Same old story, different side of the ocean.
Counselor is fundamentalist Christian, counselor behaves in a way that violates the standards of her profession by trying to “help” a gay man become straight, counselor faces disciplinary action, counselor cries discrimination, counselor should get job where the standards aren’t so hard/professional, etc.
Mrs Pilkington was targeted by a gay journalist who persuaded her to help him change his sexuality. Patrick Strudwick attended sessions with her with a tape recorder strapped to his stomach and then published a critical article about her in the Independent newspaper.
Payout: Peter and Hazelmary Bull were found to have acted unlawfully by banning a gay couple from staying in their hotel
She is now appearing before a professional conduct panel of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and faces losing her accreditation if she is found to have breached its rules.[...]
The ‘conversion’ therapy practised by Mrs Pilkington, 60, is held in contempt by gay lobby groups.
Mr Strudwick runs a campaign called the Stop Conversion Therapy Taskforce, and has said: ‘Every major mental health organisation in Britain and America is opposed to attempts to change someone’s sexuality. There is good evidence not only that it doesn’t work but that it is harmful.’
Mrs Pilkington has treated ten patients over the past decade using a programme called Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. She says that her gay son is among those she has been able to help.
Poor gay son. It must have been awful to grow up with that sort of mother.
Michael Jones at Change.org provides essential context to Pilkington’s sob story:
“We say everybody is heterosexual, but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is in the upbringing,” Pilkington told the Sunday Telegraph.
Ah, but therein lies a bit of a problem for Pilkington. That’s because her position that homosexuality is a problem rightly runs counter to ethical standards and codes of conduct put forward by the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP). This week, the BACP will determine whether or not to strip her of her psychotherapy credentials.
They should.
Pilkington is entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs and principles she wants. But by championing and practicing the destructive concept of “conversion therapy,” she’s violating in very clear terms the mission statement and objectives put forward by the BACP for its accredited psychologists.
Exactly.
“Nobody is born gay. It is in the upbringing,”
So how did she give her own son Teh Gay? Is she saying she was a bad mommy?
Basically if she wants to practice religious witch-doctoring she should work for a church, not a clinic. She can’t whine when she’s being told as she has to adhere to the standards of her profession. What’s next, trepanning to release demons because their “deeply held religious beliefs” deem it proper, and whining that they’re being persecuted if they’re fired for it?
So…she’s admitting that, according to her own standards, she was a lousy mother?
Mrs. Pilkington, her name sounds like a crazy old lady from an episode of Murder she wrote.
Emma-LOL, I was thinking the same thing while reading this –why do they all sound like characters from Charles Dickens?
Her ‘cured’ son is probably really a corpse home in bed wearing a cricket uniform.
I just kept thinking “crazy old Mrs. Piklington, was aquitted of poisoning her two husbands, now lives alone with her cat.
Actually, Gary, she doesn’t claim that her son, who is heterosexual but with a homosexual problem, is “cured” yet – just that she is making progress, presumably by nagging him. Poor son!
Is no one bothered that Mr Strudwick lied to Mrs Pilkington?
Mr Strudwick knew what the therapy on offer was, asked to take part in it, then complained when Mrs Pilkington conducted the therapy. No one forced him to take the therapy, He asked for it.
Who is showing a lack of integrity?
The job of a reporter is to gather facts and tell the real story. In the case of “ex-gay” therapists, this requires reporters to go undercover. When reporters do not go undercover, “ex-gay” activists sugarcoat the truth for mainstream audiences, engage in disingenuous spin or flat out mislead.
Thus, Strudwick engaged in solid journalism. I’m sure you may not like the outcome of his accurate report. But, due to his techniques we have a genuine glimpse of these bogus groups.
It is, of course, Mrs. Pilkington who lacks integrity because she is a charlatan who peddles a fraudulent product that is harmful, unscientific and ineffective. On the other hand, Strudwick’s product — his report — was helpful and very effective.
Don’t blame the messenger for exposing the snake oil salesman.
