Tag Archives: homosexuality

Some interesting numbers from the UK on the percentage of the population that is homosexual

Posted on by
4

From here:

The first ever official count of the gay population has found that only one in 100 adults is homosexual.

The figure explodes the assumption  –  long promoted by social experts and lobbyists  –  that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten.

The Office for National Statistics said 1.3 per cent of men are gay and 0.6 per cent of women are lesbian.

Another 0.5 per cent consider themselves bisexual, according to the figures gathered from questions put to nearly 250,000 – the biggest survey possible outside a full national census.

This means that, in total, around 1.5 per cent of the population is either homosexual or bisexual.

There isn’t much reason to suppose that the percentages would be substantially different in North America. I strongly suspect that the percentage of homosexual Anglican priests is much higher, though.

Other than the attraction of dressing up in robes, I can’t think of any convincing reason for this: it does help to explain the obsession that the Anglican church has for what it calls “the full inclusion of gays”. It has more to do with self-interest than anything else.

Homosexuals in the military: Don't ask, don't tell

Posted on by
24

From here:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.

Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s probably only a matter of time before the law is repealed, though:

The law is already under siege. A federal judge in California recently ruled the ban on gays was unconstitutional, polls suggest a majority of Americans oppose it and Lady Gaga has challenged it in a YouTube video.

What chance does it have if Lady Gaga – a well known advisor to the US military – is against it? She has a simple solution to opposition:

She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are “uncomfortable” with gay soldiers in their midst.

“Our new law is called ‘If you don’t like it, go home!'” she said.

This  would probably result in the most Marines heaving a sigh of relief and returning home to their families, leaving the US military looking something like this:

We’ll probably wait a long time before General Petraeus complains that an openly gay military would be like a red flag to a bull for the Taliban and will endanger lives.

Rev. Canon Douglas Graydon pleads for the excluded

Posted on by
5

The Rev. Canon Douglas Graydon considers the great Anglican non event of 2010 – General Synod – and writes:

And yet, gay and lesbian Anglicans continue to stand off to the side, relegated to being less than complete human beings within our community of faith. As long as the learning, discerning

prayerful debates or indaba-like conversations continue, gay and lesbian Anglicans will be denied what every other Anglican enjoys: the full and blessed recognition of our relationships.

Let us keep in mind the human dimension of every church debate that involves the “worthiness” of another to receive the recognition and blessing of “the church.” And recognize the suffering experienced by those who are excluded, year after year, decade after decade.

God help us to learn more quickly from our own history of exclusion and to live more boldly Christ’s radical love of inclusion.

Rev. Graydon is one mixed up Canon.

99% of Canadians who freely choose – indeed, who could not be dragged kicking and screaming into an Anglican Church – to “stand off to the side” of Anglicanism would probably be shocked to learn that, by doing so, they are  “less than complete human beings”. For most of humanity, “blessing” resides in the comforting assurance that “decade after decade” they have been absent from an Anglican Church.

Every other Anglican does not enjoy “the full and blessed recognition” of his relationships. My dog and I have a deep, committed but hitherto unblessed relationship; he is hurt and feels profoundly excluded every Sunday when I set off to church without him, although his grief is considerably assuaged by noting the presence of the Anglican Journal in the cat’s litter box.

A blessing from an average Canadian Anglican Church isn’t worth much, so the “worthiness” of its recipient isn’t particularly relevant. In a real church, though, parishioners are acutely aware that they are unworthy of anything at all: any worthiness that has accrued to them is through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross and any blessing an unearned favour, not a “right” to be bludgeoned out of the disintegrating Anglican diabolarchy that masquerades as a church.

The Rev. Canon should try and keep up with the times a little more. The “new gay” is polyamory; when is he going to start campaigning for the egregiously excluded polyamorists? – after all, they suffer so.

Castro blames himself for persecution of homosexuals

Posted on by
Reply

It tears at the heartstrings.
From the BBC:

Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.

“If someone is responsible, it’s me,” he said.

In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to “re-education camps”.

….

