11
2008
God, Gays And The Church
Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
From Anglican Mainstream
Orthodox Anglicans make a new contribution to the homosexuality debate within the Church of England, by launching a book containing testimonies of Christians who once believed they had a homosexual orientation, but now live happy and fulfilled lives in line with Biblical sexual ethics. These are complemented by essays in the fields of psychology, psychotherapy, genetics, biblical and pastoral theology, social ethics and cultural analysis.
The book, God, Gays and the Church: Human Sexuality and Experience in Christian Thinking, published by the Latimer Trust, will be launched at a special fringe meeting at the General Synod of the Church of England on Wednesday 13 February, nearly a year after the well-publicised ‘Gay Wednesday’ debates by the church’s parliament, during which many openly gay synod members used the floor of the chamber to promote same-sex relationships.
The book, edited by Dr Lisa Nolland, Sarah Finch and Dr Chris Sugden, seeks to correct the imbalance in the ‘Listening Process’ called for by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The editors argue that, so far, the whole listening process has been in “one direction and with one ultimate end” - the full inclusion of practising gay Anglicans at the very heart of the church’s establishment. The editors seek to put into the public domain not only the views of Christians who first thought themselves homosexual, and then chose to follow Biblical teaching, but also the expert evidence and research of psychologists, counsellors and theologians in the field. Further sections analyse the impact of the gay agenda on our culture.
Cover of God, Gays and the Church - Click on picture for large version
Chapters include:
* Pastoral Considerations for Homosexuality
* Post-Gay: The Transforming Power of God
* Post-Lesbian: My Testimony
* Same Sex Attraction. Is it innate and immutable?
* A Faithful Church: The Bible and Same-Sex Sex
* Civil Partnerships: Advice to UK Parishes and Clergy
* Unexpected Consequences: The Sexualisation of YouthExpert contributions include chapters by Professor Joseph Nicolosi, former President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and Professor Robert A. J. Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001).
In his Foreword to the book, the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, writes: “This book has been planned by people who were profoundly concerned, for the sake of the integrity of the Church of England and of its teaching, about the overall character of the two Debates that took place in the Church of England’s General Synod on February 28th 2007 … I share their fundamental concerns … Our integrity, as a Church that is properly serious about doctrine and discipline, was gravely undermined. … every Christian is called to have her or his ‘experience’ conformed to the teachings of Scripture, and then to those of the ‘great tradition’ of the Church down the centuries …”
The launch of God, Gays and the Church: Human Sexuality and Experience in Christian Thinking takes place at 1pm, Wednesday 13 February, 2008 in the Convocation Hall of Church House, Westminster. Speakers will include the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, and some of the contributors to the book.
Yes, yours truly is finally in print. No, I don’t get a single cut from the royalties. Buy it anyway….
Popularity: 73% [?
- God, Gays And The Church - A Brief Review
- General Synod
- Off To Westminster
- Ascending Mount Carmel - One Step At At Time - Part Three
- Post On Synod Coming Up
36 Responses so far
Leave a Comment
- Do you want your picture next to your comment? Sign up here.
- All comments must include a valid email address. Comments without a valid email address will be treated as spam. Your email address will not be displayed.
Reuben has arrived! Until I have time to do his page, 
A rather unfortunate choice of cover art, wouldn’t you say?
Not really. Explain?
Hello,
I’ve ordered a copy so at least one has been sold (!) - I guess I might not agree with much of it but hope I can read with open ears, so to speak.
Making a likely guess - am taking it that the choice of cover picture is to symbolise a person having ‘left homosexuality behind’ (as the book’s editors might see it) and returning to the gracious embrace of God?
One other thing: I note the sentence, “The editors argue that, so far, the whole listening process has been in ‘one direction and with one ultimate end’ - the full inclusion of practising gay Anglicans at the very heart of the church’s establishment”. This could (maybe I’m being unfair) imply that the process has been univocal - yet Mario Bergner’s contribution was published on the ‘net, James Parker (and I think you too Peter?) ran a meeting at General Synod, and you mentioned going to see Canon Phil Groves (if that’s his name!) to make contributions. So not entirely in one direction, surely?
Blair
With regards to the picture, I think some have suggested that it looks like someone is been given a ‘blow-job’ - not me, my mind is far too innocent!
Peter, what I do not understand about the release of the book is why it is such a revelation that there are some people who believe that their sexuality has changed, or that there are a minority of experts who believe that such change is possible. Anyone who has grown up in an evangelical background will know of such ideas, and some of us will have even tried such techniques for ‘healing’. In fact, I still even have some of Leanne Payne’s books on my shelves.
Of course, my whole problem with the ‘post,ex’gay movement’ is that it is populated by people who have wanted to change. As someone who is very happy as being an openly gay man, I do not recognize their experience as my own. In fact, I had a relationship with a girl for two and half years, and it is this experience that was unhealthy and not authentic. I am just grateful that the relationship ended before we married as it would have been terribly destructive for both of us, and any children that we would have had. In fact, if some geneticists are right (I know that you do not agree with them), I could have been passing on the very genetic propensity to homosexuality that I was, then, trying badly to escape.
I wish you well for the book launch. I hope it becomes part of the continuing dialogue that the church is having, but also further evidence that there are many different ways for us to live as authentically sexual beings. That you are doing this in a married relationship - I thank God for; it is a shame that you cannot do this for me as a happy gay man in a longterm, God given, life affirming relationship.