The PC world we live in is the devil in all of this. The devils greatest trick was to make people think he doesn’t exist. PC makes people think this problem doesn’t exist. And to speak out about it WOOOO, don’t do it. Love everyone for sure. There should be no bashing. Those who say people are born gay can’t prove it it’s just the acceptable stance to take. There are masculine men and feminine men as there are women but expressing that in a gay form is against the will of God. There are ex-gay people all around the world that have been changed and are happy for it. God put men and women here to pro-create and that’s the purpose of sex which has been scewed by recent times of thinking it’s for pleasure. Let me know how many gay people have pro-created. I pray for them all.
Tom
Prove that you were born heterosexual, then.
———————————-
In a TV show about “ex-gays” that was on the Oprah Winfrey Network just Tuesday night, the head of Exodus, Alan Chambers
“Lisa Ling: Even the head of Exodus says he doesn’t believe you can change your sexual orientation. He says that he constantly has to fight his attraction for men.”
Lisa Ling on “The View” (http://gay.americablog.com/2011/03/head-of-exodus-tells-lisa-ling-you-cant.html?utm_content=backtype-tweetcount&utm_medium=bt.io-twitter&utm_source=pamshouseblend.com)
So, since there are all these people who you claim have changed, can’t you find a SINGLE one of them to run Exodus, since even the president of Exodus says that sexual orientation can’t be changed and that he fights against his attraction to men all the time?
@Tom:
“The devils greatest trick was to make people think he doesn’t exist.”
Sort of like Joseph Smith’s greatest trick was to convince people that they couldn’t see the magical tablets because God said he had to keep them to himself.
In the immortal words of South Park: “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!”
“There are masculine men and feminine men as there are women but expressing that in a gay form”
What about the gay guys who are stronger and more masculine than you? Is it wrong for THEM to express their superior virility in a gay form?
“There are ex-gay people all around the world that have been changed and are happy for it.”
But yet your overlords can never show anybody their success rate.
“God put men and women here to pro-create ”
prove it
“that’s the purpose of sex”
prove it
“Let me know how many gay people have pro-created.”
Lots, in a number of ways.
“I pray for them all.”
Knock yourself out, champ.
Hey Tom, do you possess any documented accomplishments or credentials that might sway me toward paying attention to anything you say? All I can discern is that superstitious religious indoctrination has provided you with delusions of superiority. Clinging to these delusions are often the way people compensate for misfortunes or failures in their lives.
Tom!
In August of last year the US Census Bureau estimated the earth’s population to be 6.86 BILLION people. Sounds like the procreators have been doing too good of a job & in fact are endangering the entire ecosystem for all life forms in order to satisfy your god’s divine “purpose” for sex.
Many gay people procreate, often before they figure themselves out or are able to accept themselves, as same gender loving people. Some procreate afterwards as a deliberate choice to raise children. You obviously haven’t traveled much in your life, buddy.
“I pray for them all”. What does this mean & how often do you do it? Do you pray every hour, every day, every week, every month? Do you pray that we will start reproducing, start believing in magical religion or just become happy & whole like you are? Please describe for us what your pray activity looks like. Inquiring minds want to know, Tom!
Tom, here’s the problem with your wishful, uninformed thinking.
A few years ago, two evangelically oriented, fairly anti-gay professors named Jones and Yarhouse decided to do a study on ex-gays and homo-to-hetero changing. they are VERY well connected in the anti and ex gay world, and they will tell you so.
Here are the two most importasnt ocnclusions they came up with.
1) Despite the claims of the ex-gay industry– and in contravention to your claims– that there are thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people who have changed from gay to straight…
… they could only come up with 100 of these ex-gays to participate in their study. You would think that with their connections, zeal, and the grace of God himself, there would have been THOUSANDS of people lining up for the study to prove that homo-to-hetero change is possible.
You’d think, if you did.
2) Of those hundred people, only 15 were deemed to have changed from homo to hetero– and one of them admitted he had lied– and the authors described the change of the remainder as complicated, difficult, ambiguous.
Their words, not mine.
