] Posted by John316 on 05-02-2008 at 03:23 PM • top

Greg, I am sorry so many have a “bone to pick” with you over this choice for a thread…

[87] Posted by FrVan on 05-02-2008 at 03:24 PM • top

Greg, I am sorry so many have a “bone to pick” with you over this choice for a thread…

Ouch.

Now I’m jealous I didn’t think of this one first.

Oh well, if I had I’d probably just wind up putting my foot in my mouth. Well, somebody’s foot anyway.

grin

LP

[88] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 03:31 PM • top

RE: “Greg, I am sorry so many have a “bone to pick” with you over this choice for a thread…”

Heh.

FrVan—I thought you were a nice guy—instead you inflict this pun upon us?

[89] Posted by Sarah on 05-02-2008 at 03:36 PM • top

Uhoh… are you saying that punsters stick in your craw, Sarah?

Well, I suppose we can be a bit hard to swallow sometimes.

I suppose it all boils down to a matter of taste.

Otherwise, I’d definitely give you a piece of my mind.

Oh well, if you’re not interested in punsters, I guess that’s no skin off my back!

smile

[90] Posted by LP on 05-02-2008 at 03:40 PM • top

oscewicee, post 87, I was talking about “this case” not every case.
I was pointing out that not every fear of any homosexual can be considered “homo-phobia”. Some fears are realistic. Realistic fears “in this case” should not be consider phobias.
The term “homo-phobia” lumps all fears (realistic and unrealistic) together and deprives those who have real fears of certain individual homosexuals, who wish to harm them, of a defense.

[91] Posted by Betty See on 05-02-2008 at 03:59 PM • top

OK, this is REALLY REALLy tacky, but was he using a SPORK??

Sorry, sorry, I just couldn’t resist…forgive me!

[92] Posted by B. Hunter on 05-02-2008 at 04:08 PM • top

Palate cleanser finally up.

Huh.

I said “palate cleanser.”

Uh-huhhuhuhuhuhuh….

[93] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 04:11 PM • top

Greg I also find it quite disappointing that you have failed to take into account how your words can be spun by our “Worthy Opponents” to attack not only yourself but your cause and all those bishops, clergy, deacons and lay leaders that post regularly to your blog as bloggers or commenters using their real name.  I can just see the revisionist blog headlines now.  “Stand Firm says gay people are out to eat your baby!”  Whether or not the is what you really meant is irrelevant.  It is all about the spin.I hope this does not turn into a “Jeremiah Wright” moment for them.

Furthermore, I don’t think that it would be that hard to demonstrate that there has been an fair number of cases in the news lately in which parents go pschyo and kill their own children, or that the majority of children abused in other ways are abused by their own parents, but supposing I were to post one or many of such stories as an example of what “breeders” are like, I don’t think I would be well received by any but the most fanatic heterophobe. 

Finally, even if you can demonstrate a correlation between homosexual orientation and other forms of extreme anti-social behavior, what does that prove?  After all, I can find many statistics showing how Americans of African descent in the United States tend to be lower performing in school, earn less money, and are statistically more likely to commit a crime or end up in jail compared to those of European descent.  But does this say anything about black people or does it say something about how the United States has intentionally marginalized blacks for hundreds of years?  Your arguments just don’t hold water, and the way you are making it has changed the focus from “We are standing firm on the Biblical standard of confining sex to marriage between man and woman” to “We think gays are pyschopaths.”

[94] Posted by AndrewA on 05-02-2008 at 04:14 PM • top

Maybe a partial title such as ” First Gay UK charged with heinous crime”  with the caveat “disturbing contents”  would be appropriate for items like this.

[95] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 05-02-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

Please stop with the puns.

[96] Posted by Betty See on 05-02-2008 at 04:39 PM • top

This is not really the sort of topic we can sink our teeth into.

[97] Posted by Chazaq on 05-02-2008 at 05:02 PM • top

I am SO disappointed in all of you.  What do I have to do?

It’s a Good Thing that I Don’t Look Back, though, since I’m Not the Man I Used to Be.

[98] Posted by Ed the Roman on 05-02-2008 at 05:15 PM • top

Sasha, it’s not the thread is off putting - I think we’re all tough enough to look at the ugly things when we have to. It’s that some of us find the correlation to be dubious, and also unnecessarily insulting.

[99] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 05:21 PM • top

Oscewicee—see my link at #79.  It’s nothing like a conclusive proof of correlation, but it does put this post in a more reasonable light.

[100] Posted by In Newark on 05-02-2008 at 05:37 PM • top

Actually, I don’t think it behooves us to touch it at all until and unless a real correlation is evident. My opinion, of course. But this sort of approach has been used against religious conservatives, too. It wasn’t right then, and I don’t think it’s right now.

In Newark, your link doesn’t work for me.

[101] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 06:02 PM • top

I tried three times. When I click on it takes me to reloads this page.

[102] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 06:26 PM • top

Use greg’s link at #77. Hovering over IN’s link just points back to this article. Or you can cut and paste the url.

[103] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-02-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

I don’t find the post offensive either in intent or content: for me (as for several of you) it’s just a salutary reminder that evil exists and that spiritual evil exists, and it can manifest in some pretty revolting and bizarre forms. Also, not being so enamored of the use of social science or statistics to help discern what’s what, I’m not drawn to trying to make some kind of case one way or another. It’s a datum.

[104] Posted by ears2hear on 05-02-2008 at 07:22 PM • top

SpongJohn, thanks. But ... the site looks a little dubious to me, too.

[105] Posted by oscewicee on 05-02-2008 at 07:42 PM • top

When boundaries dissolve, a thousand demons cross the line. Gay necrophilia and gay cannabalism really aren’t all that common, though it’s bloody embarrassing when Mr. Gay UK gets brought up on such unsavoury charges.

If you want to know about the more common lifestyle, get a gay friend to take you to a large bath house, perhaps not in your own city. Spend the night there if you can stomach it. You’ll leave as an expert, though hopefully not an initiate. These places are fantasy palaces. Check out the dungeon.

Of course, you never know who you’ll meet there…

[106] Posted by Ralph on 05-02-2008 at 09:11 PM • top

Ralph 114: “If you want to know about the more common lifestyle, get a gay friend to take you to a large bath house, perhaps not in your own city.”
If you want to know about the more common lifestyle, watch me take out the garbage, weed the herb garden, walk the dogs, study, read, pray.

[107] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-02-2008 at 10:22 PM • top

In my usual reading venues, I do NOT generally encounter news like Mr. Gay UK’s eating habits, so I am grateful that Greg posted this one. Unsavory (!) as the story may be, I think it is important for us all to be aware of this stuff. 

Further, this discussion has touched on some interesting things. Wikipedia associates the term “Wendigo” not with Canadians, but with “the traditional belief systems of various Algonquian-speaking tribes in the northern United States and Canada, most notably the Ojibwa/Saulteaux, the Cree, and the Innu/Naskapi/Montagnais.” Anthropologically speaking, the wendigo archetype seems to have functioned culturally to bolster taboos against cannibalism. Similarly, I wonder if stories like Mr. Gay UK might function culturally to bolster taboos against homosexuality. Lord knows our culture might benefit from a few such bolsters for all those who don’t read their Bibles.

[108] Posted by Anglicat on 05-02-2008 at 10:47 PM • top

I want to keep informed about goings on the Anglican world from a traditionalist perspective, but I also, for the sake of my soul, heed seriously the admonition of Philippians 4:8. There have been quite a few things of late appearing on Stand Firm that I’ve found, frankly, to be spiritually corrosive. This one crosses a certain line for me. As it does not nourish my walk with Christ to “think on these things,” I think it best that I not read this website anymore. I pray the Holy Spirit guides you in the ways that best serve the Kingdom and wish you every blessing.

[109] Posted by William Rolf on 05-02-2008 at 11:00 PM • top

Luke 12 - what’s the address of your blog?

[110] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-02-2008 at 11:03 PM • top

Greg, Thanks for the posting and Sarah, thanks for the back up. 