Comment »
Comment »
Dear Peter,
The webcam comment feature is certainly spiffy-keeno from a technology perspective, but being from the USA — I’m sorry to say it — I have a hard time understanding you.
My own opinion: you’re much more eloquent and concise in writing than you are in speaking to a webcam.
However, you probably sound completely normal and perfectly understandable to your fellow countrymen.
Oh well.
Kitty
Peter,
I have been thinking about your comments about marriage, especially in relation to Ephesians.
One of the things that strikes me is how ‘revisionist’ your ideas are in relation to the Christian tradition. It seems to me that the centrality of marriage as a theological paradigm for truths about God has not been a significant aspect of the tradition. In fact, my reading of St Paul and many of the Fathers is that marriage is at best a necessity for those who are not able to control their passions. The true ideal, in contrast to this, was to be celibacy in that this freed the individual to give themselves wholly to God, but also to more mirror the life of Christ.
While, I would not want to advocate such a position today; I am pretty clear that is has been the celibate model that has been seen for most of Christian history to properly model significant theological truths. As a result of this, how we set Ephesians alongside this, I am not sure - Paul does not tell us unfortunately.
In addition, I am also interested in the binary model of Ephesians in that your reading of it suggests that the distinction between Christ and the Church is exactly the same as that between men and women. I have to say that this is a very modern understanding of the differences between men and women. I am not sure St Paul saw the differences between men and woman as being so distinct in the way that you do. Maybe, we need to probe a little further what gender actually means in the ancient world.
One further point is in relation to the positive things you said about same-sex relations yesterday. Firstly, can the erotic element be ever extracted from relationships in the way that you describe. Many psychological behaviourists would argue that there is a sexual impulse in all of interactions with others. Secondly, I am puzzled why it is the possession of the correct genitals in a relationship between two people that authenticates a relationship as not being ‘false worship’? Surely, there are other things - love, honesty etc? If there are, could we argue that if we were to compare a homosexual relationship without the correct genitals (but all the other criteria being met) and a heterosexual relationship (with none of these being met except the possession of the correct genitals) that the homosexual relationship mirrored more the divine love than the heterosexual one?
Just some thoughts. Hope the book launch went well. On the subject of books, may I recommend to you ‘The Queer Theologian’; it is a significant contribution to the debate.
Yours, Winston.
On the contrary, Winston, it was Paul who first proposed the idea!
Although celibacy is most certainly mentioned as a way to serve the Lord as well, Paul does compare the marriage relationship to the mystery of our relationship with God, and he spends a great deal more time on marriage and family relationships than he does on celibacy.
Kitty
Kitty,
Paul’s stress on ‘marriage’, then, does seem quite puzzling in the light of his concerns that people only involve themselves in it if they are ‘burning’ (sexually - that is). If the marriage paradigm is so important theologically, why is it not being pushed as an ideal for more positive reasons - even with the Parousia supposedly imminent?
Secondly, why is Paul ignored by the Church for a significant amount of its history? There seems little concern on the part of the Fathers to advocate marriage as a spiritual idea, and there is a significant celebration of the path of celibacy in all of their works. I am just wondering why the paradigm, if it as important as you and Peter are suggesting, was not sufficient enough to raise much enthusiasm for a significant time in Christian history.
Yours, Winston.
Well, yeah. Explain? Look at it. I cannot imagine why they would not have chosen another cover for it. I mean, really.
We need to be just as careful as Dr. Williams is in what we say, do and how we say and do things. Was it some sort of stunt or just a sad mistake? We can pretend all we like that there is nothing wrong with it… in fact there IS nothing wrong with it. But, as we all well know the court of public opinion is where the battle is won and lost in many cases.
I believe that is the point that Kitty and some of us are trying to make.
Well, yes - provided that I listen carefully. Speaking well and clearly is not something for which people in the south-eastern part of England are particularly renowned; it is a quality more commonly to be found north of the Trent.
Comment »
I’m told this book references the work of Paul Cameron as a reliable source on homosexuality. Mr. Ould- do you consider the work of Paul Cameron to be reliable and do you support its inclusion in this book?
I am also told that this book claims that the furtherance of gay rights will lead to increased pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. Do you believe that this is so, Mr. Ould?
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be … legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism.
Before you became “post-gay,” Mr Ould, did you engage in the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism? For example, did you have sex with young children? If so, are you willing to register yourself as a sex offender?
Hi Boo, let me tackle your three questions:
i) I’m of the opinion (as are many others across the spectrum on this issue) that some of the work of Paul Cameron is questionable. That said, we don’t really have an adequate response to the obituary studies and the like. Ideally there should be a proper study conducted to find out whether homosexually active men do die on average younger then those who aren’t homosexually active. Until that is completed a portion of the criticism of Cameron is simply loud mouthing from those who don’t like where his research is going.
ii) I think you need to get yourself a copy and give me the quote that you want me to respond to as I don’t make a habit of reacting to hearsay. That said, I think that there is a very interesting analysis to be made about the move towards plastic sexuality amongst the post-modern generation being vanguarded within the gay community (if such a thing exists). We know that the sexually promiscuous (gay) club scenes of the 70s onwards were cultural icons for music and fashion with a profound effect on the mainstream of society. To suggest that that would not happen in a sexual dimension is, I think, naive.
iii) I really don’t think anybody should accuse others of having sex with children without any good cause or evidence. I don’t and I wouldn’t expect anybody else to. End of story.
Hiya, Winston,
Good question! I don’t know why not. It certainly should be.