In other words, they didn’t change.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Approximately 50% of male homosexuals die infected with AIDS. It is predicted this will continue into the foreseeable future. Telling them to carry on with what the bible makes plain is a life style that is against “natural use” (Romans 1/Luke 17:28-30) is not kind. When I presented the case from the bible on MySpace that homosexuality is sin I was accused by one man claiming to be a gay christian of having secret gay inclinations. So gays can say things about preachers but preachers cannot say things about gays. Its a hypocritical dual standard. So are you saying I can sue him? And for how much? And can people sue homosexuals who falsely use a pseudo-scientific distorted definition of the word “homophobic”? ,
There is a good case to say (as the bible says heterosexuality is the natural state) that some “gay” men over compensate for their guilt and their warping of the natural use by irrational psychology tactics to stop any criticism of homosexuality. They get away with this, but all the people who for hundreds of years in England have said homosexuality was wrong (almost every famous historical figure), are all now being falsely labelled as bigoted, and in the present day others are subjected to Big Brother tactics, where the very words they speak and concepts they believe in are subjected to draconian editing.
Making homosexuality legal is NOT making it righteous. If a church minister commits adultery or fornication he can be replaced, even though fornication and adultery are not illegal – but do have legal implications in a divorce court. There is a big difference between making homosexuality legal, and making it illegal to have any other view, as if that was the case the law would never have been changed in the first place, another crystal clear dual standard. In 1984 Orwell predicted the vicious dumbing down of vocabulary, and the editing out of existence of any thought that homosexuality is not the natural state is similar. If a homosexual wants to be counselled by someone saying he was born homosexual, and was thus born to be eliminated from the gene pool, it would not take much effort for him to find such a counsellor.
Kenneth, uh, where the hell did you get your “statistics”? One of your Jesus sources? My god. Idiot. They lie to you because they think you’re stupid. Again, they lie to you because they think you’re stupid. One more time: They lie to you because they think you’re stupid. Are you stupid? Only you can answer that question, but not with your mouth, but by ceasing to trust Christian sources that LIE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU’RE STUPID.
Um, 50% where are you pulling that statistic? Your a*s? Most likely. No Orwell’s 1984 was a complex dystopian novel detailing government invasion of everybody’s lives rewriting history as it saw fit, nothing about gays. It’s been documented by psychologists however that the more homophobic a person is the more likely they are to have homosexual tendencies.
Approximately 98% of homophobes pull statistics out of their a*s. The other 2% get theirs from Glenn Beck.
and 100% of Glenn Beck’s facts are pulled from his a*s. So lets just call it 100% of homophobes pull stats out of their asses.
Kenneth, I clicked on your name/link. Did you design that website yourself, or did you just link to it because you think it’s fabulous? It has to be THE ugliest website I’ve ever seen. Seriously. Any gay guy off the street would have at least some of that legendary gay design sense that could dramatically improve the site.
So anyway, the fact that you have the most horrendously twisted design sense and judgment I’ve ever seen is enough in itself for me to ignore anything you have to say.
Henneth– i tihnk what you need to do is go to the CDC website and do a little research. when you find out that the 50% figure is unreal– and when you find out that gay women have far fewer venereal diseases than striaght people–maybe you will start to question what you are saying, and who told it to you.
since Jesus talked about truth a great deal, it would then behoove you to confront the people who told you that outrageous– and irrelevant– lie.
Then you can ask them, “Why are you lying in the name of jesus?”
Unless, of course, you made up the number all by yourself in order to prove an irrelevant point. In which case, you’re an a*****e.
and not in a good way.
Yes. biblecool.com is my own website. Many of the animations are public domain which I have used to create ideas to have a pleasant choice of environments to study the true bible in. I hope to post a link there later this year to a bigger website I am planning.
I suggest you listen to the praise sections, and look for God touching your heart. I made the salvation video you see when pressing the SAVED button.
So are you saying homosexuals can slander preachers, but Christians are forbidden to believe any more that being heterosexual is the natural state? Freedom of speech runs both ways. If you keep sacking people for common sense widely held views, can heterosexuals sue homosexuals for their slanderous counter-psychology tactics, overcompensation for their own guilt, and superficial unscientific and malignant usage of the “homophobic” label?