‘At the time we were being sabotaged systematically, there were armed attacks against us, we had too many problems,” said the 84-year-old Communist leader.

“Keeping one step ahead of the CIA, which was paying so many traitors, was not easy.”

I knew about the exploding cigar, but this is the first I’ve heard about the CIA paying people in Cuba to be homosexual. It must be the same in the Anglican Church: there are so many homosexual priests because of a CIA plot to bring down Anglicanism.

A letter to Bishop Colin Johnson from a parishioner concerned about diocesan participation in the Toronto Pride Parade

Posted on by
1

The letter:

Dear Bishop,

I am writing as a concerned Anglican who would like to bring to your attention a float that was present at this past Sunday’s Gay Pride Parade, a painted up double-decker bus with a banner from end to end which read PROUD ANGLICANS and which featured a great number of people semi-attired waving the gay flag about. To see this float for yourself, assuming you weren’t in attendance, please visit the youtube posting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOnefx4zg8A&

First of all, I would like to know if this float met with Diocesan approval, and if so, why? I am aware that our church is struggling with the issue of the blessings of same sex marriage and the consecrating of gay and lesbian bishops and that a lot of people within the church are struggling in earnest with these questions. But I would suggest that most would have no problems with their reservations on either issue after seeing this display of licensed exhibitionism and decadence and I for one would like to both see and hear the Bishop of my Diocese stand up and say so publicly in order to protect the church from further embarrassment.

Secondly, I have noticed since my return from Prague, Czech Republic, (where I have spent the last 15 years) that a lot of Anglican Churches in the Toronto Diocese have the gay rainbow insignia either on their church doors or sign fronts. I would like to know if this practice too has met with Diocesan approval and the reasons, if so, why? Surely the only insignia or iconography that belongs on either a church door or sign front should be that of the particular Saint to which the church is dedicated?

From my year back in Canada I am very disappointed at all of this, and after what I witnessed this weekend my fear is that the Anglican Church is preoccupied with sharing the gospel of Church Street and not with the gospel of the Church.

Respectfully,
John McKillop

Bishop Colin’s response:

Dear John,

The focus for the diocese of Toronto is building Christian communities of hope and compassion through healthy, vibrant and life-giving congregations.  We believe that the good news of Jesus Christ is at the heart of that.  We are fully engaged in being a missional church, strengthening both the traditional ways of being church that have nurtured countless people through the centuries as well as seeking to respond where God’s Spirit is leading us in mission to those who are not in church in creative new ways.  At Synod last year, we recognised that our focus needs to be missional, and that while issues of sexuality were important, they were secondary.  We agreed by consensus that issues of same sex blessings, etc. were better dealt with pastorally than legislatively.  The diocese of Toronto is a richly diverse body representing the wide spectrum of theological, spiritual and liturgical expressions that lie within the Anglican tradition.  Some people are more intensely engaged in the sexuality issues (on the many sides of the discussion) than others or than I am.  I can think of other things that offend me more.  I said in my sermon at my installation that I wish all of us would expend as much energy on alleviating poverty and injustice as fighting about sex.

In answer to some of your comments: the float (which I did not see and to which your link did not connect me – although my children attended the Pride parade) was not diocesan sponsored, and I have no comment to make about it; the official policy of the Anglican Church is that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are welcome; those parishes which choose to use the rainbow on the sign to signify they are specifically gay-friendly can do so by their own decision processes – I could not dictate otherwise in any case, even of I were so inclined.

Welcome home from Prague.  I’m looking forward to my first visit there this summer.

The Most Rev’d Colin R. Johnson,

Archbishop of Toronto
and Metropolitan of Ontario
Anglican Diocese of Toronto
135 Adelaide St., E.,
Toronto, ON  Canada  M5C 1L8

Gay man sues over blood donation

Posted on by
3

The latest case of a homosexual insisting on giving blood is from China:

A GAY editor is making Chinese legal history by becoming the first person to sue Beijing Red Cross Blood Center (BRCBC) for refusing his blood. The case is now waiting to be filed at the Beijing higher people’s court.