This is a “no-brainer” that speaks to a larger moral issue.  It is undeniable that those who reject health and embrace disorder (or reject repentance and embrace sin) are more at risk for greater disorder (or greater sin).  This is not limited to homosexuality, but certainly includes that category.

This man was not starving.  He is insane.  The question is what drove him to insanity?  The embrace of evil can certainly be a contributing factor.

[111] Posted by HLP on 05-02-2008 at 11:04 PM • top

I’d suggest you go out and found a blog, as Greg Griffith did, and then you too can post whatever stories you wish.  ; > )

One notes in passing the alternate strategy of having the Stand Firm Anglican Women Blogger’s Committee seize control (with much sorrow and regret, of course) of a blog for the good of all concerned.

carl

[112] Posted by carl on 05-02-2008 at 11:08 PM • top

Very interesting.  One group of conservatives claim that clustering is possible (a far cry from Affirming the Consequent), while another seem to prefer discussing the disorders seperately, as if they -always- occur in a vacuum. 

I remember my friend episcopaliated once remarked that homosexuality doesn’t begin with sex.  That would seem to support Greg’s thesis.

[113] Posted by J Eppinga on 05-03-2008 at 07:18 AM • top

Why so squeamish?  We hear plenty from lobby groups about perceived homophobia and bullying (sometimes somewhat embellished!) but there is another side to the picture.  As part of the ‘listening process’ I think we should hear that too.  Some of the world’s biggest serial killers were homosexual or bisexual. Jeffrey Dahmer (17 young men), Donald Harvey (37), John Wayne Gacy (33 boys), Bruce Davis (27 boys and young men), Juan Corona (25 men), Andrei Chikatilo (42 victims of both sexes) - all involving acts of torture, sadomasochism or cannibalism. And going back a bit, Bluebeard was reputed to have murdered, cut up and cannibalised 800 boys. Or the Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene, who is said to have strangled, crushed, and gnawed countless boys and young men to death while he raped them.

We hear plenty about the ‘Pink Triangle’ in connection with the Nazi Party, but what about the Pink Swastika?  http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/h ... /id12.html

If people commit unnatural assaults against the body, I cannot believe that the mind is not affected, hence the high numbers of drug addicts, alcoholics and depressives in the gay community.  To give approval to these acts, however well-meaning, is not the answer.

It is not good enough, in my view, to oppose homosex simply because ‘the Bible says so’.  The Bible says so with very good reason - it is not just a case of God spoiling our fun - homosexual practice is destructive and dangerous, both to practitioners and the rest of society.

[114] Posted by English Jill on 05-03-2008 at 08:36 AM • top

You guys, if there was a reason I would question this story, it would be the thread underneath it.  I didn’t see Luke 12 asking anything other than just a a legitimate question.  He was not treated with respect.

I also agree that in Austria that was the horrid guy who took his daughter and kept her captive for 24 years - I think you know it.  Does this mean all heterosexuals are prone to incest, then?

Sin is sin - and it ALL does not glorify God.  Yes, these things happen but I cannot but think of Paul who reminds us

“Whatever is good, whatever is right, whatever is noble… think on these things”

I think this article doesn’t fall in line with that.

[115] Posted by Eclipse on 05-03-2008 at 09:22 AM • top

I didn’t see Luke 12 asking anything other than just a legitimate question.  He was not treated with respect.

Eclipse
How was this not respectful?

Hi Luke 12—stories get posted at SF through one of five bloggers.  You’re welcome to send a story suggestion to Greg through your Private Messaging system.
[24] Posted by Sarah Hey on 05-02-2008 at 11:51 AM

carl

[116] Posted by carl on 05-03-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

In an earlier post on this thread, the poster referred to what goes on in San Francisco.  I think they are referring to the Gay Pride parades as well as the chains and dog collars on display. 
These things happen in public.  Where are the authorities.  Bet me, if everyone in my addition should decide to walk out side naked, with just a dog collar on and a black leather headband, the police would arrive very shortly.  By the way, where I live, you have to be at least 55 years of age.  Now stop and get a mental picture of that…..

[117] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 05-03-2008 at 09:46 AM • top

Does it establish causation? That’s a much more complicated question, and really beside the point, because one thing that’s established beyond the shadow of a doubt is correlation.

I have to disagree with you, Greg, causation is NOT beside the point.
You can establish spurious correlations between all sorts of bits of data.  Those correlations don’t mean a single, solitary thing.
But you seem to be implying that correlation IS important.  Logically, however, correlation is of NO significance.  You must take observed correlations and show some sort of causation in order to say that the correlation is of importance.
I’m not saying that there is or isn’t any true correlation, ie causality, here.  I’m not saying that sin, and reveling in sin (non-repentance) doesn’t lead to more sin—-I’m just saying that correlation LOGICALLY has nothing to do with causation.
Another example, from the other side of the road—-as a homeschool mom, I’m finding myself having to defend our choice of schooling “because of all those crazy home-school moms who have killed their kids.”  Have there been several sensational stories lately about “crazy homeschool moms?” Yes!  Horrible, gruesome stories!  But does that mean that I’m going to sequester my kids away and then kill them?  After all, there’s a correlation here!  Maybe there’s something here—maybe there’s a hint of causation, and I and my homeschool friends are planning nefarious things for our children.
So, sorry, bad logic, Greg.
Jane, Edwin’s wife
BTW, I promise you, my kids are okay—two in college on scholarship, one in high school thinking about the Air Force Academy, Eagle Scouts, etc.

[118] Posted by Edwin on 05-03-2008 at 09:55 AM • top

RE: “I didn’t see Luke 12 asking anything other than just a a legitimate question.  He was not treated with respect.”

Hi Eclipse, can you show me where Luke 12 was not treated with respect?  Despite his pursuing a topic that was entirely off-topic from this thread, I responded to his question, explaining what people do in order to get stories posted at SF.  I did not even correct his pursuing something entirely off-topic.

I am seriously confused as to how he was treated with no respect.

RE: “Does this mean all heterosexuals are prone to incest, then?”

Not certain what that has to do with the subject.  Greg did not imply or state that “all homosexuals are prone to cannibalism”—nor is heterosexuality a comparable analogy since attraction to the opposite gender is not in its nature a disorder.

I missed much of the discussion yesterday since I had to be out a good chunk of the day.

I won’t enter into the cannibalism discussion except that I wonder if many of the commenters have read much about the hopes and desires of those who do cannibalize.  Even among those cultures who do eat the flesh of humans [not forced to by starvation] do so for very “good” reasons.  It’s not necessarily from savagery—although of course civilized countries believe it to be savage—but because in part the consumer desires the attributes of the consumed.  The same was true, fro instance, for Dahmer.  Interviews of those in civilized first-world countries who consume the flesh of another do so for philosophical and “reasonable” reasons.  They can articulate why they do so, and much of it has to do with the desire to consume or own the properties of the other. 

But the basic principle that I mentioned far above in the thread—that certain disorders cluster—is just that—an acknowledged and basic principle of human behavior.

Child abusers often are alcoholics or drug abusers and also suffer from deep insecurity.  Those are clusters of disorders.

Acknowledging that correlation of child abuse, deep insecurity, and alcohol abuse does not mean that all child abusers are also alcoholics, or all alcholics are child abusers.  Nor does it prove causality.  But a very high preponderance—higher than the percentage of the rest of the population—do indeed suffer from those clustered disorders.

People who commit suicide were also often clinically and severely depressed, plus suffered from high dependency needs.  That is a cluster of disorders.  Not all people—interestingly enough—were clinically depressed.  Nor does it prove causality. Certainly not all clinically depressed people commit suicide.  But a very high preponderance—higher than the percentage of the rest of the population—do indeed suffer from those clustered disorders.

Those suffering from same-sex- attractions also suffer from various clustered disorders.  Once that was overwhelmingly proven, what progressive activists then decided to focus on was that it was the mean hateful society that produced those clustered disorders through their homophobia, and that if only those with SSAs would learn to accept who they are, then those clustered disorders would disappear.