Quote: “The risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse.”
“In spite of massive education and prevention programs, epidemiologists predict that for the foreseeable future one out of two men who have sex with men will eventually become HIV-positive.”
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/aids1.html
And how many women who have sex with women will get HIV from it?
It’s been zero so far, Kenneth. Does that mean being a lesbian is more “natural” and “holy” than being straight?
So which bible is the “true” bible? How do you know?
How is it slandering pastors when it’s their words verbatim?
How is it “freedom of speech” for people to break the oaths they swear when they go into the profession? If I join a Christian church and use it as a platform for discussions of atheism, can I sue if I’m (inevitably) sacked?
Did you actually think any of this through? Or do you just like to parrot?
And yeah, I’m sorry to say it, but that website is damn ugly. It’s like a crazy relic of the 1990s. You seriously should take an art class. When the colors aren’t clashing so hard they hurt my eyes, they’re blending together to the point that it’s hard to see what they are. Cobalt blue and dayglo orange are not friendly together.
“So are you saying homosexuals can slander preachers, but Christians are forbidden to believe any more that being heterosexual is the natural state?”
You are being dleiberately obtuse.
Your preachers can believe whatever htey want ot believe. i have no problem iwth it. I think it is stupid, wasteful, wrong-headed, a misapplication of biblical principles, ultimately on the wrong side of ihstory, and bigoted.
But really i have no problem with it.
The problem is when they want civil law to reflect their entirely religious beliefs. that’s the problem.
When i and my family am no longer legally disadvantaged because of your religous beliefs, then you will no lnoger hear from me.
so, slander away, as lnog as you are going to tell the truth. and the only truth you can tell is that your religion says that beging gay is sinful. all the rest–like your 50% statistic– you are just making up.
“So are you saying homosexuals can slander preachers, but Christians are forbidden to believe any more that being heterosexual is the natural state? Freedom of speech runs both ways.”
Well being a fundamentalist wingnut extremist preacher is obviously a choice. You on the other hand hate an entire minority but cloak it in the religious language of love, ’cause you’re a bigot. We still have the moral high ground.
@Ben according to his religion, it’s okay to be a complete liar if you’re doing it Fer The Kingdom!
HOMOSEXUAL USE OF BOGUS LABELS
In the word homophobia the word phobia is from the Greek “fobos” meaning FEAR. But the true meaning of the words that make up the word homophobia are ignored in order to propagate homosexuality and condemn the long believed moral values of members of society, who have little or no fear of homosexuals at all. What really needs to be condemned is violence towards homosexuals, and so a word like misogynist/misandry/misanthrope should have been created instead, or a very strict psychological definition should have been adhered to (see neologism).
http://www.lyberty.com/dict/homophobia.htm
The cunning psychology of the use of the misnomer “homophobia” is to use it initially about men accused of having covert homosexual urges who do violence to homosexuals, and then use the same word to “tar with the same brush” ordinary heterosexual people in society (men and women) who do not agree with homosexuality on moral grounds. It is like saying that people who buy free range eggs are all “animal rights extremists” who believe in burning down warehouses containing fur coats.
Lets look at the FACTS:
Achluophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of darkness.
Acrophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of heights.
Agoraphobia = extreme or irrational Fear of open spaces or crowds.
Arachnophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of spiders
Belonephobia = extreme or irrational Fear of pins and needles.
Claustrophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of confined spaces.
Cynophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of dogs.
Dentophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of dentists.
Entomophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of insects
Hemophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of blood.
Herpetophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of reptiles.
Lilapsophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of tornadoes and hurricanes.
Mysophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of dirt and germs.
Necrophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of death or dead things.
Nyctophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of the night.
Nosocomephobia = extreme or irrational Fear of hospitals.
Ophidiophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of snakes.
Pteromerhanophobia =extreme or irrational Fear of flying.
Tonitrophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of thunder.
Trypanophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of injections.
Xenophobia = extreme or irrational Fear of strangers or foreigners.
BUT FOLKS – !!!
