++Mouneer Anis on the Hypocrisy of the LGBT lobbyists

From here

Everywhere we go here, we meet gay & lesbian activists, receive their newsletters or read about their many events. Many seem to be supported by North American churches. They are intent to push their agenda on us. No other lobbying groups seem to enjoy similar access, or be able to have their literature prominently displayed all over the campus and at the entrance to every residence. They are determined that their way is the only right way and that everyone else should follow. They are not at all open to listening to us or the historic church teaching. Yet, it is surprising that they push all these sexuality issues so intensively into the conference and then blame us for talking about them too much! In the attitude of some North American churches I am reminded of the arrogance of the American administration that made that mess in Iraq because it refused to listen to millions of voices from the wider world.

Follow the link to read even more of his speech. It’s powerful stuff!!

7 Comments on “++Mouneer Anis on the Hypocrisy of the LGBT lobbyists

  1. A couple of points:

    Firstly, there are only so many liberal groups because the conservatives chose not to come – you can hardly blame the liberals or organisers for that. 

    Secondly, since no openly gay bishop is allowed to attend the conference, it seems likely that the gay groups have tried hard at getting their voices heard from outside.

    Thirdly, it is interesting this comparison of the Episcopal Church with those who that of American foreign policy in the world.  Interesting in that the Episcopalians are the most active denomination in speaking out against such American imperialism while their conservative brethren generally support it wholeheartedly – something strangely paradoxical in that.

    As you can see bloggers, I am still spending too much time writing on Peter’s blog instead of writing a sermon.  It is the ‘Feeding of the 5000’ as the Gospel on Sunday.

  2. i wasn’t impressed with the natural law derived parts on the genitals being obviously designed for heterosexuality (the prostate is the male gspot, and it’s obvious how best to stimulate it) nor his mentioning the fact that he’s an MD and therefore his opinion on whether SSA is fixed and unchangeable should carry weight.

  3. Winston,

    I don’t think anybody’s objecting to the fact that their are LGBT lobbying groups at Lambeth. The objection is that the groups are deliberately high profile, distributing literature and then complaining that the church is obsessed with sexuality when it should be discussing other things!!!

    I think your third point is great. Yes, it is bizarre that TEC behaves exactly in the same manner that it objects that the USA behaves.



    You don’t have to have gay sex to have sex that stimulates the prostate.


    Let the reader understand.

  4. I’m impressed Peter :-).

    Much of the complimentary genitals arguments sound plausible but that is hardly the same thing as them being true (this is certainly true of Gagnon). E.g. if I said that “men have sex with women because they want to feel like conquerers, this is evidenced by the popularity of the missionary position and low self-esteem of those who rely on porn and masturbaion” then many might regard it as feasible, but I have proven nothing. Freud and Jung weren’t scientists, and I don’t see what Christians like Gagnon achieve by aping their methods.

  5. Don’t get me wrong Ryan, I do think that the male and female genitalia are designed to be complementary in a way which male/male female/female are not. I just don’t think that’s the correct Scriptural objection to same-sex activity.

  6. Peter

    I think Gagnon’s “embodied existence” argument is such that, if it’s true, “scientific” observations should be obvious e.g. that his quoting of (say) the high rates of mental illness in same-sex couples even in non-homophobic cultures is evidence of his scriptural exegis (specifically the Genesis origin story), not just another argument being offered for ideological reasons. Do you concede that *your* anti-homosex arguments are primarily religious (which I’m  not using in any pejorative sense) as opposed to your position on abortion ?

    +Gene’s book is great, incidently (I don’t know if his recounting of his one meeting with the ABC is common knowledge, but it was quite interesting) Hope to get it autographed on Sunday ;-)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.