In other words—if society could be forced to pretend as if SSAs were not actual disorders, then the other clustered disorders would disappear.

It will never happen.  It never pays in human psychology to deny reality.  All that strategy does is move the disorder underground and forbid society or even those who suffer from SSAs and actually wish to do something about it, to discuss it or examine it further—and especially to notice it or say it aloud.

The MSM and the progressive activists have worked awfully hard to force society to pretend as if same sex attraction is completely normal—not as common, perhaps, as other-gender-attraction, but still entirely healthy.  They very deliberately obscure and hide those news stories and statistics that do not fit with that goal.  But SSA is not normal.  And along with unhealthy disorders come other unhealthy disorders.

The good news in all of this [sort of] is that we all—being human—suffer from disorders.  All of us suffer from disordered attractions, disordered desires, addictions and compulsions.  And all of those disorders tend—like magnets—to attract other disorders.  It’s hard to tell “which came first” of our many and varying disorders. 

But God can deliver us and help us grow.  When we receive Jesus, He gives us a new heart, where we learn to love and pursue good things.  We receive His Holy Spirit to come reside with us and help us grow into the likeness of Christ.  With new and strengthened love, we gain more power to resist false and disordered desires and to develop new and healthy desires.

The most wonderful thing to remember is that Jeffrey Dahmer—a person who demonstrated the extreme of clustered disorders—will be in heaven with us.  We will be able to hear his story of how Jesus rescued him from his disordered attractions and loves and gave him a new heart and a new love.

And we’ll all nod and smile—because we’re like him.  We’ve been redeemed and we also are slowly being changed through the love of God acting on our hearts and through Christ’s atoning work on the cross.  Christ has covered all of our sins—there isn’t one sin, no matter how deeply disordered or societally “disapproved of” that He can’t redeem.

Praise God for what He has done!

[119] Posted by Sarah on 05-03-2008 at 10:09 AM • top

Two cannibals are eating a clown.
One says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you?”

[120] Posted by Chazaq on 05-03-2008 at 10:18 AM • top

Recipe for Oscargot

1 Oscar Wilde
1 stick Butter
4 cloves Garlic
800 snail shells

Place Oscar Wilde in a pot of boiling water. Once he is tender, drain, and rub butter and minced garlic all over him. Bake at 350 degrees for 40 minutes. Let cool. Dice Mr. Wilde and place the pieces in the snail shells. Serves 80.

Oscargot has a sharp, cutting flavor, but some find it a bit dry.

[121] Posted by Chazaq on 05-03-2008 at 10:30 AM • top

I know this whole thread is grotesque, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Greg out of hand. Homosexuality and other distorted sexual behavior does seem to appear in tandem with other deviant behavior, now of course that doesn’t mean most Gay men are going to be cannibals, but it should not be ignored that many cannibals such as Jeffrey Dalmer and the man in Germany mentioned in an earlier post where homosexuals deeply immersed in sadio-machosticism, which again is more prevelant among gay men,then among other groups. I have known gay men, and they all have been mentally ill to one degree or another, and a whole complex of pathology is usually present.

Even though gays where killed by the Nazis, Hitler was bisexual and dabbled in sadio-machosticism and some of his closest sidekicks like Himmler and Ernst Rohm, where violent homosexuals and while not cannibals they none the less mixed violence and extreme sexual perversion. The gay culture is one link in chain of death and madness. There is nothing good about the gay lifestyle, and the image of happy monogamous gay couples,just wanting to get married, is a propagandistic,soft sell lie. The gay culture is about promiscious deviant sex and that is all.The bath house is pretty emblematic of this culture. I have read lots of their literature and material, and will not be fooled or cowed into shutting up so as not to offend. I commend Greg for posting this nasty stuff. People need to see the gay culture for what it really is and rip the nice carefully prepared mask off, and reject the bill of goods being sold to us.

[122] Posted by Anglo-Catholic-Jihadi on 05-03-2008 at 10:43 AM • top

#127 But you seem to be implying that correlation IS important.  Logically, however, correlation is of NO significance. 
  Correlation is important, even though it is of no logical significance. Most of what we know is from induction, not deduction. We assume one billiard ball hitting another is the cause of motion of the second, but we don’t know that deductively (logically), only through correlation. So this does not seem as bad as deliberately, continually misstating the issues and attributing false views (ex. the term ‘homophobia’) as the reappraisers are wont to do.
  I think the lesson to be learned here is that once your own desires are the highest standard by which you determine behavior, you’ve stepped into a moral void. You will always live down to the lowest desires that your sinful nature happens to gravitate towards, even though those desires will differ from person to person (total depravity). If you consistently resist the law written on your heart, you will eventually be given over to your desires.

[123] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-03-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

Chazaq - the classic never get old!  tongue laugh

Eclipse,

You write,

Does this mean all heterosexuals are prone to incest, then?

Certainly not; the question answers itself. Please re-read my comments at [45] and [62] in which I specifically address your question.

Jane,

if this were a scholarly journal, or a police department’s detective unit, or a court of law, then I would agree with your post, but this is a place where 5 people post what interests them, or what they believe is worthy of discussion, and where 4,231 registered members - with half a dozen new ones coming on board every day - are then free to offer their comments.

Let’s take your home-schooling example as an example of why I posted this:

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that 2% of all children in this country were home-schooled. Let’s then say that, as the years went by and we looked at the total population of children who were killed by their parents, we found that 15% of them were home-schooled. Obviously the mere discovery of that fact does not establish causation, but it is worth noting. There is no bar that must be cleared - logical or otherwise - to justify making that observation, and offering it up as a point of discussion. Do I understand that liberals in the media often use that tactic to smear home-schoolers, who are in general a very conservative group? Yes. But I also understand that correlation above a certain level of incidence is not an insignificant fact, and is worthy of discussion.

The reason I posted this story is that, back in 1991 when the news of Jeffrey Dahmer’s killings broke, I thought it was a horrific string of crimes, made only slightly more bizarre by the fact that he was gay, and his obsession with young boys seemed inextricably linked to his crimes. I thought immediately, though, of John Wayne Gacy, the “killer clown,” whose victims were also young males, and who was obviously gay. I didn’t see a “pattern” then, just a gruesome coincidence.

Then came the other cannibalism stories I mentioned above: The Mexican story, the Armin Meiwes story, and finally yesterday the Mr. Gay UK story.

Now, let’s count the number of cannibalism stories over the past 20 or so years. [insert theme from Jeopardy here…]

hm hm hmmm hmmm hmmm….

OK, well… there’s not a whole lot of them, are there? But of the few there are, a whole lot of them have been perpetrated by homosexuals. Certainly more than the 10% of the population gay activists tell us is gay, and far more than the 2%-3% the rest of us know is closer to the true number.

Now, back to the home-schooling example:

If, in our hypothetical example above, in the process of asking why it is that 15% of all children killed by parents were home-schooled, we discovered a common psychiatric disorder that could be treated and likely reduce the number of children killed, then the value of noting simple correlation is obvious.

Likewise, why should it be off the table to ask why it is that, in cases of cannibalism, homosexuals appear to be represented at a much higher rate than they are in the population in general? We routinely ask why it is that homosexuals appear to be significantly-to-drastically over-represented among children of divorce; among children who were emotionally, physically, or sexually abused; among people who commit suicide; and among people who self-identify as pagans, witches and Satanists. Cannibals are simply another population in which homosexuals appear to be over-represented in comparison to their representation in the general population. Noting that they are, and asking why that should be, I realize is going to shock and offend many people, even over here on “our side” of the debate; but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t appear to be the case, it doesn’t mean that the question should not be asked, and it doesn’t mean that here is not the place to ask it.

[124] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-03-2008 at 11:44 AM • top

For what it’s worth, I think an equally good question to ask is: Why are white males - gay or straight - so drastically over-represented among serial killers? Why is it was so rarely hear of serial killers who are female, black, or Asian?