SUDDENLY……………..
Homophobia = extreme AND irrational AVERSION to homosexuality and homosexual people.
The sciences of linguistics and lexicography are being deliberately changed in order to disempower members of the public who think that homosexuality is unnatural, unholy and sinful. Until very recent times, for time immemorial, for many hundreds of years, western society has condemned homosexuality. But now the millions and millions of people who still think homosexual practices are wrong are being labelled as “homophobic” in a transparently obvious attempt to reinvent the science of linguistics in order to justify modern secular immoral trends.
Try looking up the words given in this list in a Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. All the phobias given in it are described as “extreme or irrational FEAR of….” BUT when the definition of homophobia is given everything is DELIBERATELY CHANGED in order to warp the English language in an attempt to condemn those who are not in favour of homosexuality.
Take the word “lesbophobia” or “lesbiphobia”. Do you believe that the average man in the street has a FEAR of lesbians? It borders on farcical to say that men are afraid of lesbians. Yet many of the same men think lesbianism is wrong. So this word is seldom discussed as it further undermines the deliberate pro-homosexual meddling with and manipulation of the English language to attack church goers, religious people and people who believe in historically moral and vintage values.
But if classing people as suffering from a fictitious mental illness who believe homosexuality is wrong was not enough it goes even further .
Homosexuals are pushing to try and incorporate ANOTHER warped concept yet again into the word “homophobia”, and that is the concept that a “homophobic” person (everyone who is against homosexuality) is uneasy about their own sexuality, and fears that they might become homosexual themselves. Thus any church minister or evangelist, or any ordinary member of the public who says that homosexuality is wrong, may be fairly accused of being a “closet homosexual”. It is quite obvious to anyone that devious psychology of this kind being allowed to “infect” the time honoured Oxford English Dictionary with blatant bias is totally unacceptable.
Jesus predicted the spread of homosexual sin in society in Luke 17:28-30.
tl;dr
So it’s “you just like to parrot” then? Figures.
Haha, Kenneth, your “moral opposition” to homosexuality is rooted in fear. Read up on the subject. The term we use is correct.
Also?
BOO!
I’d like to point out to regular commenters, though, that when we have long idiot comments like those from Kenneth, that it’s not necessarily good to engage, and not for the reason you’re thinking. Wingnut organizations know that their followers are stupid, and they often hire people to troll liberal blogs and leave comments like that. Especially when you have a one-off like that, that only a retarded goldfish could find credible, it’s very possible that we’re dealing with somebody who is being paid. Liberal organizations don’t do this because politically active liberals tend to be really smart.
“Take the word “lesbophobia” or “lesbiphobia”. Do you believe that the average man in the street has a FEAR of lesbians?”
haha, no, but you’re scared of gay guys.
…Wow, seriously? Thanks for the heads-up, Evan. What do you suggest we do in the future? Ignore it? Report it?
Eh, it’s legal. Just watch for The Signs.
“Do you believe that the average man in the street has a FEAR of lesbians?”
No! He’s racing home from work to watch his newest porn DVD containing a scene with hot lesbian action.
http://www.awkwardboners.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/model.jpg
Like Blacks before us, the women in our group (lesbians) are made exotic sex objects to get stiffies from, while the men are sexual predators to beat down and keep ‘in check.’
I’m not sure that I really enjoy being made an object of straight male sexual satisfaction more than I would an object of hatred and physical violence.
Kenneth– a great many gay people would agree iwth you that “homophobia” is an unfortunate word.
Homobigotry or homohatred would probably be a better choice.
Not all bigotry is hatred, fear, ignorance, stupidity, how-I-was-brought up unconsciousness, or sincere but absolutely midguided religious belief.
A good portion of homobigotry is the equally sincere, equally misguided belief in your own otherwise wholly imaginary superiority.
Straight over gay, man over woman, white over black, smug self-righteous Christianist over anyone else, but especially those extra special icky sinners known as Teh Gay.
It’s a well known fact that the White Male Heterosexual fears most are Black men and masculine women.
Kenneth said “Quote: “The risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse.””.
