CoE Minister Apologizes For Criticizing Homosexual Lifestyle

Dr. Mullens is one of the best (and highly critical) writers the C of E has.  He also has a fabulous wit - along the lines of WFB. It’s no surprise they’re after him and probably won’t rest until he’s destroyed.  Look at a smattering of his work. Oh, and he’s also the chaplain to the stock market and was on the scene at the 7/7 Tube bombings since one happened across the street from his parish.

Um, suggesting that gays be tattooed does not demonstrate “a fabulous wit.”  First things that comes to mind is the Nazis.

I don’t think so - the first thing that comes to mind is health warnings on cigarette packets.

Fr. Mullens was right bout the statement he made, period.

The truth hurts doesn’t it. We don’t need tolerance we need discussion so that all the consequences are understood.
Intercessor

Charles, lighten up.  Oh, and to avoid looking ignorant, you should look up peoples’ records before you liken them to Nazis.  Rev’d Dr. Peter Mullens is one of the founding members of Anglicans for Israel.  This is another reason why he’s not popular among the Left.

Whilst some might embrace the idea of a tattoo, I suspect it might encourage a blissful avoidance of responsibility, as it has been argued by cigarette manufacturers.  The gate to the Inferno was emblazoned, “All hope abandon ye who enter here.”  With that, you see, the tormentor’s off the hook if your accommodations do not satisfy.  Best you don’t go there.

If sodomy isn’t injurious to one’s health why are so many of its former practitioners dead?

The tattoo remark was a needless diversion which allows the discussion to be side-tracked.  And I am not surprised it was side-tracked.  Homosexual apologists do not like to talk about the reality of homosexual behavior.  How homosexuals actually behave is the weak link in their armor, and so it must be carefully concealed.

Our focus then should instead be placed on revealing the actual reality of homosexual behavior.  Said behavior is 1) notoriously promiscuous and 2) generally ‘open’ in its attitude towards fidelity.  Monogamist is a pejorative reference among homosexuals.  This is the reality that homosexual apologists seek to hide in their campaign to normalize homosexuality.  They want to imply without saying so that homosexuals behave sexually pretty much like everyone else.  But they don’t.  Homosexual apologists wish to hide the fact that they are declaring a monogamous relationship between mom & dad as being morally equivalent to a homosexual orgy in the basement. 

But this presents a problem to the homosexual apologist.  People know that sexual promiscuity is dangerous.  The greater the promiscuity, the greater the danger.  Epidemiologists knew before the AIDS crisis that an STD that got loose in the gay community would be very bad.  That community is still vulnerable because they insist sexual incontinence is a fundamental right of man.  To suggest otherwise is to deny the central presupposition of homosexuality - the moral goodness of sex without relationship.  So the homosexual apologist must hide the reality.  And since he has no arguments to justify the behavior, he has no recourse but to savage those who dare to pull back the covers.

And he has good reason for doing so.  If sodomy is inherently dangerous, then it cannot be normal.  But if sodomy is not normal, then the central act of homosexual men is not normal, and the entire justification for homosexuality collapses.  Ipso facto sodomy cannot be dangerous.  If promiscuous sodomy is inherently prone to transmission of disease, then the entire homosexual lifestyle of promiscuous sodomy is undermined.  Ipso facto promiscuous sodomy must not be any more dangerous than sexual intercourse as a transmission path for disease. 

Promiscuous sodomy is the essence of homosexuality.  Homosexuals won’t adopt monogamy because the point of homosexuality is to avoid monogamy and its relational entanglements.  Those are the requirements that women place on men because they are “breeders.”  Homosexuals are fighting to maintain their sexual liberty.  It is a vital interest they will never surrender.

carl

I read about this a few days ago and I am glad that Mr. Mullen has offered his apology.  I agree with him that his remarks were, at the very least, “injudicious.”  And they do not represent Mr. Mullen at his best.