[125] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-03-2008 at 11:49 AM • top

RE: “Why are white males - gay or straight - so drastically over-represented among serial killers? Why is it was so rarely hear of serial killers who are female, black, or Asian?”

That’s easy!  White males are bad, while women are gentle, dolphin-like, maternal figures who are kindly.

; > )

Seriously—I’ve wondered about that very question.  And people are not unwilling to point it out and explore it.

[126] Posted by Sarah on 05-03-2008 at 12:00 PM • top

OK, this thread has brought me back from lurker mode.  Only one other gay man (as far as I know) has commented and I can’t leave Padre Wayne to do all the heavy lifting by himself.  And he has all those “normal” duties to attend to, but I can take time out from mine.

Many of the reactions here suggest that some of you have a lot of sensitivity where homophobia is concerned, and that’s a good thing.  Homophobia is a problem in the Church (and sometimes here at Stand Firm) but I have to say that I am just not terribly put off or offended by this news item.  I think too much of a fuss is being made and some creative energy being misdirected.  This matter will rattle a few revisionist tea cups, but—so what else is new?

If it was discovered that Miss America ‘93 was engaged in cannibalism, wouldn’t that be newsworthy, even for conservative Anglicans?  Whenever I learn about any terrible or evil thing, as depressing or disturbing as it may be, I can’t help noting that it’s further proof of the doctrine of original sin and our common fallen condition.  And that always triggers a reminder of how grateful we should be to the One who has saved us from that condition, and wants to save others as well.  No matter how bad it is.  (And since the print edition of Weekly World News is no longer available, we can trust Greg Griffith to bring it to our attention. smile )

As for cannibalism.  No, most gay people are never going to eat their partners.  But I’m going to say something a bit provocative here about gay sex.  I have always thought of sex between two men or two women as a form of ritual cannibalism, and even a kind of perverted sacrament, in which the person seeks in the object of his desire the qualities and attributes he cannot find in himself.  The sex act is almost an act of consumption, but one doomed to futility and frustration because it cannot provide the fulfillment which is really being sought.  “Looking for love in all the wrong places”—in search of something that only the healing and restoration afforded by God’s grace can provide.

In primitive cultures, warriors will literally eat the body parts of the enemies they have vanquished in the belief that they can take on their strength and vigor by doing so.  In our own civilized society, tragically there are those whose sexual pathology has driven them to do the same.  This does not make cannibalism a “gay problem” anymore than serial killing in general, but it does not make what happened to Mr. Gay UK entirely irrelevant either.

Sarah Hey’s earlier post indicates that she has been hanging out at the NARTH website and taking notes.  Well, for her that is just another one of those overachiever “things” she is noted for, but my advice to the rest of you is: go and do likewise.

Here’s the deal: in the 6th chapter of I Corinthians, after St. Paul refers to those who will not enter the Kingdom of God, he says this in verse 11: “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”  That means all of us who have been converted to Christ, whether from a lifestyle of sexual profligacy, depression, or substance abuse, or from a life of “normalcy” where we were still just as dead in our sins as we could possibly be, without God’s grace.

It may look like the Church is falling apart, but it is not.  It pleases Almighty God to use miserable sinners transformed by His grace to give witness to other miserable sinners and thereby draw them into His Kingdom as well.  God is now raising up, in the heat of battle and in the places where it rages most fiercely, those who will say: “Here I am Lord, send me!”

This miserable sinner was literally loved into the Kingdom of God by Christians just like that, who could look past the angry, obnoxious, gay militant and see a deeply hurting and troubled person who was in need of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  God be praised!

If I may, I want to close with a link to a You Tube video about another gay man who was led to Christ.  I hope it breaks your heart, as it did mine.  Church, we have our work cut out for us but, with God’s help, it can be done.

HOMOSEXUAL MAN FINDS JESUS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74y5v6M5wZ0&feature=related

And if the print edition of Weekly World News ever does come back, I expect that Greg Griffith and Sarah Hey will rush to apply for the job of religion editor.  But I plan on submitting my resume too, and I think I’m far more qualified.  I can come up with all sorts of interesting stuff! wink

episcopalienated

[127] Posted by episcopalienated on 05-03-2008 at 12:28 PM • top

This is a perfect example of the attempt to make a point to shore up one’s own point of view as opposed to love those whom one finds it difficult to love. 

While it gets some support from the “choir”, those whom you believe that are lost to the Gospel, read it, see your minimal understanding of them, and obvious demonization that precludes you from attempting to separate truth from bias, and subsequently discount all else you have to say, even when truth is being spoken.

One thing that made me very at peace about coming out in mid-life, in a conservative church setting, was the many pre and misconceptions I heard about GLBT individuals, stated as fact, yet I knew those things were not true about me (e.g., reasons as to why one would experience SSA).  I loved, and still love, Christ and His Gospel, and I was surrounded by people who said that could not be true.  I knew that for my own spiritual, and mental health, I had to leave.

But regardless of whether SSA can coexist with Christian faith, as many comments, not all, at SF seem to indicate is not possible, how would the presentation (I do not mean the story itself; all should be horrified by it.) of this story be read by a seeking, non-believer who happens to have SSA?  “As normal as normal can be, yessirree Bob!”  communicates a message of derision and not of “Come and see.”  So while titillating to the choir, you’ve placed a barrier in front of those that you see as lost.  It’s best to remember for whom Jesus reserved derision.

[128] Posted by KJthurible on 05-03-2008 at 01:43 PM • top

Greg, I guess I see that, in essence, you are agreeing with me.  When you stated “if…we discovered a common psychiatric disorder that could be treated and likely reduce the number of children killed, then the value of noting simple correlation is obvious.”, you are back to the significance of the causation, which the correlation only hinted at. 
Yes, correlations are often the basis of exploring “Why?”  You then must test the hypothesis, because correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
So, you have noted a correlation between homosexuality and violence.  But the causation may not necessarily be the homosexuality.  Say, after further, extensive study, you found that the significant causative factor was that all these men owned iguanas as children, and were infected by some strange virus that led to violent behavior later in life.  (please, iguana owners, this is just for an example!  I’m deliberately trying to be off the wall!)
All I’m saying, folks need to be very, very careful in taking CORRELATIONS and ascribing any CAUSATION to those correlations.
You really can’t infer anything from correlation.
Jane, Edwin’s wife
I must now be off to work in the yard—we’re having a lovely spring day, a true gift from God!

[129] Posted by Edwin on 05-03-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

RE: “But regardless of whether SSA can coexist with Christian faith . . . “

Of course it can—as witness Episcopalienated, long time commenter here, as well as many others with SSA.

[130] Posted by Sarah on 05-03-2008 at 02:41 PM • top

RE: “Greg, I guess I see that, in essence, you are agreeing with me.”

Well—seeing as how Greg made that point at 4:23 p.m. on Friday in comment #89, prior to Edwin’s wife commenting on this thread, I would say that that is an interesting way of putting it!  ; > )

[131] Posted by Sarah on 05-03-2008 at 02:44 PM • top

KJthurible, post 137,
I know homosexuals who I like and am happy to associate with but I like them because they are friends, NOT because they are homosexuals. Why are you not content with friendship? Why do you demand that others condone your homosexual behavior?
I do not delude myself into believing that there are no dangers involved in homosexual behavior and I don’t think the Church should ever advise a young person to partake in homosexual actions, I would rather assure them that I care about them and advise them to get help with realizing their worth as the gender God made them. I wish that TEC would offer this opportunity to experience God‘s transforming grace to young people who are confused. 
If we are to be honest, we should let young people know about bath houses, predatory abusers, homosexual prostitutes, Gay Pride Parades and the danger of HIV/AIDS and other STD’s.  We should not send them out into the world with the expectation that all homosexual behavior is normal and Gay and happy.  There are very good reasons why Scripture warns against this behavior.

[132] Posted by Betty See on 05-03-2008 at 03:23 PM • top

I wrote (Sorry, I should figure out the blockquote thing):  “But regardless of whether SSA can coexist with Christian faith . . . “

Sarah wrote:  “Of course it can—as witness Episcopalienated, long time commenter here, as well as many others with SSA.”