See, now your lies are getting obvious. There is zero risk of HIV infection from anal sex in a monogamous relationship.
Makyui said “And yeah, I’m sorry to say it, but that website is damn ugly.”.
I on the other hand really liked the way it looked, kind of like an LSD trip without the LSD.
One thing we know for certain, poster Kenneth McDonald is a closeted homosexual. When he fondles himself each night before the mirro, he imagines himself being mounted and taken by a man. He falls wanking to the floor, overcome with sensuality. But alas, guilt prevails and he excoriates his dirty, filthy inner being that we all see and recognize as Kenneth McDonald
Kenneth– we need to have a talk here.
You claimed that AIDS transmission via anal intercourse was 2700 times that of vaginal intercourse.
A five minute google search showed that at best it is 10 to 1, and worst, 34 to 1. There are MEDICAL and PHYSIOLOGICAL reasons for that, not moral ones. Anal intercourse within a monogamous relationship is virtually risk free. On the other hand, pregnancy can kill you.
BTW, by your very twisted logic, if you are trying to prove that gay sex is dangerous and therefore sinful and therefore worthy of your judgment even though you are not supposed to be judging anybody, even if you call it love-the-sinner-and-hate-the-sin,…
gay women must be god’s chosen people, because the risk of HIV infection is virtually nil. As I suppose that most lesbians are by definition not interested in anal intercourse with penises, the issue of possible diseases is irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality. As has already been pointed out to you, anal intercourse within a monogamous relationship is risk free. Ask the 40% of heterosexual couples who have anal sex. they’ll tell you.
It sounds to me like men are the problem, as usual. Men cause most of the HIV infection, therefore men are bad and sinful. Also, breast milk is a major route of transmission, so maybe nursing is sinful too. Men also cause most of the pregnancies which kill women. See, look how easy your logic is if you want to see disease, or even reproduction, as some sort of moral commentary.
It would also seem that if disease were actually a concern of yours, you would be supporting marriage equality, encouraging men to form monogamous bonds, just like all heterosexuals, especially those who are transmitting hiv to their spouses because…
…oh, wait.
But the real issue is this. I may even have asked you to do this once already.
Either someone TOLD you about that 2700 to 1 figure, or you pulled it out of your a*s.
If the former, are you going to do the research yourself, present the evidence to the propagator of that particular bit of slanderous misinformation, ask him to stop giving out that information and, if said propagandist knew that it was untrue, ask why he was doing so.
And if you just pulled it out of your a*s, maybe you really need to ask yourself why? What is YOUR motivation for using a highly preventable disease and a great human tragedy as a bludgeon against the people you have judged to be sinners? What do YOU get out of this, except a chance to aovid compassion ofr the people you despise.
so, honey, here’s the challenge. Put up or shut up.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS SIN and WILL BE JUDGED BY GOD
The bad language here is a reason I may not comment again. Indeed it says in the bible “And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:” 2 Peter 2: 7, and he lived in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or is that another homosexual tactic of psychology? Chasing away good reasoning with constant gross and Grobian references to posteriors.
Are you pretending to miss this link and distorting the quotations unjustly and deliberately?
Quote: “The risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse.”
“In spite of massive education and prevention programs, epidemiologists predict that for the foreseeable future one out of two men who have sex with men will eventually become HIV-positive.”
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/aids1.html
The quote was about comparing the activities of what the bible rightly calls Sodomites versus that of “vaginal intercourse”.
Concerning homosexual quasi-marriage, Jesus deals with that in Luke 17. Here Jesus mentions marriages in the comparison with the days of Noah (Lk 17:26-27), but NOT in Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk 17:28-30), as God does not recognise marriage except between a man and a woman (Matthew 19: 4-6).
The verified quotation (and proof link) that more than 50% of homosexual men who have sex with other men will die having AIDS (but not necessarily from AIDS) was to point out it is not loving or sensible to encourage them in that so called “life style”, but also points out to so called “gay Christians” that if God is blessing male homosexual relationships, why did he write it into creation that the forms of sex they engage in are unnatural to the point of making them far far more susceptible to dying of disease?
