Rather than address the actual point that Anglican Mainstream is making, Pitcher has chosen to make the grotesquely bigoted assertion that Anglican Mainstream is populated by people who are no better than racists – it must be so because he disagrees with them. This probably explains why he didn’t last long as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public affairs secretary.
From here:
I do see that the banned ads – ‘Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!’ – could have caused offence. But I tentatively suggest that the offence may have been worth it if Anglican Mainstream were forced to try to justify its ‘reparative therapy’ for homosexuality and, in doing so, were examined for the type of people they are. That worked at the last election with the BNP, which was blown away in the media airspace and is now electorally nowhere to be found.
And I do see that had our racist political parties (you know the ones) clubbed together for a campaign that read ‘Not black! Post-black, ex-black and proud. Get out!’, then it wouldn’t and shouldn’t have seen the light of day.
This Pitcher character seems to think that people have no control over their sexual behavior. But consider this. If our sexual desires are stonger than our ability to reason, than are we no better than animals (perhaps dogs and cats)? Would that not make us something less than a being capable of deciding our actions through rational thought?
A lot of women have made the comment that a man’s brain is below his waistline. Perhaps this Pitcher character agrees with that assessment.
Mr Pitcher’s point is clear. Gay people don’t choose to be gay, it is their nature. Most of us are heterosexual and we don’t choose that either. The Church calls us all to be chaste and has always taught fornication to be sinful. That applies to gay and straight people alike. So-called Anglican Mainstream peddles an entirely unscientific view, not held by the Church of England or the Catholic Church, that homosexual orientation of itself is sinful, is a disease, and can be cured. Apart from a small group of Protestant extremists, the only others to hold this view are right wing racists. That happens to be a fact and it should make you pause.
Just because they hold that some people can change their orientation, does not mean that they hold that the orientation itself is sinful.
The view that a person can be curred of their sexual dissorders is entirely scientific. Doctors treat people all the time who struggle with such things. A person who desires to have sex with children or animals and realizes that this is wrong and seeks treatement is provided the treatment they need. I strongly believe that a person who realizes that their homosexual desires are wrong and who seeks the help of a doctor to overcome this dissorder should be afforded the same compasion and treatment as anyone else. The fact that there are many people who used to have homosexual desires and have been cured of this provides us with scientific evidence that Anglican Mainstreams belief on this issue is correct.
Also, I take great offence at being accused of being a “racist”! I fully accept that all people are children of God and are made in God’s immage. To me it does not matter the colour of their skin, where they were born, or their ethnic background. To suggest that compasion and concern for those who suffer from a sexual dissorder is some sort of racism is both insulting and hurtful.
This also shows that he believes we worship an incapable God.
I get the impression that he wants to shoot the messenger (i.e ‘Anglican Mainstream”), in the time-honored fashion.
In my opinion, if someone is “gay”and is happy that way, that is their business, and maybe their partner’s, but no-one’s else. The question of “reparative therapy” should only be considered in the case of someone who feels the necessity and has the desire to change.
By the same token,though, religious and other organisations have the right to determine whether someone is acceptable to them in a ministry position.
Pietro,
You have expressed “your opinion”. More importantly, what is God’s?