But previously Sarah wrote:  “StandFirm bloggers have always been publicly clear that we believe SSA to be a serious disorder.  And certainly disorders tend to cluster.”

So following this course of logic, fellow believers with SSA, even if they agree with you on how that should be lived out, are seriously disordered and are more susceptible to other disorders than your heterosexual brothers and sisters in the faith.  As I pointed out previously, it is this line of thinking that affirmed my call to authenticity and transparency to such conclusions without merit.  I couldn’t sit quietly as those around me kept affirming such things in predetermined agreement, giving no thought to the impact upon those that they saw as “lost.”

[133] Posted by KJthurible on 05-03-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

A-C-J #131 “The gay culture is about promiscious deviant sex and that is all.”

Your assumption is just that. An assumption. A purient one at that, not to mention insulting, arrogant, and just plain wrong.

1) There is no such thing as a gay culture (nor a gay agenda).
2) There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle.

If you live in a world of stereotypes, so be it. But if you want to really explore what being gay means to so many people, I’ll be happy to provide resources.

[134] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-03-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

#142, it doesn’t sound like your congregation had misconceptions… it sounds more like you disagree with them about whether or not the activity is moral. But that is not a misconception in the sense of mistakenly thinking all homosexuals are cannibals, or lisp or whatever, as you seemed to imply in #137. Even if they did have true misconceptions, why should that influence your decision about what scripture says on this matter, whether it is moral or not? If Greg took this down and apologized, would you consider repenting of it?

[135] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-03-2008 at 04:47 PM • top

KJthurible, I see that you have not yet read all the comments.  For as I clearly noted prior to your comment:

“The good news in all of this [sort of] is that we all—being human—suffer from disorders.  All of us suffer from disordered attractions, disordered desires, addictions and compulsions.  And all of those disorders tend—like magnets—to attract other disorders.  It’s hard to tell “which came first” of our many and varying disorders.

But God can deliver us and help us grow.  When we receive Jesus, He gives us a new heart, where we learn to love and pursue good things.  We receive His Holy Spirit to come reside with us and help us grow into the likeness of Christ.  With new and strengthened love, we gain more power to resist false and disordered desires and to develop new and healthy desires.

The most wonderful thing to remember is that Jeffrey Dahmer—a person who demonstrated the extreme of clustered disorders—will be in heaven with us.  We will be able to hear his story of how Jesus rescued him from his disordered attractions and loves and gave him a new heart and a new love.

And we’ll all nod and smile—because we’re like him.  We’ve been redeemed and we also are slowly being changed through the love of God acting on our hearts and through Christ’s atoning work on the cross.  Christ has covered all of our sins—there isn’t one sin, no matter how deeply disordered or societally “disapproved of” that He can’t redeem.

Praise God for what He has done!”

Yes, fellow believers with SSA have a serious disorder.  But what else is new about believers?

[136] Posted by Sarah on 05-03-2008 at 04:50 PM • top

Betty,
I have to say, this is a very odd posting.  I have many friends who are homosexual and others who are heterosexual, and guess what?  I’m quite content to have their friendships regardless of their sexuality.  Are you assuming that homosexuals only have “friendships” with those whom they can have sex?  What a strange assumption!  Is that true of heterosexuals?  Also, I should point out that you seem to be confusing SSA and gender identity.  These are not the same things, and if you believe that they are, you have far to go in understanding the topic. 

Do you truly believe that the glbt believer advocates for young people to frequent bath houses, be in places where they would be in danger of predatory abusers (This, of course, can be anywhere, including church, and of homosexual or heterosexual orientation), hire prostitutes and ignore the threat of STDs?  Such an assumption is to speak right past the ones you think you are speaking to.  Thanks be to God, I never experienced the horror of sexual abuse, something a child cannot chose to not experience.  But the other things you mentioned are elective, and I have never elected to engage in them.  Why would you assume fellow believers would advocate such things?

I can only speak for myself, but I “demand” that no one condone my views on these things, so I don’t understand your reference to that.  I see that claim a lot in these discussions.  Most that disagree with your point of view, and take the time to comment on that in an arena where they are not particularly wanted, are not doing so in hope that you will condone them, but rather, that whether you wish to acknowledge their existence or not, you have brothers and sisters in the faith that can share the Gospel with others you will not ever have an opportunity to.  I am also aware that just like me not that many years ago, there are some in the SF community who are being asked to believe things about themselves that are just not true.  And I hope, that just like me, they will grow to understand that while many in the church are operating under misguided assumptions about SSA, that does not mean the God in whom we share faith is false.  I must tell you, that I have met many that have come to that assumption, though I have also had the privilege of seeing them come back to life as they grow into the understanding of Spirit-breathed grace, and that is a miracle every time.

[137] Posted by KJthurible on 05-03-2008 at 05:11 PM • top

#146, there was a really funny Odd Couple pericope - they were being held up by some gangster, who let slip he had a wife and kids. “You have a family?” asked Oscar incredulously. The gangster replied indignantly, “What?! You think crooks can’t have families?”
What really is the relevance of the ‘misconceptions’ you bring up? I doubt anyone here would think that all the characteristics you list apply to *every* homosexual, therefore they wouldn’t have misconceptions about you personally. But they would still think your behavior is wrong. You seem to be using this possibility of ‘misconception’ as a rationalization…

[138] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-03-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

How does this ridiculous comparison of cannabalism and homosexuality play out when all of the examples (all of the examples being statistically miniscule)are gay men? How does this apply to homosexuality in women?
Also, playing the promiscuity card (i.e. if you really want to see the homosexual lifetsyle take your kids and visit a bath house)is woeful ignorance. Let me assure you (do your own research and see for yourself) that there are a far greater profusion of sex clubs, topless bars, swinger societies, etc. that cater to the heterosexual crowd. Do you think that a fair example of most heterosexual Anglicans?

[139] Posted by archangelica on 05-03-2008 at 07:34 PM • top

#138“Yes, correlations are often the basis of exploring “Why?” You then must test the hypothesis, because correlation does not necessarily mean causation.”
But what you mean when you use the term ‘causation’ is *itself* only correlation that you interpret to be causation, because you think there is “enough” correlation for you to regard it as “causation”.
Why is your notion of correlation-taken-as-causation correct and Greg’s not? Can you provide any concrete chain of reasoning, beyond a metaphor about iguanas and viruses?
I’m not being pedantic. It seems like reappraisers like to deny the force of correlation, until metaphors like “Potemkin Village” come to mind.

[140] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-03-2008 at 07:58 PM • top

Kjthurible, regarding your post # 146,

Also, I should point out that you seem to be confusing SSA and gender identity

I may have misunderstand the SSA initials but not in the way you describe it - I thought SSA were the initials for Same Sex Activity. Since you said you were “comfortable about coming out” I assumed that you were talking about Same Sex Activity, are you talking about Same Sex Attraction only?
  I am sorry you do not understand the rest of my post but you will have to read your own post #137 in order to understand it:

I loved, and still love, Christ and His Gospel, and I was surrounded by people who said that could not be true. I knew that for my own spiritual, and mental health, I had to leave

Many people are being pressured (by TEC‘s new thing) to give up their long held belief in Scripture in order to affirm Same Sex Activity, your friends at church may have perceived your “coming out” as another source of pressure to give up our long held Christian belief in Scripture. Only you can say what your intentions were.
Brotherly love is more important than sexual love, if you have friends value them, even if they don‘t believe what you think they ought to believe about sex, please don’t put the stumbling block of sexual activity in the way of our Christian faith.

[141] Posted by Betty See on 05-03-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

I know lots of gay people that aren’t cannibals.  I’m not afraid of them.  I am afraid of Canadians.  Here is documentary justification for my fears: They are coming!