I have quite often of late wondered the same thing myself, actually.
Let us not remain in the same error!
Wow, three “tackles,” three evasions:
I’m of the opinion (as are many others across the spectrum on this issue) that some of the work of Paul Cameron is questionable. That said, we don’t really have an adequate response to the obituary studies and the like. Ideally there should be a proper study conducted to find out whether homosexually active men do die on average younger then those who aren’t homosexually active. Until that is completed a portion of the criticism of Cameron is simply loud mouthing from those who don’t like where his research is going.
Actually there has been quite an adequate response to Cameron’s obituary study:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
http://www.slate.com/?id=2098
Anyone who’s taken a course in basic social science research methodology can shred Cameron’s ridiculous studies without breaking a sweat. Sometime you don’t even need that; the “data” from his obituary study also claims that lesbians are 300 times as likely as str8 women to die in car crashes. That alone should tell you the study is obviously severely flawed.
Also, I’m slightly confused. You acknowledge that a “proper study” on this issue has not been conducted, yet you defend Cameron’s being in the book? Isn’t the burden of proof on the person making the claim? Even Exodus has backed away from Cameron.
I think you need to get yourself a copy and give me the quote that you want me to respond to as I don’t make a habit of reacting to hearsay. That said, I think that there is a very interesting analysis to be made about the move towards plastic sexuality amongst the post-modern generation being vanguarded within the gay community (if such a thing exists). We know that the sexually promiscuous (gay) club scenes of the 70s onwards were cultural icons for music and fashion with a profound effect on the mainstream of society. To suggest that that would not happen in a sexual dimension is, I think, naive.
Permit me to rephrase, then. Exgaywatch says:
A recurring argument in the book is that gay rights and civil partnerships inevitably lead to accepting all sorts of sexual practices. Therefore, in the “Glossary of Terms in the Gay Debate,” it is thought necessary to define “Necrophilia,” “Intergenerational Love” and “Polyamoury [sic],” along with the more obvious terms. Another appendix provides quotes from pedophile activists, and offers links to websites about zoophilia, bestiality and incest.
1. Is there in fact a “Glossary of Terms in the Gay Debate,” which devotes space to necrophilia, pedophilia, and polyamoury in the book?
2. Is there in fact an appendix with quotes from pedophile activists and links to websites about zoophilia, bestiality, and incest in the book?
3. If the answer to either of the above is yes, do you believe it is legitimate for the authors to link these practices with homosexuality?
4. Are you suggesting in your reply above that the gay rights movement is encompassed by 70’s club culture? Given that the 70’s club culture of free sex and drugs contained both homosexual and (much larger) heterosexual components, would you make the same link to contemporary heterosexual America? When the book states:
Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars.
should we apply the same logic and conclude that heterosexuals primarily go to church so they can sleep it off and cleanse their consciences after a Saturday night key party?
I really don’t think anybody should accuse others of having sex with children without any good cause or evidence. I don’t and I wouldn’t expect anybody else to. End of story.
I did not accuse, I asked. Does your statement that you do not expect anyone else to accuse others of sex with children without good cause or evidence extend to the authors and editors of this book? Or is it okay because they did so in a more innuendo-style fashion?
More to the point, to be perfectly blunt, you have given me cause to question if you have had sex with children. If (and again, please correct me if I am mistaken) the claims about appendices mentioned above are correct, and the quote:
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be … legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism.
does in fact appear in the book, and since you have allowed yourself to be associated with these claims, then the obvious question is:
What outlandish forms of sexual fetishism did you engage in before you joined the ex-gay movement?
Some of the practices listed above, including necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, are criminal acts. Again, given that you have chosen to allow yourself to be associated with these claims, this raises the obvious question:
Did the outlandish sexual fetishism which this book claims you are likely to have engaged in involve criminal acts?
and
If your answer is yes, has your Christian conscience motivated you to confess to the proper authorities?
Boo - you make me want read this book.
If your assertions are correct, I rejoice that such a bad book has been written in such a misguided cause.
Winston.
Boo,
Let me come back at you with one paragraph from a link you used:
Do you understand what that means? It means that we don’t have, just as I said above, really good research on the average age at death of non-HIV gay men. Cameron’s research is flawed, but similar studies are the best we have so far in making an educated guess.
I don’t think I’ve anywhere defended the use of Cameron’s data in the book. What I have said is that criticisms need to be based on more than just “well that’s just homophobic”.
The objections to Cameron’s study (quite rightly) are that it is a selective sample, i.e. only those gay men who’s obituaries were published. That doesn’t mean that the observations themselves are incorrect, rather it means that it is a particular stratified sample. Ideally a follow-up survey should attempt to compare age at death of gay vs straight participants (or reported participants) to get a more accurate feel.
Finally on this subject, this sentence in the slate.com piece is mathematical nonsense:
That’s assuming a completely flat distribution of death ages. The same average age of death (43) could be achieved with a clustering around age 40 and then a falling tail of higher ages. Bad journalism from bad maths (speaketh the man who made his living from hard sums).
As to your criticisms of Lisa Nolland’s content about the plasticisation of sexuality, I think there is a clear sociological link between all forms of sexual liberality and that includes homosexual practice. That’s the argument that Nolland is making, that homosexual practice has been at the forefront of sexual plasticisation and that we can expect changing attitudes to these other practices to follow over time. I think I’d want to make a distinction though between saying that increased liberalisation in sexual practice leads an individual onto specific practices (i.e. homosexual behaviour leads to paedophilic) and the general shift in societal acceptance (i.e. society accepting sado-masichistic sex leads slowly to beastiality etc). I think Nolland is very clearly making the second point and you are concluding the first point. Not sure she is though.
