Anglican Mainstream: Response to Gay and Lesbian Group Submission to Listening Group

This reply strikes at the heart of the issue.  Virtually all of the arguments in favor of recognition of non-celibate homosexuals in the Church are made in terms that are far broader than required to secure such recognition.  Indeed, as we’ve seen with the “baptismal covenant” device used by the revisionists, seemingly innocuous premises accepted today are used to shoehorn in much broader agendas later. 

In short, it’s not a slippery slope if you’ve accepted the premise of the future claim.

Next up:  a liturgy for a BDSM union. 

Sprinting towards Gomorrah, I’d say.  And TEC is dominated by folks who think that EVERYTHING should have a blessing on it. 

Count me out…

Geek in Dallas,
Do you mean to say that you won’t stick around for the NAMBLA evensong or the necrophiliac High Mass? You know their working on these even as we blog.

The intro above reads
“by a special interest group for gays of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists.”
I thought I read in the report from the Church Times:
“the College’s special-interest group of 200 to 300 psychiatrists who work with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transsexual people.”

There is a formidable difference here - does the present writter have some new facts about the make-up of this Royal College SIG, or was this just a slip of the pen?

RE: “or was this just a slip of the pen? . . . “

Not at all.  No reason to “slip pens” . . . ; > )

After comparing the headline of the article detailing Dr. Nolland’s reply—“Gay and Lesbian group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists”—with the quote from the original article in Church Times—“Professor Michael King, an executive committee member of the College’s special-interest group of 200 to 300 psychiatrists who work with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transsexual people”—I used the phrase “a special interest group for gays of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists.”

Can you tell me what the formidable difference is between “a special interest group for gays of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists” and “the College’s special-interest group of 200 to 300 psychiatrists who work with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transsexual people” other than the words “200 to 300” and the unfortunate extra word “the”?

Are the words “200 to 300” important for you, Martin Reynolds?

Here’s the link to the SIG, for anybody who’s interested:
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/college/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/aboutthegroup.aspx

Can you tell me what the formidable difference is between “a special interest group for gays of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists” and “the College’s special-interest group of 200 to 300 psychiatrists who work with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transsexual people” other than the words “200 to 300” and the unfortunate extra word “the”?

The difference is between “working with” and “being”. If you described a group of psychiatrists who specialised in the treatment of schizophrenia as a special interest group for schizophrenics you would make the same mistake. A group “for schizophrenics” is a group for schizophrenics to join. A group for psychiatrists with a special interest in schizophrenia is quite different.

Your choice of words suggested that the group consists of people who are gay and are banded together in some sort of mutually-support or activist-type activity. In short, you made a report produced by people who share a particular clinical interest into a report produced by people who share a particular sexual orientation.

No, no, Paul Stanley—the SIG is *of* psychiatrists *for* gays.

Like lobbying groups for gays—although not necessarily made up of gays.

Or like SIGs for tennis players—although not necessarily made up of tennis players.

Or like SIGs for flying physicians—although not necessarily made up of flying physicians.

Just as I did not misinterpret the AM headline of “Gay and Lesbian group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists” to mean “a group made up of Gay and Lesbian people” so one should not misinterpret my words “a special interest group for gays of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists” to mean “a special interest group of gays.”

Of course, Martin did not at all misinterpret the words I used—he merely wished to do the best he could do while gnawing on his frustration bone , which has been quite a large bone lately on this blog and elsewhere.

One eagerly awaits an actual argument . . . but it appears unlikely.  Snips appears to be the most we can expect.

An alternative to the rational arguments might be an explanation for the frustration, but that does not appear to be forthcoming either.

But I have taken the opportunity to delete the extra “the” . . . so the exchange has led to something helpful.

Well, Sarah, I would be surprised to learn that a “special interest group for mothers” was full of men, or a “special interest group for orthodox Christians” actually had a substantial number of atheists on the committee. But if you’re happy with your paraphrase, that’s your call. Your post, and all that. Your posts in the thread make it clear, at least, what you were trying to say.

So far as the actual argument is concerned, sorry I’ve nothing to contribute. It seems to me banal to report that gay people would be happier if we were treated more kindly. And equally banal to point out that this hardly constitutes a moral argument (except, I suppose, to a utilitarian).