[142] Posted by monologistos on 05-03-2008 at 09:44 PM • top

Hey episcopalienated—I wondered where you were. Missed your posts. They are always well thought out and full of grace. I love the video you posted. Greg—any chance that video could have its own thread? It seems to have a lot to say to us and to offer some real hope.
Blessings,
Pat

[143] Posted by Pat Kashtock on 05-03-2008 at 09:48 PM • top

If you condone one kind of aberrant behaviour, you open the door to the acceptance of other unacceptable behaviours.  When, and where, does it stop?

[144] Posted by Invicta on 05-03-2008 at 09:59 PM • top

Invicta 153, you are assuming that we all believe homosexuality per se to be aberrant.

KJthurible 146, well put. It is important to distinguish between Christ-believing gay people who, as you suggest, would not advocate bathhouse activity, promiscuity, or sex clubs, but who, instead, would encourage faithfulness, blessing, and monogamy. And yes—doesn’t the number of topless clubs, swingers’ clubs, etc. for heterosexuals frighten you? Yikes! Heterosexuality: The new menace to the continuation of society and the faith once received!

Sheesh.

[145] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-03-2008 at 10:41 PM • top

First I apologize, I wrote that at the beginning of the day and have been occupied since and haven’t been back on line until now.

RE:  Luke 12 -

I was referring to post 115 - I don’t see this guy as anything beyond asking questions other than someone new at StandFirm.  Sarah, I know you were being glib - it’s one of the aspects of your character I appreciate - but in print rather in person, it sounded as if you were just being - oh, terse.  If one knows you (in print, I should say) then one knows your written character - but someone new could take it as just ‘brushing them off.  All’s I’m sayin’ is (as one of my friends would put it) is give the guy the benefit of the doubt. 

Re:  The intent of the original post -

Look, I see sin disrupt and warp any character - no matter the sin no matter the character.  So, yes, homosexuality might lead to deviant behavior.  However, gossip can lead to destruction and isolation, gluttony to pre-occupation and isolation, covetous attitude to a materialistic attitude that compromises one’s whole attitude of ‘loosing ones’ life to save it. 

YES, sin is bad stuff - but if we post an article showing the progression of one sin to it’s inevitable result (death), shouldn’t we all the others?  And if we do that, besides a moral lesson what is the real goodness therein?

Greg, you know what I am saying. “We will enable people better to what they can be by encouragement, than discouragement by reinforcing what they are not.”

We need to be people who can see as God sees - realistically but also to the heart of those around us.

[146] Posted by Eclipse on 05-03-2008 at 11:16 PM • top

PadreWayne :

Reality STILL remains that homosexuality is not condoned or promoted by Scripture… which you know as well as I do. 

The inevitable result is death - and a life not fully realized as Christ has given it to us. 

So, ignore the Scripture if you choose, but do not lead others into the ditch.

[147] Posted by Eclipse on 05-03-2008 at 11:20 PM • top

Speaking of leading others into a ditch, Eclipse, have you noted the Presiding Bishop’s futurity:

St. Thomas, Dallas, Texas, Garden Party
“Confirmation on the Dallas Garden Party and PB comments, please.

  Another gay audience member who said he met his partner of 10 years at St. Thomas asked when the couple will be able to walk down the aisle together and have their relationship blessed by the church.

  “I don’t think it’s going to happen this year,” Jefferts Schori said, adding that the national church’s General Convention undoubtedly will revisit the issue when it meets again in 2009. “I think it certainly will happen in our lifetimes.”

  “I certainly hope that we can expand our awareness enough to see that God is blessing [same-sex unions], and that the church needs to recognize that,” Jefferts Schori added. “...our job as Christians is to look around and see the glory of God wherever it is.” “

Do you see this as Windsor affirming and compliant?  Do you think PB Schori is “angling” to be the first “Pope” of the Communion of the Episcopal Church?  Glass ceiling and church broken and all? 

I think blind leading the blind both fall into the ditch has Dominical warrant as does the moral law and Torah: “not one dot or tittle shall pass away”.

[148] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 05-04-2008 at 12:03 AM • top

RE: “Invicta 153, you are assuming that we all believe homosexuality per se to be aberrant.”

Right, Invicta153—and when you respond to PadreWayne you’re talking to a Classic Radical Revisionist!  ; > )

They don’t believe that at all.  Their gospel in fact demands that churches approve same-sex attraction as well as non-celibacy of those with SSAs, along with fake marriages, etc, etc.

So important is this gospel to them, that they are willing for the church to divide over it.  It is a Primary Gospel to them.

[149] Posted by Sarah on 05-04-2008 at 07:26 AM • top

Eclipse, thanks for explaining.

You could be right.  At first I thought he just wanted to post random articles at the blog, and then when he stated he had a blog, I thought I was helping him by asking him to email posts and articles to Greg, which many many people do.  All of us individually receive so many every day from people. 

I certainly didn’t mean to hurt his feelings and am very sorry if I did.

Perhaps he did not see that Dire Things that Might Have Happened along these lines and so did not take comfort from my comments, based on the Stark Contrast Method:

[comment deleted—off topic]

[comment deleted—off topic—this is a warning, please email us off-list]

[comment deleted—commenter war . . . ]

[COMMENATRIX BANS BEFORE I EVEN GET TO MY SECOND WARNING!]

; > )

[150] Posted by Sarah on 05-04-2008 at 07:31 AM • top

I think this thread has had its useful purpose.  I admit I’ve played around with this thread but it’s shown my own discomfort, when it comes down to actual people, it naming homosexuality as disorder and active homosexuality as sin.  If we say after all, we all sin and we should distinguish between totally out of control running amuck and much better managed sin, then we are probably justifying sin if we can pull it off well.  A “monogamous” white collar gay sin is not somehow OK when another gay who has a taste for multiple sexual conquests of teenagers is certainly in bad taste.I think we should distinguish between an orientation to sin from sin itself. We are not thieves because we have an orientation toward sin, an inherited disorder in our being.  Likewise, one is not, in a theological sense, committing the sin of homosexuality, if he simply has an orientation to be attracted to the same sex, both sexes or is mixed up about what he/she is.  In fact, such a person is a victim of disorder, not a culprit.  But to act upon a disordered orientation is to commit a sin and to become a thief, to become a sexual sinner.I don’t know if we can make the language do what I suggest above.  Common usage does not distinguish orientation from action.  It will be a hard sell even to conservatives to claim that a person is not a homosexual until he or she acts upon such a desire by biblically knowing another person in that way.  But that is what we are talking about.  It isn’t a sin to have a silly lisp or emulate women in a stereotyped sort of way.OK, so we are uncomfortable with getting lumped with the peddlers of hate such as Rush Limbaugh.  Does that mean we cannot ever name cannibalism in the same sentence with homosexuality?  That we must refuse to recognize the few homosexuals who do happen to prey on youngsters?  That we must distinguish between a sexual appetite for pre-pubescents and post and therefore excuse those who prey on 13-year-olds?There are dioceses in TEC so dysfunctional it is hard to imagine.  Imagine a scenario where the drunk bishop wants to rehabilitate a priest who was pictured in a “newdy” magazine cavorting on the altar with a couple boys.  Where other priests’ lives are so out of control, they may be found soliciting in public restrooms.  Quite aside from the spiritual wreckage, there is a liability question.  What ever happened to the Church Insurance Company’s requirement for training?  Dropped.

[151] Posted by monologistos on 05-04-2008 at 07:48 AM • top

I suppose I should add, for the poorer readers, that I am not equating thievery and homosexuality.  Those are just two sins.  I’m not lured by homosexuality but I can from time to time find myself wishing I had a million dollars or something.  I guess that is coveting rather than stealing but my point is that we all have some sin.  It is also true that the Enemy, Satan, will use whatever sin we allow to remain to compromise us in other ways.

[152] Posted by monologistos on 05-04-2008 at 07:53 AM • top

Sarah Hey:

Well, hmm, I keep forgetting about the posting random stuff problem.  Since Luke 12 disappeared I guess we’ll never know what he/she was trying to say.  However, I can understand why that might of been a concern.