So in the light of this, now let’s turn to the child sex allegation. You understand exactly what I’m saying, so let me turn the challenge back to you. In your understanding, are the authors of the book specifically accusing certain distinct named people of moving into child sex practices?
As for the claim I have let myself be associated with the words “allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples”, I didn’t write that and I don’t think I have endorsed that claim once. Ever. If you think otherwise please demonstrate it. The fact that my testimony appears in the same book cannot in any sense be taken as either endorsement or disapproval. It is an edited collection of various essays and none of the individual contributors had a veto over the rest of the content.
Finally on this subject, I am simply not going to answer your questions on whether I have or haven’t slept with children, dead corpses, zebras or anything else that you might ask me. You may draw any assumption from that that you will.
Winston,
Get hold of a copy of the book. It’s only £5 from the Latimer Trust. I think you’ll be rightly incensed and intrigued by it.
Do you understand what that means? It means that we don’t have, just as I said above, really good research on the average age at death of non-HIV gay men. Cameron’s research is flawed, but similar studies are the best we have so far in making an educated guess.
And as such, it is extremely irresponsible to reference it when we know it is highly flawed. We don’t have to accept bad data just because we don’t have good data. A more honest course would be to say we simply don’t know. A more responsible course, given that we simply don’t know, would be not to try and bring the subject up in the first place in this book because, since we don’t know, there is nothing valid to be contributed to the debate by pointless speculation on subjects where we don’t know. You know? Especially when said highly flawed data comes from a man who:
was kicked out of the APA specifically for manipulating research on homosexuality
has been disavowed by the ASA
was called a liar by the judge the last time he tried to offer “expert” testimony at trial
publishes almost all of his “studies” in the non-peer-reviewed, pay-to-publish vanity journal “psychological reports”
published a study claiming that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children that was based on a sample he obtained from buying three books about gay parents, none of which made any claim to represent a statistically valid sample, and one of whose authors contacted Cameron and told him (and also wrote it in the book’s forward) that she intentionally set out to include half gay kids and half str8 kids, to no avail
praised the Nazi commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolph Hoss, for knowing “how to handle homosexuals”
I don’t think I’ve anywhere defended the use of Cameron’s data in the book. What I have said is that criticisms need to be based on more than just “well that’s just homophobic”.
You have allowed yourself to be associated with it through appearing in this book, and you have refused to condemn it. Same difference. Also, as already noted, the criticisms are not based on “well that’s just homophobic,” so please stop trying to use that ridiculous strawman. The criticisms, as you well know, are based on Cameron’s extremely flawed research methodology.
The objections to Cameron’s study (quite rightly) are that it is a selective sample, i.e. only those gay men who’s obituaries were published. That doesn’t mean that the observations themselves are incorrect, rather it means that it is a particular stratified sample.
And as such, it is dishonest to present it, as Cameron has done, as being representative of the gay population. Do you understand what I mean when I say “dishonest?” It means making a statement which you know to be untrue. Does the book specifically state that Cameron’s sample is not a reliable representation of the gay population, and as such offers us no insight whatsoever into the average lifespan of homosexuals? Because if it does not, that is also dishonest. See above definition. (admittedly, it could be extreme ignorance on the book writers/editors/publishers part, but people with such a poor understanding of social science research shouldn’t really be trying to tackle the subject in the first place.)
That’s assuming a completely flat distribution of death ages. The same average age of death (43) could be achieved with a clustering around age 40 and then a falling tail of higher ages. Bad journalism from bad maths (speaketh the man who made his living from hard sums).
You left out the preceding part:
Suppose he assumes–wildly pessimistically, given current incidence data–that half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. (Presumably protease inhibitors will extend average longevity, but that will only increase Bennett’s difficulty.) For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46.
Try not to quote so selectively in the future.
As to your criticisms of Lisa Nolland’s content about the plasticisation of sexuality, I think there is a clear sociological link between all forms of sexual liberality and that includes homosexual practice. That’s the argument that Nolland is making, that homosexual practice has been at the forefront of sexual plasticisation and that we can expect changing attitudes to these other practices to follow over time. I think I’d want to make a distinction though between saying that increased liberalisation in sexual practice leads an individual onto specific practices (i.e. homosexual behaviour leads to paedophilic) and the general shift in societal acceptance (i.e. society accepting sado-masichistic sex leads slowly to beastiality etc). I think Nolland is very clearly making the second point and you are concluding the first point. Not sure she is though.
Well, someone in that book clearly is:
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be … legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism.
Therefore, in the “Glossary of Terms in the Gay Debate,” it is thought necessary to define “Necrophilia,” “Intergenerational Love” and “Polyamoury [sic],” along with the more obvious terms. Another appendix provides quotes from pedophile activists, and offers links to websites about zoophilia, bestiality and incest.
You have also advanced my point for me:
As to your criticisms of Lisa Nolland’s content about the plasticisation of sexuality, I think there is a clear sociological link between all forms of sexual liberality and that includes homosexual practice. That’s the argument that Nolland is making, that homosexual practice has been at the forefront of sexual plasticisation and that we can expect changing attitudes to these other practices to follow over time.
Should we then assume that most heterosexuals are in church to sleep it off and cleanse their consciences after a late Saturday night of debauchery, as the book claims for homosexuals?