Well . . . do you think the “Women in Psychiatry Special Interest Group” in the Royal College is made up solely of women? 
; > )

” . . . the group is open to both men and women” it says.  But perhaps the problem is that that group and the Gay and Lesbian SIG are the only two sigs named for *people* and not ideas/objects [ie, “eating disorders”].

RE: “So far as the actual argument is concerned, sorry I’ve nothing to contribute.”

That’s okay.  You weren’t the one making the original snipe—and it was good of you to point out that MR was not complaining about the deletion of the words “200 to 300.”

Cheers,

Sarah

Dr Lisa has put up the original version of her letter, before Church Times edited it for publication, <a >here</a>.  It is substantially stronger.

What would we do without victimhood?  Sure beats all that effort to get one’s life in order.  Those laws of nature and God sure are cruel to the poor victims.  No onder they need a SIG.

I found this quote in her letter interesting

I kept wondering when the more recent academic research on “born-gay” theories and ex-gay and reparative therapy, for instance, would surface.

I take it to mean that the Royal Society expert group (I am trying to avoid the argument above by this description - I hope it is acceptable to all) has NOT referenced the most recent research—- with the implication that they haven’t because it doesn’t suit them?

Can anyone comment on this claim?

It would also help all sorts of other sexual minorities still closeted. Do we want them “out”, too? All claim that they are “wired” like this and have suffered discrimination.

Some of the best research and propaganda that is done to disclaim any link between homosexuality and pedophilia, by Dr. Herek of UCD, (knowingly or unknowingly) asserts that pedophilia is a distinct “sexual orientation” its own.  Whether or not pedophiles claim to be “born that way” is left to the reader:

...the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Marty, this may be true, but how are we to explain that especially in the RCC priest abuses the male priest seems to focus on male children.  It is rare to be a little girl.  Usually when there is heterosexual abuse it is a Lolita, pubesscent young cute under age girl under age.  Sort of a dirty old man thing.  Also, what about NAMBA who seem to focus on male children by male perverts.  Hmmmmm….

You are not going to change any of this.  We spend entirely too much time worrying about this stuff.  Let their special interest groups fool with it.  Just pray for them all.

There are lots of new possibilities with the following story from India of a man who married a dog.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071114/wl_asia_afp/indiasocietyanimaloffbeat_071114035255

The Royal College could add this to their study.  And maybe Integrity can figure out how to expand GLBT—new source for membership.

PM, I’m not disagreeing with you at all, and not agreeing with Dr. Herek in the least. 

My point was that if Herek is correct, then it leads to the question posed by this article:  if pedophilia is just another “orientation” whose adherents are “born that way, and can’t change”... then what?

Also, it is worth noting that while Herek claims that “These individuals are attracted to children, not to men or women” in his effort to distance pedophilia from homosexuality, he doesn’t seem to pay any attention to whether or not “these individuals” prefer male children or female children.  As if age alone is the sole criteria…

Right or wrong, his ideas are very dangerous, and provide pseudo-scientific cover for many who would molest our sons.

Alcohol and substance abuse as well as blatantly risky behavior such as intentionally unprotected sex with strangers is well documented in the homosexual community. Who is at fault?

Research showed that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people suffered stress because of the rejection and discrimination that they experienced. This resulted in the same kinds of mental-health issues, destructive behaviour, alcoholism, and substance abuse as people subjected to racism also experienced. Both groups also experienced a kind of “internal form of stigma”, he said.

Talk about Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Shift the blame for their self destructive behavior onto the “homophobes”.  Shameful scholarlship.