[153] Posted by Eclipse on 05-04-2008 at 08:11 AM • top

Sarah 158:

Right, Invicta153—and when you respond to PadreWayne you’re talking to a Classic Radical Revisionist!  ; > )

They don’t believe that at all.  Their gospel in fact demands that churches approve same-sex attraction as well as non-celibacy of those with SSAs, along with fake marriages, etc, etc.

So important is this gospel to them, that they are willing for the church to divide over it.  It is a Primary Gospel to them.

Oh, Sarah, you are so misleading (or perhaps misled).

Correct: I do not believe that the homosexuality banned in Scripture is the homosexuality and mutuality we see in so many Christ-centered (and not) Lesbians and gay men.

Wrong: I do not “demand” that churches approve same-sex attraction. I politely request (sometimes, albeit, with passion) that churches prayerfully explore and reflect upon the actual lives of gay men and women within the context of a firm belief in a loving God.

Wrong: “fake marriages”—My marriage is no more false than that of anyone else. It is blessed, it is full of grace. Thanks for the insult.

Wrong: That I am willing to split a church. I do not want a divided church, I want a whole church. But I am certainly willing to live with controversy and disagreement within the context of God’s love, forgiveness, and mercy.

[154] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-04-2008 at 08:44 AM • top

Invicta153 . . . see what I mean?

[155] Posted by Sarah on 05-04-2008 at 09:14 AM • top

Sarah #160, I do, and I stand by my comment.

[156] Posted by Invicta on 05-04-2008 at 01:05 PM • top

Padre Wayne, I do not mean to open a whole new can of worms, but what is the difference between the homosexuality banned in the Bible as opposed to today’s homosexuality?  At least you are willing to agree that the practice is banned in scripture.  I know a lot of GLBTs who refuse to recognize that fact.  Gay pride parades and beauty contests certainly do not do anything to add credibility to the lifestyle.  I know you don’t accede to a gay lifestyle or agenda, but I really don’t see how you can ignore certain elements of them.  I do mean to seem judgemental when I ask this question; I am truly interested in the difference.  If you would rather answer me via e-mail, please do.

[157] Posted by terrafirma on 05-04-2008 at 01:52 PM • top

Padre Wayne, *do not mean to seem judgemental

[158] Posted by terrafirma on 05-04-2008 at 01:54 PM • top

#164/Sasha,

Thank you for letting PadreWayne view the nonsense of his argument, again.  Word warpers such as he need to be put on notice. 

Now, how many blog hours have SF posters spent advising some reappraisers (such as PadreWayne) of the exegetical, logical, moral, inter alia arguments?  By now it must be in the thousands.  All that being said, can we agree to give PadreWayne’s theologically scintillating posts along these lines the recognition/response they actually merit?  If you don’t know the answer to this question, I’m concerned…really.

[159] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 05-04-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

It’s amazing how the human mind can confuse the language of eating with concepts of sex. Fairly prevalent distortions.

In the Eucharist we consume the body and blood of Christ. Early Christians were accused of cannibalism. A distortion.

In the Eucharist, we symbolically and actually internalize Christ, who (we pray) becomes part of us. Hopefully we take on some Christ-like attributes. Is it possible that a cannibal or vampire might be perceiving some of the same mystical yearning to internalize God? A horrible distortion.

A self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinner informs us that HIS actions aren’t the same as those described in Scripture and tradition. The blindness of sin. How many times a day does sin blind me (lots)? Distortions. Vade retro, Satana!

We hear from some of those in authority that God’s love trumps certain Scriptural prohibitions. An utterly diabolical distortion. Although Jesus went to the woman at the well, he called her to repentance. The deafness of sin. Friends, those prohibitions are there BECAUSE God loves us, and does NOT want us to spend eternity apart from Him. Scripture and tradition tell us that the latter is the invariable consequence of unrepentant homosexual practice and other mortal sins. Let him who has ears, listen.

If we choose to put batteries in a flashlight so that the positive poles touch and turn it on, there’s no light. Only profound darkness. Distortion. Sex in the context of Holy Matrimony is the union of male and female, the joining of positive and negative energy as found in religious symbols throughout the world. In that union, a light shines in heaven. There are no examples of same-sex Holy Matrimony in all of Scripture or tradition.

Then, we’re told that we can choose to disagree, but should remain united. Or, we’re dismissed by someone saying it’s obvious that we cannot agree. Plausible, but distorted, logic. True enough when it comes to high vs. low church, or any of a number of other historical disagreements. This one’s different. It’s not adiaphoria. It’s a matter of grave, mortal sin. The joining of 2 positive or 2 negative poles can actually damage the batteries. Distortion.

Then, we’re told that it is actually WE who are being misled by our readings of Scripture and tradition. A practicing homosexual is actually quite normal - just look. Distortion! Admittedly, I’ve never known a practicing homosexual who had horns and a tail, and who smelled of brimstone. Homosexual practice and a lot of other sins can reach that overt level, of course, but the fact is that my gay friends do indeed look normal on the outside. (Except for the clothes that they sometimes wear.) The problem is internal.

Is homosexual practice normal? Multiple partners? Anonymous sex in parks? Bath houses? Tom of Finland and other gay porn? Fantasies and dreams that can lead to abuse, rape, necrophilia and cannibalism? The utterly diabolic mixture of blood, feces, and you-know-what?

The only law that justifies homosexual practice is “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” And, that law is not found in Scripture because it is not of God. It leads elsewhere. However, we can choose to walk either path.

Redemption? Certainly possible. Even Gilles de Rais repented, confessed, and received communion before his execution. Even Jeffrey Dahmer repented and was baptized in prison. One prays that while they were judged for their sins, they were shown mercy. One prays that they were forgiven and have found union with God in eternity.

[160] Posted by Ralph on 05-04-2008 at 03:49 PM • top

Ralph, interesting post.

Everyone else: I don’t know why people keep harping on bath houses. Heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals, and we are—quite frankly—often completely appalling. (Bill Clinton, anyone?)

In addition to Clinton, we are also guilty by association with Elizabeth Taylor (eight marriages) R. Kelly (statutory rape) Anna Nicole Smith (gold-digging stripper) and Paris Hilton.

Personally, I would resent being linked in anyone’s mind with people like these.

I think it’s safe to assume that a homosexual would be equally insulted by the implications of the original post.

In the absence of any truly compelling evidence that the story has any relevance to the Anglican Communion, I can only attribute its inclusion to that homophobia from which so many of us are at such pains to disassociate ourselves.

And that’s why I think this entry has no place at Stand Firm.

[161] Posted by PollyPrim on 05-04-2008 at 10:37 PM • top

I do not believe that the homosexuality banned in Scripture is the homosexuality and mutuality we see in so many Christ-centered (and not) Lesbians and gay men.

Well of course, everyone knows that long term/committed/monogamous relationships are a new type of homosexuality invented by liberal revisionista Episcoplalians some twenty years ago to expedite the extermination of orthodoxy and accelerate the breakup of TECusaCorp and the Anglican Communion. Before that, there was never ever, in recorded history, an example of that kind of homosexuality.

the snarkster

the snarkster

[162] Posted by the snarkster on 05-05-2008 at 05:08 PM • top

As if Plato—or Sappho, for that matter—didn’t know whereof they spoke?!

[163] Posted by Paula on 05-05-2008 at 06:49 PM • top

[#132]

episcopaliated .. thank you for that video.  Good stuff!

[164] Posted by J Eppinga on 05-05-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

Sorry to “pile on,” but I agree with the many who feel this is way below SF’s standards.

[165] Posted by HeartAfire on 05-05-2008 at 10:34 PM • top

RE: “In the absence of any truly compelling evidence that the story has any relevance to the Anglican Communion . . . “

Hi Polly Prim—I’m fine with your not seeing any relevance to the Anglican Communion in this story [though certainly I—and others, clearly—think it has all sorts of relevance to homosexuality, and we’ve posted dozens of stories about homosexuality in the past] but we post stuff that has no relevance to the Anglican Communion all the time.  So clearly the issue of the story—for you—is *not* that it “has no relevance to the Anglican Communion” because we post all sorts of stories with no relevance.