Also, given that it has been nearly 40 years since Stonewall, if there was this “clear sociological link” you claim (with no evidence), wouldn’t we have seen some kind of relaxing of societal attitudes towards bestiality or pedophilia by now? Also, if you are correct, why has the gay rights movement made tremendous advances since the 90’s while the free love movement and club culture have receded since the 70s?
So in the light of this, now let’s turn to the child sex allegation. You understand exactly what I’m saying, so let me turn the challenge back to you. In your understanding, are the authors of the book specifically accusing certain distinct named people of moving into child sex practices?
Of course not. As I stated, they appear to much prefer the innuendo approach: scare people with vague generalizations, and let them draw their own conclusions. That’s why I asked:
Did the outlandish sexual fetishism which this book claims you are likely to have engaged in involve criminal acts?
As I understand exactly what you’re saying, I’m sure you understand exactly what I’m saying. We both know perfectly well that the claims made along these lines in the book aren’t meant to withstand scrutiny. Their sole purpose is to provide a cudgel with which to bludgeon the gay rights movement. But here’s the thing; keep making claims like these, and sooner or later someone is going to actually take them seriously. So I called the bluff. Since I know these claims are untrue, I have no cause to believe you have ever molested children. However, if I were to actually take what the book claims at face value, then if I ever happened to be out with my nieces and nephew and saw you on the street, I would shoo them away, because I would have been taken in by the false claim that people such as yourself are much more likely than normal to be child molesters, and after all you can’t be too careful. Over and over and over again I’ve read ex-gays complaining that their fellow churchgoers don’t really accept them. Why do you think that is, Mr. Ould? Might it possibly be because some of their fellow churchgoers actually believe this stuff? Of course we both understand that it was never meant to be that way. Of course it was only supposed to be used for political ammunition. But if you make the bed you just might have to lie in it.
As for the claim I have let myself be associated with the words “allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples”, I didn’t write that and I don’t think I have endorsed that claim once. Ever. If you think otherwise please demonstrate it. The fact that my testimony appears in the same book cannot in any sense be taken as either endorsement or disapproval. It is an edited collection of various essays and none of the individual contributors had a veto over the rest of the content.
You have endorsed these claims by appearing in the book. It was your choice to allow youself to be associated, and by doing so you have de facto endorsed them. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. If you think that is unfair, then you can do a very simple thing regarding those claims right here and now:
Repudiate them.
Repudiate Cameron.
Repudiate the false attempts to link homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, etc.
Repudiate the claim that gay people only go to church to sleep off late night crusing.
Repudiate the claim that same-sex monogamy is a scam.
Repudiate this claim:
And, gentle reader, [the porn section of a gay bookshop] is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.
Repudiate this statement:
How many more children are going to be sacrificed to this Molech?
And repudiate all the other false and outrageous demonizations of gay people which appear in the book. Don’t give me the typical ex-gay weaseling of writing a whole paragraph that doesn’t actually say anything. Don’t give me half measures. Don’t tell me it’s about different points of view. Don’t give me some vague generality about how you may not necessarily agree with perhaps some of the things which may or may not appear somewhere in the book.
Just. Repudiate. Them.
Because sooner or later, you’re going to be confronted by people who really did take them seriously.
Boo,
Let me reply yet again to your comments. You would do well to read what I actually write, not what you think I am thinking and trying to avoid saying. You cannot assume that if I do not say something that I necessarily believe or reject it. If I have not said it, I have not said it.
Firstly, you’re absolutely right that some of the things Cameron has said about homosexuals are offensive and derogatory. He has been removed from various professional bodies. None of that is in question. What is in question is whether, even given the fact that his research on the age of death of non-HIV gay men is flawed to a lesser or greater extent (and we can argue till the cows come home on this one - the bottom line is that of the sample that Cameron took, the average age at death was remarkably low), that there is any other evidence to suggest he is wrong.
My wife publishes academic papers in journals. The fact that a particular journal includes her paper does not mean that she necessarily endorses the conclusions of the other papers in that journal. In the same way, you simply cannot infer that because an editor asks me to contribute my testimony to a compendium of essays, that I automatically endorse everything else in that volume. To assume as much is immature and unsophisticated.
Your extension of the quote from the slate.com piece still demonstrates flawed mathematics. All you’re showing is that you have a vary basic understanding of data sets and statistics.
Your quote from the book about “the scam of monogamous same-sex couples” is taken from the Lee piece, not from Nolland’s. I personally think that Lee is far too offensive at this point. It’s very clear simply by looking at the Civil Partnership registration figures in the UK that a significant number of same-sex couples manage happy monogamous lives. At the same time, promiscuity also exists. The production of a same-sex couple who have been monogamous for 30 years does not disprove the existence of promiscuity and vice-versa. One of the disappointing things about the Lee piece is that he failed to meet faithful same-sex couples. If others choose to publicise that failure to observe same-sex couples, then those who believe that rampant promiscuity is not the hallmark of the “gay community” should demonstrate otherwise, as many do.
The bottom line is this Boo - I did not write Lee’s piece and neither did I commission it or play any part in it appearing in a book I was asked to contribute to.
I’m disappointed once again that when, as before, later in your comment the discussion turns to the child sex issue (again - you keep on raising it), you resort to personal attack and abuse. I am simply not willing to engage with you on this specific issue as long as you continue to be personally offensive. We can have a calm and relaxed discussion about the sexualisation of society or you can throw innuendos in abundance at me. Your choice.