Listen to drunks long enough and you get tired of the “you’d drink, too, if…”  This is the same thing - it can’t be my fault

There are many interesting correlations between diseases like alcoholism and conditions or “orientations” such as homosexuality, pedophilia, transgendered states, etc.
What AA teaches, when alcoholics get into recovery, is that “the reasons for the disease are unimportant.  What deserves the attention of the still-suffering alcoholic is that there is a proven workable method of recovery.”
Basically, the phenomonal success of AA and similar 12-step programs is due to (IMO) the model of recovery which follows very closely the model that our Lord set forth for all types of sin:  recognition of the sin, confession, repentance, amendment, restoration.  The 12 steps do not use this language, nor is there anything in them to which a non-Christian would take offense, but to me it is as though the Lord whispered the words of the Big Book to the founders of AA 70 years ago.
My point in saying all of this is that the reasons why people are homosexual are unimportant.  I personally happen to believe they are born that way, just as some are, I believe, born alcoholic, though the actual behaviors start many years later, and are precipitated by different things.
At any rate, once alcoholism is recognized, or any “-ism”  or any   “-ality” which is not clearly God’s will for us, it is then sin to act on that behavior.  For an alcoholic, abstinence from alcohol is the prayer.  For the homosexual, or any single person, abstinence from sex is the prayer.  Whether or not a person is able to attain or maintain abstinence or on what time table they are able to do so is not the point. 
The point is you don’t have Blessing of the Alcoholic and His Bottle, and you don’t tell him that his drinking is fine because he was born that way, and you don’t spare him the consequences of his sin, which is generally involve separation from those he would harm.

Lastly, as far as the “Listening Group”‘s theories, I think the practicing alcoholic would also feel much more loved and accepted if people would show him more love and understanding, and would feel less “victimized” if people wouldn’t tell him his behavior is wrong or ostracize him for it.  But is that loving him with a Christian love?

THE Royal College of Psychiatrists has challenged Anglican bishops to support gay clergy and laity as an example to parents struggling to come to terms with having gay or lesbian children.

Huh???  ...an example to parents??!
An appropriate “example to parents” would be a response that Rev. Billy Graham gave on The Today Show several years ago when he was asked what he would do if a child of his told him that he was gay.  Rev. Graham responded that he would “love them even more.”  We need to love and pray for our children who are involved in any sinful lifestyle, not pretend that their sin is something “beautiful.”

HeartAfire, you have hit on an important point.  The analogy between alcoholism and other addictive behaviors is quite right.

When VGR announced that he was an alcoholic and had gone into treatment (presumably 12 step), he rightfully expressed joy at being successful in overcoming that addiction.  It occurred to me at the time that it was so sad that he could not see the connection to his homosexual lifestyle—and the possibility for healing.

As you so rightly pointed out, we do not bless the alcoholic lifestyle, just as we do not bless all those many genetic defects that make the health of so many people less than what God intended.  What we seek for all people, and what our merciful God wants for all his people, is nothing less than wholeness and healing.  It truly is disappointing when church leaders offer less than that to our homosexual brothers and sisters.

I am inquiring from those more knowledgeable about the Gay and Lesbian agenda for Bi-sexuals in the Episcopal Church:—Is there a plan to include them in future liturgies of Blessing, or in the pastoral care recognition by Bishop’s of the Christian appropriateness of their relationships? Bi-sexuals are included in Integrity’s writings, but I am not aware of their inclusion in the future perfect Church of Blessing for all significant relationships. What kind of recognition by the Church of their God-given orientation do they want? It seems if they are asked to make a choice between their Bi attractions then they would not be accepted for who they are??? And if God made them that way, who are we to demand that they refrain from behavior that is not one person to one person????

FA, within the sphere of gay activism, bi-sexuals are considered “useful idiots”.  Integrity will happily count them among their pro-gay sexual-minority allies in public, but privately they are disdained as “undecided and uncomitted”.

Privately, they are hated because unlike the well defined party lines assigned to “the gay” and “the straight”, bisexuals actually do have a choice.

“it is as though the Lord whispered the words of the Big Book to the founders of AA 70 years ago”. As one who will soon celebrate the gift of 31 years of sobriety, I don’t think it’s “as though”.  I consider it a done deal - AA was truly inspired by the Lord and Bill W. reached into his own spiritual life to develop the framework of the twelve steps. 
Marty the Baptist - what an incredibly profound insight into the bi’s.  Wish I had thought of it! They certainly do refute the whole “lack of choice” c—p don’t they?

Thank you Marty for the info. I think it is shameful to use someone publicly and then condemn them privately. Integrity continues to show a lack of integrity toward others. I do think Bi-s show the argument that there is no choice in behaviour of Gays and Lesbians to be a false one.