We’ll continue to post both off-topic stories, as well as stories related to homosexuality.  In fact, I have a series planned for that latter topic.

RE: “I can only attribute its inclusion to that homophobia from which so many of us are at such pains to disassociate ourselves.”

LOL.  Perhaps if you have read SF for a while you have noticed that we’ve developed rather . . . light-hearted responses to that accusation.  Our mere existence, much less our theology, much less our having the gall to establish a blog makes us automatically “homophobic”, and that word has been so diluted of its original [and rather weak and vague even then] meaning that it has quite lost its power.  We respond to that word as Tom Bombadil did when he put the Ring of Power on his finger. 

But if you wish to “attribute” the post to “homophobia” that’s fine by me, and will tell me about the kinds of words you use, I suppose.

So we’ll both think . . . interesting . . . thoughts about the other.  ; > )

[166] Posted by Sarah on 05-06-2008 at 01:17 AM • top

If there’s a tally, Sasha, please count me among those who find the unstated message of this post absurd and irresponsible.

It’s the sort of caricature of orthodoxy that I would expect to find on Fr Jake’s blog, and frankly it may warrant the accusation of homophobia. Aren’t there enough serious theological points to raise without descending to this?

[167] Posted by Regressive Neanderthal on 05-06-2008 at 01:44 AM • top

If there’s a tally, Sasha, please count me among those who find the unstated message of this post absurd and irresponsible.

I’m sure that Sarah, Greg, and the rest of us feel appropriately guilty about the unstated message; just as we all are bound to feel appropriately guilty for those particular sins that we did not commit. 

It’s the sort of caricature of orthodoxy that I would expect to find on Fr Jake’s blog, and frankly it may warrant the accusation of homophobia. Aren’t there enough serious theological points to raise without descending to this?

I’m not certain what exactly has been “descended” into?  Greg’s argument regarding statistical significance does not “descend” into the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and neither does Sarah’s assertion over clustering. 

Let me put it this way - what if the article was about a former gay beauty contestant, who had a problem with gluttony? 

..Would it be acceptable to you if the article were posted on SF

...Would it be acceptable to you if one SF blogger spoke of disorder clustering, while another spoke of statistical significance, in relation to the gluttony?

....Would you, a reader, be astute enough yourself, to avoid the projecting a logical fallacy in a situation where it does not apply?

Finally, would it be acceptable to you if a Post-Gay contributor posted things that were more scandalous, regarding the connection between homosexuality and gluttony?

[168] Posted by J Eppinga on 05-06-2008 at 05:18 AM • top

Actually, I can think of one gay person who also has a problem with alcoholism. 

By observing that “he also has a problem with alcoholism,” am I affirming that all homosexuals are alcoholics? 

No.

Am I affirming that all alcoholics are homosexuals?

No. 

Am I stating in my underlying message that “He’s a homosexual and an alcoholic, but the two things do not have any influence on one another, whatsoever” ?

No.

What’s more likely is that I’d be exploring the possibility that a link exists that is stronger than coincidence, but weaker than causality.

[169] Posted by J Eppinga on 05-06-2008 at 05:28 AM • top

Among the politically correct set, any criticism of homosexuality is unacceptable.  Any reference to a homosexual must be somehow fenced miles apart from child molestation.  I think intelligent people today really don’t have a problem distinguishing homosexuals as a group from pedophiles, cannibals, drunks, etc.  It is not, it seems to me the responsibility of a blogsite like Stand Firm to speak in such a way that the stupidest members of society cannot possibly misread any remark ... as if that was even possible.  Still, the homosexual lifestyle is a disordered one by definition.  Disordered people often resort to unproductive coping mechanisms so I would expect to see a higher incidence of alcohol and drug abuse among the homosexual population.  There is a psychological mechanism pertaining to consuming another person with regards oral sex.  Oral sex is very common among homosexuals.  Is this a cannibalism motif?  If not, why not?I would suggest that if people really don’t want to think about the topic at all (and I admit it has long since ceased to amuse me), that they not read this particular thread.  I’m not sure what I think about the most common complaint I’m hearing here ... that we must not discuss this topic because we don’t want to be perceived as bad by the liberals.  The liberals already think anyone who honors Holy Scripture are primative haters.  You aren’t going to make them happy by playing by their rules.  You are already lumped with Rush Limbaugh.  If your big concern is to not appear to be a hater, give it up and be an apostate liberal along with those whose opinions you most value.  That’s my two cents on that topic.

[170] Posted by monologistos on 05-06-2008 at 11:37 AM • top

I think the point about the common territory between homosexuality and cannibalism was that both are rooted in covetousness.  I.e., there is a desire to upgrade character attributes that are wanting in the coveter, on others who are similar in most respects, with the exception of possessing the wanting attributes.  As Sarah pointed out, cannibals use this reasoning - “I’ll be more like this person, if I ingest them.”  Episcopaliated’s You-Tube illustration points this out well, I think.  There, the young man asserts that his gay sex life had been motivated by a desire to be more of a man. 

Oral sex though… I don’t think the connection is there.  The reason I say that is that you’d have to count heterosexual kissing as a form of cannibalism;  which reduces to the absurd rather quickly.

[171] Posted by J Eppinga on 05-06-2008 at 07:38 PM • top

I wonder why no one has pointed out the much stronger correlation between committing acts of violence—particularly sexual violence—and being male.  there’s far more evidence for a correlation there than between homosexuality and cannibalism.  between homosexuality and anything, really.  Men are far more likely to commit violent crimes, including those that suggest a deviant sexuality. 

causation anyone?

[172] Posted by AnnieV on 05-06-2008 at 07:47 PM • top

AnnieV #181, you’re comparing apples and oranges. It’s like comparing the statement “many drug addicts tend to be thieves” with the statement “most theives tend to be poor” (except for Ken Lay, I guess).

In any case, for those who dislike this post consider this: it’s not a positive statement that gays are cannibals. Rather, it’s an observation that this rather contrived attempt to condition people to accept this lifestyle as normal (“Mr Gay UK” indeed) seems to have failed.

[173] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-07-2008 at 10:26 AM • top

Violence tends to breed violence.  I think there is more to sociological behavior patterns than orientation alone.  We already knew that people were screwed up.  If we consider things carefully, we might easily accede to the notion that society’s modelling of heterosexuality leaves something to be desired.  I would claim that homosexual role modelling is generally speaking, both a reaction to and a stereotyping of the ills of normal society.

[174] Posted by monologistos on 05-07-2008 at 12:21 PM • top

I’ve been a little under the weather, and occupied with the real world, for the past several days and have only just now caught up with this thread. In the meantime I’ve received another couple of emails from regular readers who are more than a little disturbed at this post.

I want to take this opportunity to say the following, even though I’ve said it in previous comments:

The point of this post is NOT to say that all homosexuals are potential cannibals. That would be a ridiculous assertion.

The point of this post is NOT to say that cannibalism is caused by homosexuality.

The point of this post is simply to note that, once again, we have a socially unacceptable behavior (like pedophelia) in which homosexuals appear to be over-represented at a rate many, many times that of their proportion of the general population. If what I saw in the news over a period of several years was, for example, that homosexuals were similarly over-represented among arsonists, or carjackers, then rest assured I would note that in a post too.

As to whether this post is “beneath” this site, I can’t help but suspect that of the people making that objection, at least some of them continue to labor under the impression that all homosexuals are just like you and me, with the simple and easily-compartmentalized exception of what they do in the bedroom. To those folks, all I can say is: Yes, some homosexuals are just like you and me, with that one exception; but many are not… more, in fact, that can be explained by mere statistical anomalies. If what you’re saying is that you know for a fact that what appears to be a statistical over-representation of homosexuals among cannibals is in fact a trick of the light, then by all means: Show me where I’m wrong.

[175] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-07-2008 at 09:33 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.