So to sum up, your claim that I have personally endorsed the remaining content in the book by agreeing to have my submission included is ludicrous, and you only make yourself look worse each time you and others claim it. It is an utter logical and literary fallicy to suggest that any contributor to a compendium of essays automatically apologises for the other contributions. You cannot assume I either endorse or repudiate any of the other pieces in the book just because I do or don’t say so publicly, and furthermore (more importantly) I don’t need to. If you have a problem with the Lee essay, go and bug him. If you want to ask my opinion about it then go ahead, but do not assume I am an apologist for Lee and that he is an apologist for me. Such an assumption is naivé in the extreme and only demonstrates poor debating skills.
Peter,
Surely, if Cameron did say such things, as Boo contends, about Auschwitz, it is totally unacceptable for any Christian to be associated with him or his name, especially in a book seeking to engender the values of Jesus Christ in today’s world.
Surely, the editors of the book could have found a more credible and moral witness for their case than this individual? By the way, what other leading scientists in the field would support Cameron’s views?
Yours, Winston.
Winston,
I think it was very unwise for the editors to include Cameron’s research for exactly the reasons you have just said. I’m not aware of any other credible researchers who would endorse Cameron’s paper.
Thanks for asking the question in a reasoned and non-emotive manner. I hope my response indicates exactly where I stand.
Peter,
You said:
O.K., fair enough. But, with respect, I think that there is a distinction to be made here. God, Gays and the Church is not comparable to an academic journal. It is a book that is offered as an attempt to “redress the balance” in the “listening process”, and it apparently seeks to persuade the Anglican Communion to adopt a rejecting attitude to all gays and lesbians who do not accept that they are morally obliged either to “convert” to heterosexuality or, if they find that impossible, to lead lives of perpetual sexual abstinence.
If I were to contribute a paper to, let us say for example, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, I should not be troubled one whit by the fact that the same Number (or other Numbers) of the Journal contained papers with whose contents I disagreed, since the Journal itself does not exist to propagate any particular theory or point of view. Indeed, the following disclaimer appears on the inside cover of each Number: “In keeping with most scientific bodies, the Society holds no corporate views, and any opinions expressed in this Journal or the Society’s other publications are those of the authors alone.”
On the other hand, if I were to contribute an essay to a book which aimed to put the gay Christian point of view to Church leaders, I should be very unhappy indeed if it later transpired that the book also contained essays which advocated, for instance, the acceptance of paedophile practices in the Church. While I would not feel that my contributing to the book had implied my acceptance of the views of the other writers, I would still bitterly regret having done so.
On the other hand, if I were to contribute an essay to a book which aimed to put the gay Christian point of view to Church leaders, I should be very unhappy indeed if it later transpired that the book also contained essays which advocated, for instance, the acceptance of paedophile practices in the Church. While I would not feel that my contributing to the book had implied my acceptance of the views of the other writers, I would still bitterly regret having done so.
Yes. Absolutely. That is different though to being accused of promoting and endorsing the essay on paedophilia.
Hi Peter
Can I just ask why this thread is now split in two and the first part only comes up if you do a search? It is a pity because the arguments there from William, Boo and Winston are equally important and continuity is lost if you join the debate halfway through at A brief Review and the 14 Comments. Could you put a link back to previous comments if the whole lot can’t be joined up?
Cheers
Tom
Jill,
Based on what you say, I think it is impossible to ever see how there may be a place of genuine listening between people like you and me. It makes me wonder what it means for us to be baptised into the same faith since we clearly understand what it means to follow Jesus Christ very differently. In fact, sometimes I wonder if we worship the same God.
I do wonder, though, why you are so obsessed with this issue? In reality, most of the gay people I know just live their lives in pretty ordinary ways. Your sexualisation, if not demonisation, of us as walking time-bombs of disease does not relate to anything I experience in relationships with anyone in my life. As a teacher and priest, I thank God that I belong to communities where people do not think like you. I thank God my students do not hear your views - particularly the gay ones. I guess you might say likewise about your communities with regard to me. However, I think your passionate, if not vitriolic, polemic against homosexuality is ultimately futile. At the moment, it is only heard by a small group of individuals, many of them disconnected from the realities of living in a multicultural, pluralistic, secular society. I cannot see how this will ever change, and for this I give God thanks.
I do wish you well in your endeavours though. By the way (on a lighter note), everyone knows the picture is by Rembrandt, but it does look like someone giving a ‘blow-job’. I guess because I see it is like this is another indicator of my immorality - oh well, I am in good company.
Well, if I’d ever had any doubts as to whether the ex-gay path is for me, you’ve dispelled them, Mr. Ould. I value my integrity far to highly to go down your path, plus I don’t think I could master the complicated level of verbal gymnastics required.
So first:
Firstly, you’re absolutely right that some of the things Cameron has said about homosexuals are offensive and derogatory. He has been removed from various professional bodies. None of that is in question. What is in question is whether, even given the fact that his research on the age of death of non-HIV gay men is flawed to a lesser or greater extent (and we can argue till the cows come home on this one - the bottom line is that of the sample that Cameron took, the average age at death was remarkably low), that there is any other evidence to suggest he is wrong.
But then:
I think it was very unwise for the editors to include Cameron’s research for exactly the reasons you have just said. I’m not aware of any other credible researchers who would endorse Cameron’s paper.