Repent therefore and believe the Good News:
http://www.biblecool.com/Bible_Cool/HOW_TO_BE_SAVED.html
Haha, a supposed adult is upset by bad language? Grow up, or leave.
Also, your thing about anal sex is stupid because HIV has to be present to be transmitted in the first place, and there are ways to protect yourself, straight or gay. Your “argument” is, as usual, stupid.
Oh, and your “Fathers for Life” link is another example of people lying to you because they think/know you’re stupid.
By the way, Kenneth, King James lived what you would today call a “homosexual lifestyle” quite openly.
Since nothing good can ever possibly come from homosexuality or a homosexual, why are you quoting his Bible????
Thank you for proving my point. You addressed none of my questions. And they were very simple ones.
Beneath your “loving” exterior, we find just another Cotton Mather, afraid and angry at the witches that do not actually exist. The question is, Kenneth, what are your witches?
Kenneth, you were confronted with a lie that you are using to bludgeon people you do not know, know nothing about, and who are doing you no harm.
You did not even address the issue of the lie, let alone its factuality. instead, you pulled your victim hat out of your whine cellar, and then threatened to take your balls and go home. Obviously, because you’re not winning any converts, and are not going to.
No celestial, salvational brownie points for you today. Nosiree.
Obviously, you are not willing to confront your own motivations for being here, let alone anyone else’s for their anti-gay campaigns.you are not willing to confront that you are using a lie to advance your agenda? How moral do you think Jesus will think of that?
But this is why we don’t listen to you. Becuase you, willing to use and repeat a lie, presume to come here and tell US about OUR morality.
Whom do you thinkJesus was talking to when he said “Look not for the speck…”
Honey, he was talking to YOU.
I’m fairly certain at this juncture that were I to believe in an immortal soul, and were I to believe that there is a possibility of it being condemned by a just and loving god…
I would think that you, using “God’s word” to justify what god has told YOU that you must not do, will probably be a lot further up towards the front of the line.
Beware, hypocite. Jesus is gunnin’ for the likes of you.
Kenneth: you said “Indeed it says in the bible “And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:” 2 Peter 2: 7, and he lived in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah”.
Have you ever read the Lot story? He offered his daughters to a gang of rapists to leave his guests alone. He had sexual intercourse with those daughters later when he was drunk. You then quote a pseudonymous letter from “Peter” that claims Lot was a righteous man!! You are a fool to believe this contradictory buybull b******t, a damn fool.
Hey Kenneth, using your logic, I assume that if there were a high rate of HIV infection among heterosexuals instead of homosexuals, you would be campaigning to eradicate heterosexuality. And, if not, why not? Or would HIV suddenly and magically become a medical issue instead of a moral issue?
And, as far as your holy book is concerned, the Bible is enough of a chameleon whereby you could find verses to interpret as needed. Saint Paul, the inventor of Christianity, said that Christians should remain single and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that people should get married only if they are too weak-willed to abstain from sex:
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
Actually Richard, I think Constantine is the inventor of modern day christianity. It’s been downhill ever since.
I wonder if Kenneth is actively campaigning to eradicate heterosexuality in Africa?
HE THAT HAS EARS TO HEAR – LET HIM HEAR.
There are a lot of Christians dedicating their talent to Jesus. Why not listen to say 50 songs and see if you decide to change, by listening to God calling you into his marvellous light?
http://www.biblecool.com/Bible_Cool/SONGS_1.html
Kenneth,
Stop quoting your magical incantations and look at the buybull for what it is: a collection of stories by bronze-age goatherds and their slightly more urbanized descendants over a thousand year period…two millennia ago, to justify there existence and promote social cohesion. Some of what they believed made sense in that nonscientific world: there was simply no way to test out hypotheses about how things worked, let alone explain why. But there is no excuse nowadays for superstition and “magickal thinking” which is what you are practicing and spouting off to the rest of us. So either use your brain & grow into adulthood or at least have the smarts to be silent. Your buybull quotes are not a convincing argument for any nonbeliever to embrace christianity.