For some of that, we can look here.  This is from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece he authored in 2003 following Bishop Robinson’s election to the episcopate:

The Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New, condemns homosexuality as a sin. But it is not the only sin, though the church behaves as if it were. St. Paul lists a whole repertoire of sins: pride, vain-glory, envy, gluttony, hatred, malice, conspiracy, backbiting and so on. But when did you last hear of a churchman thrown out of the choir for gluttony, or a woman dismissed from the Ladies’ Circle for backbiting? Besides, the Christian faith has always taught that we should hate the sin but love the sinner.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003947

It has been reported that Mr. Mullen once underwent Church discipline because of an adulterous relationship with a female parishioner.  If so, this would certainly put him in a position to better appreciate the observation he makes that “we should hate the sin but love the sinner.”  Presumably, no one at the time suggested, even satirically, that he and his partner should be tattooed with the letter “A” on some part of their anatomy.  I hope not.

Mr. Mullen doesn’t pull any punches where the “gay lobby” is concerned in this article either.  He goes on:

In former days when we were all more reticent, discreet and polite, no one in the church cared much about whether the priest or the bishop was straight or gay. In fact, it would have been regarded as discourteous even to raise the issue. In other words, there was a useful distinction made between the public realm and private life. Unfortunately, this distinction no longer applies, and I am bound to say that it is the gay lobby which has done the most to abolish it. The rampant homosexual culture involving gay pride marches and lurid parades of sexuality have destroyed decency and privacy.

I am in complete agreement with that last sentence.  The “homosexual culture” has destroyed quite a lot, including the lives of many of its practitioners.  But I am troubled by the notion that there may have been a time when “no one in the church cared much” about the sexual preferences of her clergy.  Perhaps that is part of the problem.  One thing is now clear, that the need to raise this issue cannot be dismissed any longer as “discourteous.”

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with Mr. Mullen once again, though:

Few would ever condemn a faithful, loving relationship between two people of the same sex, but when promiscuous homosexuality becomes a sort of fashion statement, many people are sickened. Nowadays the love which once dared not speak its name screeches at us in the tones of high camp from every high street.

No, the Church does not condemn “faithful, loving” relationships of any kind, but it does insist that homo-genital activity can never be a part of any such relationships, and that those who are tempted in that direction must undergo separation of bed and board to avoid even the near occasion of sin.  That teaching is based, not on how “sickened” some people may feel at the very thought of homosexual activity, but on a Christian anthropology and a Biblical view of human sexuality.  That would still remain the case even if “the love which once dared not speak its name” returned to silence and relative obscurity. 

The impact of sexual hedonism in all its forms on our society has been devastating.  But it also offers the Church an opportunity to clearly reaffirm sound doctrine in this area, and it has brought us to the point where we more fully understand the imperative of providing witness and ministry to those who have experienced sexual failure and brokenness in their lives. 

Gen. 50:20: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

Polite silence is no longer an option, but we must be careful about what we say, and how we say it.  Thankfully, tattooing “I am a miserable sinner” on our backsides, or elsewhere, remains optional!

Godwin’s law certainly was invoked quickly to score political points by the homosexualists.

And, of course, what is being avoided is the truth behind the parody. The term gay bowel disease has become a major politically incorrect faux pas and yet the list of GI manifestations of anal sex is long and serious. I am seeing in my own practice oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers in young, non-smokers that are most certainly human papilloma virus related. Disfiguring surgeries, chemoradiation therapy are necessary. There have been deaths reported in the literature, so the line “fellatio kills” is absolutely true.

Carl,

How did you come to the following conclusion “the central presupposition of homosexuality - the moral goodness of sex without relationship”?

The committed, monogamous relationships among same sex couples, including my own of 10 years and counting, challenge that homosexuality is at all about separating sex from relationship.  Yes, there are people who seek this, of all sexual orientations.  Yes, promiscuity has health and spiritual consequences.  But, the promiscuous are no more representative of gays than they are of straights. 

It is certainly easier to support discrimination in the civil realm when all manner of bad behavior is ascribed to the other.  Mythology about the sexuality of black people was used to justify discrimination,and sometimes to justify murder.  It serves no one to discuss rights based on the worst among us. If we did, marriage among opposite sex couples would be outlawed.

Here we go again. Even if such “committed, monogamous” relationships were not rare as hen’s teeth, it remains the case, as I wrote long ago, that “I cannot see that any (sinful) conduct is improved or rendered acceptable by an undertaking to engage in it exclusively or for a lifetime.” See my Dialogue with Hugh.