So which is it? Were they right to put the paper in or not? Drop the equivocation and give me a simple yes or no. I repeat: the burden is on the person making the claim to prove they are right, not on other people to prove they are wrong. As noted, the same data set shows lesbians are 300 times as likely as str8 women to die in car crashes. If your data set leads you to conclusions that can’t possibly be true, then there is obviously something wrong with your data set. Claim debunked. End of story.
Your extension of the quote from the slate.com piece still demonstrates flawed mathematics. All you’re showing is that you have a vary basic understanding of data sets and statistics.
For your clustering idea to work, AIDS couldn’t have ever had any effect on the mortality rates of gay men. I think we know that’s obviously untrue. What would all those HIV negative gay men be dying of at 40? Parachute accidents?
If others choose to publicise that failure to observe same-sex couples, then those who believe that rampant promiscuity is not the hallmark of the “gay community” should demonstrate otherwise, as many do.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you believe that rampant promiscuity should be given special status as the null hypothesis, with the burden of proof not on those advancing the claim? Why?
So to sum up, your claim that I have personally endorsed the remaining content in the book by agreeing to have my submission included is ludicrous, and you only make yourself look worse each time you and others claim it. It is an utter logical and literary fallicy to suggest that any contributor to a compendium of essays automatically apologises for the other contributions. You cannot assume I either endorse or repudiate any of the other pieces in the book just because I do or don’t say so publicly, and furthermore (more importantly) I don’t need to. If you have a problem with the Lee essay, go and bug him. If you want to ask my opinion about it then go ahead, but do not assume I am an apologist for Lee and that he is an apologist for me. Such an assumption is naivé in the extreme and only demonstrates poor debating skills.
You may or may not be aware that NARTH got in pretty hot water a while back for publishing an article that argued that the civil rights movement was really about marxist political correctness and slavery really wasn’t all that bad. I was the one who found the article and got the ball rolling on that, although exgaywatch and Wayne Besen did most of the leg work. Not an enormous contribution to the gay rights movement on my part, but it was something. Let’s say at some point in the future Besen writes a follow up book to Anything But Straight documenting the further scandals of the ex-gay movement. Let’s say, for some wild reason, he asks me to contribute an essay. I happen to think Besen often goes a little too far in his rhetoric, so I’d want some idea of what else he was putting in the book. If I happened to discover that he was planning to link ex-gay therapists and organizations to bestiality and pedophilia (don’t get pissed at me, I wasn’t the one who put it in God Gays and the Church), or sentences like “And, gentle reader, [the porn section of a gay bookshop] is where most married ex-gays will spend the rest of the Saturday nights of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.” or “Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of ex-gays, we will be … legitimizing every kind of socio-political repression, from homophobia and anti-Semitism to the re-imposition of slavery.” then I would choose not to associate myself with a book like that. If I only found out about it after the fact, then I would take every step I could to repudiate the book and apologize for allowing myself to be used to help promote someone else’s hideous lies. I have integrity. Perhaps one day you will rediscover yours.
Oh, and after the NARTH debacle, Warren Throckmorton decided not to go and present at their conference. Throckmorton isn’t a NARTH member and had nothing to do with putting that essay on their site, but apparently his integrity wouldn’t allow him to associate himself with people who do that sort of thing.
I’m disappointed once again that when, as before, later in your comment the discussion turns to the child sex issue (again - you keep on raising it), you resort to personal attack and abuse. I am simply not willing to engage with you on this specific issue as long as you continue to be personally offensive. We can have a calm and relaxed discussion about the sexualisation of society or you can throw innuendos in abundance at me. Your choice.
If the radical right keeps promoting stuff like this book, I guarantee you I won’t be the last person you hear from on this issue. The difference is next time it may not be someone using hyperbole to make a point about double standards. It may be someone who actually believes the innuendo this book promotes about people like us.
And Winston- try the third article down on this link:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=140
Hopefully you have a strong stomach.
Although this quote is hysterical:
Some men were homosexual because they became weary of women through overindulgence or because they looked for new highs in their parasitic life.
Remember str8 guys, too much sex with women will turn you gay! It’s science!
Comment »
Okay, so many of you are not going to accept Paul Cameron’s statistics, no matter how nearly they coincide with other research. What about the Terrence Higgins Trust? Here are a few of the latest headlines:
Gay men are still the group at greatest risk of acquiring HIV here in the UK.
New HIV diagnoses amongst gay men are the highest ever and are continuing to rise, albeit slowly. Twenty five years into the UK experience of HIV, this is not good enough. We need to renew the fight.
Gay men continue to take risks with their sexual health.
In 2005, nearly half of all gay men in London who had gonorrhoea also had HIV. For men with LGV, co-infection with HIV rises to 80%. Between 1997 and 2006, new diagnoses of all STIs amongst gay men have risen by 112%.
Gay men with undiagnosed HIV are more likely than those who know they are positive to have unprotected anal sex.
Evidence suggests that men who do not know they have HIV are up to three times more likely than men who do know about their infection to pass the virus on. Yet rates for undiagnosed HIV remain the same from year to year.
Gay men are more likely to use drugs during casual sex.
In Sigma’s 2005 Gay Men’s Sex Survey, nearly two thirds of men surveyed at community venues reported drug use when they had sex with casual or regular partners in the previous year. HIV positive men were more likely to report drug use.
Pink News is also awash with articles on the health of gay men, reporting a rise in syphilis and evidence of HIV positive men being much more susceptible to other diseases.