The editor, named Wang Zizheng (his pen name), tried to donate blood at Xidan Books Building on June 6. He replied he was gay in the health questionnaire and was told he was not qualified to be a donor by officers from BRCBC.

“We don’t suggest homosexuals, both gays and lesbians, donate their blood, as a precaution for the receivers,” said an officer from BRCBC. “We are following the health standard for blood donors issued by the Ministry of Health.”

Wang felt he was being discriminated against.

“What is wrong with homosexuals?”

Every Christmas as a child, my grandmother would give me socks; but at least she had enough sense to know that she couldn’t reasonably expect me want something I loathed just because she was eager to give it to me. The curious insinuation that there is something unfair going on here reminds me a bit of this:

Toronto Pride parade allows hate speech

Posted on by
8

From the CBC:

Jewish groups are angry that organizers of Toronto’s Gay Pride festival have decided to reverse an earlier ban that prevented the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group from participating in the Pride Week events.

Earlier this year, Pride Toronto decided to ban the group from their July 4 parade for fear that allowing them to participate would jeopardize their funding from the City of Toronto.

That decision caused an outcry within Pride Toronto, with some members saying the decision smacked of censorship.

On Thursday, Pride Toronto’s board lifted the ban, saying it was not up to them to decide whether groups violated the city’s anti-discrimination policy. Instead, Pride Toronto will now ask all groups participating in Pride Week to first sign the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

Giorgio Mammoliti, who is also running for mayor, will introduce a motion at council demanding that Pride return all city funding, about $250,000.

Generally I am all for allowing anyone to say whatever they want; that some people – including Jimmy Carter – foolishly call Israel’s attempts to protect itself “apartheid” is more a comment on their own blinkered anti-Israel bigotry than anything else.

But now we have the organisers of the Gay Pride festival who, if criticised, are only too ready to deflect the criticism with shrill cries of “homophobia” and “hate speech”, permitting a contingent in their parade to display – hate speech. And the city of Toronto is paying $250,000 – so far, at least – to help them finance it.

The idiocy of all this is not diminished by the fact that the only country in the Middle East that allows a gay pride march is the one Queers Against Israeli Apartheid are determined to vilify.

Obliterating the distinction between men and women

Posted on by
Reply

Dennis Prager has some pertinent things to say on the GLBT letters:

So, why the T in GLBT?

Because the Left seeks to obliterate the distinction between men and women. They consider this distinction to be a social construct. That is why, to this day, despite all the scientific evidence (as if that were needed) proving how different male and female brains are, many left-wing academics still argue that boys play with trucks rather than with dolls because of sexist socialization.

And that is why, on the left, changing the definition of marriage is only worth a shrug. Since there are no inherent differences between men and women, what difference could it possibly make whether a man marries a man or a woman? Or if children have two fathers, two mothers, or a father and a mother?

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization, the Left’s attempts to erase this distinction are worth fighting against. For those who see no purpose in maintaining this distinction, its demise is worth no more than a shrug.

It is extraordinary how many otherwise rather staid and sober companies have jumped on this particular bandwagon – not, I think, in order to sell more of their products, but to be seen as supporting what they believe to be a social virtue: diversity.

LGBTQQIP?

Posted on by
1

From a technological perspective I am a child of my times: I like gadgets, computers, digital imaging, the Internet (I’m not sure how I coped so long without it) and I may even learn to like the iPad when it starts multi-tasking.

When it comes to language, though, I am more at home with the prose of Trollope than Twitter. So encountering a post-English atrocity like LGBTQQIP, presents the unpalatable temptation to do the opposite of what I occasionally succumbed to in a more colourful if muddled era: turn-off and tune-out.

One can’t dignify “LGBTQQIP” with the attribute of meaning, but it apparently begs to be applied to a person who is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Pansexual. I remain unclear as to whether one must be suffering all these afflictions simultaneously in order to lay claim to the acronym, but I suspect no-one is counting.

Were I allowed the speak at the forthcoming Anglican General Synod in Halifax – where I will be a blogging visitor –  it is a question I would bring up for deliberation in euphoric anticipation that someone would take me seriously.