Male homosexuality deprives women so badly, of physical love, sexual awakening and children (and that’s just for starters), that it can justly be termed the ultimate in male chauvinist piggery.

[12] To the Left

I do not know how to respond to this kind of anecdotal argument.  There are some questions I would need to ask, but the answers are none of my business.  Besides which, a sample of one is not statistically valid.  If I were to say “I was a virgin when I got married” could I use that as a valid argument to dismiss allegations of fornication among young heterosexual males?

And it’s really beside the point.  The rampant promiscuity in the homosexual community is no secret.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone reading this thread knows it.  The gay community positively trumpets the virtue of promiscuity when it thinks no one is listening.  That’s why I asserted the conclusion I did.  Promiscuity is a near universal behavior among homosexual men.  It is sex for pure personal gratification.  There is absolutely no significant occurrence of monogamous ‘couple formation’ - especially among young homosexuals.  Partnerships are transient, and generally open to sexual activity outside the relationship.  These are not prejudices. These are facts.

How do they get away with it?  Because it is women that impose relational restrictions on sex.  Why do you think there are no heterosexual ‘bath houses?’  Do you honestly think straight guys wouldn’t be lining up around the block to patronize such an establishment?  It’s not for lack of men, but for lack of women that such establishments do not and cannot exist.  Thus one of the reasons for male homosexual pathology.  The homosexual man lacks the tempering influence of a woman.  Guys joke about how wonderful it would be if only women viewed sex like men.  But there is a reason they were created differently.  If women weren’t different, we would have bathhouses on every corner, and no family formation; just self-indulgent sex.

Every husband who just read this last paragraph thought to himself “Still, it would be nice…”  His wife knew what he was thinking (don’t ask how, she just did) and dope-slaped him on the side of the head.  Hard.  And he smiled to himself and thought “It was worth it.  Vive la Difference.”  That’s one of the positive influences that women have on men.  They keep us from rutting for the pure hell of it.

And I do mean hell.

carl

In almost all movies and tv shows for a couple decades now, the myth of the loving gay people with their sweetly affectionate lifelong romances, is a propaganda smokescreen. Behind it continues to lurk the true picture, the grim predator on the lookout for confused youngsters anywhere they can find them, including, yes: the park restroom. Yes, I’m harsh. But the Truth is often harsh.

Why do you think there are no heterosexual ‘bath houses?’

Because heterosexuals don’t need bath houses, they just have bars and night clubs. 

Frankly I’m not sure how useful it is to dwell on the alleged promiscuity of homosexuals vs. heterosexual.  I thought the whole idea was that homosexual acts are inherently wrong even if they ARE in the context of a “sweetly affectionate lifelong romance”.

As for helpmelord, he sounds like he’s getting all his information from “Boys Beware”.  Such broad generalizations about things he can’t substantiate are not useful at all.  The comment in 12 is a perfectly unsurprising response to that type of comment.  To paraphrase “I don’t match the image of X that you are presenting, so obviously when he rails against X he really isn’t talking about me, or has no real idea what X is all about.”

Let me suggest that it is counterproductive to make broad brush generalizations about what homosexual relationships are like or what one imagines a homosexual’s motives are, just as it is equally nonsensical to make such generalizations about heterosexuals based upon things like…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437621,00.html
or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437486,00.html

The gay community

Sorry, can’t resist…
If you were to make such a statement in a history, anthropology, or sociology class you would be immediately pressed to define the boundaries of that term.

WHICH gay community, and what part of it?  The Spanish gay community?  The Tehran gay community?  The upper class gay community?  The lower class gay community?  Act Up, or Integrity?  The community of those that read The Advocate?  The community of those that read The Guide?  The community of those that want high church Episcopalian weddings or the community of those that consider them betrayers of the sexual revolution?

I have an idea.  How about, instead of throwing around crap like “gays are inherently incapable of monogamy” or “gays all want to eat your babies” we focus on the simple fact that God has ordained sexual activity for a very specific context and that sex outside of that context it is a perversion of God’s intent, even if it is one that might be monogamous, sweet, lifelong or romantic?