And there is this, from a gay man, on World Aids Day, 2006, entitled ‘Gays are too proud to confront AIDS, still the real killer.’
clip) FORGET gay marriage: the real story about homosexual Australians on this World AIDS Day is, once again and shamefully, an HIV/AIDS tragedy. This is because new figures from the University of NSW’s National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research confirm a worrying trend. They indicate that 10 per cent to 18 per cent of the inner-city gay population of Sydney is HIV-infected. That means HIV infection rates are still rising.
By comparison, UN figures cited in The Sydney Morning Herald on Sunday claimed that Lesotho, a poor African nation, had infection rates of 20 per cent. That makes Sydney’s inner city comparable to an AIDS-ravaged African nation.
But you will not hear homoactivists, medical associations, legal institutes or others, some of whom have been very vocal in their support of gay unions, campaigning for a change in the way the gay community approaches the facts of infection, or arguing for a re-evaluation of the tenets of gay liberation.
They are too busy talking about relationship equality and gay marriage, even though the only reliable study of the intentions of gay men and lesbians, the Private Lives survey conducted by La Trobe University in 2006, found the overwhelming majority of gay men did not intend to formalise their relationships at all and that most weren’t even in a relationship of any kind, let alone in a union that would approach the mainstream definition of a marriage.
It is time, then, that ordinary Australians - whether same-sex attracted like me, or otherwise - stood up and demanded more from leaders and activists. It is time to clear away the politically correct nonsense, to stop focusing on fripperies such as gay marriage and other diversions and start focusing on something that will really assist gay men and the wider community: an intense campaign aimed at HIV/AIDS prevention. (end of clip)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20849414-7583,00.html
What do you think the purpose of these articles is? Would you consider them homophobic? If not, why do you consider Paul Cameron’s research to be homophobic? Or any of the research on which his was based, which came up with similar conclusions? In spite of the rather transparent attempt to link Paul Cameron with Nazis I cannot for the life of me see why this should be considered homophobic, or why he should have been the target for so much vitriol.
There is never going to be completely accurate data on life expectancy of gay men for a number of reasons, not least that not all same-sex attracted men wish to identify themselves as gay, and of course the fluidity of sexual ‘orientation’, which can change naturally over a lifetime. But I do think that you have got to stop being in denial, or trying to shoot the messenger.
Winston, I don’t think you have anything to fear from Christians, who value every human life as being equal in the sight of God, and will always love the sinner even if they cannot bestow approval on the sin. There is far more to worry about from right-wing secularists, who I believe will be on the increase because of increasingly strident gay ‘rights’ legislation forcing them where they don’t want to go, especially with issues like gay adoption and indoctrination of children. But more worrying, in my view, is the Islamic incursion which, if the present trend continues, with high immigration and high birthrates, will have a lot more influence, certainly in Europe. People in Civil Partnerships will be sitting ducks.
You are opposing the wrong people. We are the ones who will stand by you when the chips are down, and I think you will find some of your fair-weather friends will melt away.
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all citizens. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Dear Peter
Paul Cameron is such a can of worms I am surprised anyone who wants to be listened to uses him. The book in which you have an article purports to be a part of the “Listening Process” so what is the point if everyone turns off and doesn’t listen to what you others have to say which may be valuable because of the inclusion of someone so iffy as Cameron? They think “Cameron, NARTH, articles about miserable men in bookstore darkrooms, is that the best they can do?” and stifle a yawn at the transparent homophobia of it all.
I absolutely agree with you that it is not ultimately the responsibility of a contributor like you to vet the other entries. It absolutely IS the responsibility of the editors. Very much so, so if they have ballsed it up, in your shoes, I’d be pretty pissed off and I’d say so. I don’t think you are a homophobe but you seem to be in their company - a fifth column? (only joking). Good for you, Peter, because you keep before their faces the reality of gay people as flesh-and-blood humans with all the joys, fears and sorrows of everyone else and so easily demonised and scape-goated into a “gay lobby” intent on destruction of world order as they think it should be.
As for the argument that Cameron is the best research we’ve got because no one else has done obit studies like his, that’s a bit smelly. In the 60s Hans Eysenck was said to be the best authority we had on IQ and he said IQ tests proved that black people were less intelligent than whites. A lot of people went along with that in schools around the country. It was the best we had but it was wrong. Not only that, it was seriously damaging to black kids’ chances, parental expectations, and the well-being and self-acceptance of black people. I am not saying Eysenck was personally wicked in this, but his theories were - and we bought them. I don’t know enough about Cameron to know if he is wicked - his methods are wicked - worse than slapdash, so he probably is. He said Hitler had the right idea about gays - in my book that’s wicked.
Tom,
I’d be interested if anybody can source the Cameron Hitler quote.
Evening Peter,
just quickly: there’s no direct quote I know of but I would suggest you go to http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com and read their feature, ‘Paul Cameron’s World’ which quotes extensively from his work. You’ll see that he did say at one stage in the ’80s (discussing AIDS in America I think) that extermination of homosexuals might become “a plausible option”, among other examples.
in friendship, Blair
I am so glad I am not religious.
This, just like all the other debates on homosexuality and religion, is a waste of time and pixels.
Whilst you waste time debating the rights and wrongs, we’ll just get on with our lives, live how we want to live, and love who we want to love. If the Church and people at large were more concered about what’s in people hearts rather that what’s between their legs, we’d live in a much happier world.
I would urge you all to listen to the music of Bad Religion (a multi-million selling socio-political band with a university Professor for a lead singer).
Maybe it’ll help your world view.