โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Submitted by Yardbroom
Some Church members against same sex marriages

Some time ago I wrote a submission on BU (Barbados Underground) – A Step Too Far Or Fairness And Equality: Same Sex Partnerโ€™s Legal Rights asking the question with reference to same sex couples, Is Marriage A Step Too Far?ย  The subject matter generated much debate.ย  The BBC picked up the article and it was interesting to read/hear the views of that international audience who were not only divided butย  had very trenchant opinions.

I revisit this subject only because in the interval between then and now the situation has completely changed.ย  In the submission I asked a tentative question, now with the likely change in the Law in England there is a possibility of same sex marriages being permitted in the churches there.

“Some” members of the Church of England – with strong religious views – are against the proposed change in the law and have been vociferous in their opposition.ย  If you ask how can a decision made in England impact on Barbados?ย  I simply add the church plays a major part in the lives of many Barbadians and the Anglican Church is a long established Church here.ย  Although an island Barbados cannot be completely insulated from the wider world, geographic position is no barrier to what we do or how we interact with others and sometimesย  that interaction influences our thinking.

A lobby group formedย  by MPs bishops and others who are against gay marriages in church have produced a leaflet:

“Keep Marriage Special” in which they assertโ€:

“If the only basis for marriage is the desire of the parties to get married then there is, according to the logic of this proposal, no reason not to open up marriage to more than just same-sex couples: Polygamy, polyandry and incest would all be permissible”.

This is rather strong stuff and do not believe for one moment this is an ordinary homophobic lobby group.ย  “The Keep Marriage Special campaign, vice-presidents include the Democratic Unionist MPs Nigel Dodds and Jeffrey Donaldson and Bishop David Samuel, president of the Protestant Reformation Society.ย  The campaign’s president is Vicount Brentford, of the Church Society.”

However, they have got even more powerful forces against them.ย  There is the Out 4 Marriage Campaign which the home secretary – Theresa May – is backing on this issue also in that camp is deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.ย  Prime Minister David Cameron also supports the proposed change in the Law but many conservative MPs are against it.ย  As if to rebutt the views expressed in the Keep Marriage Special Leaflet.ย  Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is quoted as saying.:

“I’ve always been very clear on this issue: love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same too.ย  All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another, regardless of who they love.”

“A running survey of MPs stated views by the Coalition for Equal Marriage suggests 245 MPs are likely to support legalising gay marriage, with 62 against and 16 neutral.ย  The views of the remaining 327 MPs are not known.

It is sometimes very difficult to have a reasoned debate on gay issues, opposite opinions are often so entrenched with the belief that reason, religion and normality – whatever that is – is on their side, that they find it difficult to accept another point of view.ย  Regardless of if the Law is changed in England to allow gay marriages in church or not, you can be sure this issue will not quietly fade away.

There are problems which although difficult that must be confronted if we are to have an equal and just society.ย  In discussing issues of major change in subjects of this kind we must be conscious of the language we use, for language hardens opinions on both sides thus preventing reasonable debate sometimes personalizing the issue when there is no need to. . . . we are discussing real people.

Acknowledgement: Daniel Boffey, Sunday Observer {London)


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

  1. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    In my view, there would be no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage if the intent is to build a permissive and GODLESS society. Only a church that is more interested in the collection than the word of God would accept this aberrant as normal. This same sex arrangement would makery of the instruction to go forth and multiply. No matter how hard they try, two men working together might get some pleasure but they will never multiply.


  2. “Same Sex Couples And Their “Legal Right” To Marriage In Church”
    if two persons of the same sex wants to cohabit as man and man or wife and wife that is their business and right; but why try to foster their abnormal values on the majority of society under the cloak of discrimination. Now they demand to be married in a church which is supposed to preach what the bible teaches and the bible preaches against mankind and womankind cohabiting with one another. is it really equal rights they are seeking or are they just flexing their new found muscles emboldened by the unexpected support garnered for their irregular behaviour over the years .

  3. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ balance | July 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM |
    “is it really equal rights they are seeking or are they just flexing their new found muscles emboldened by the unexpected support garnered for their irregular behaviour over the years”

    Is marriage in a church based on love or is it just a religious license to procreate?
    Should the church marry people who have already had sex together? The existence of offspring is incontrovertible evidence and is common as muck in Barbados.

    Why are there women priests in churches when the New Testament forbids it?
    As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

    The times change. Mores change also.
    If we stick rigidly to tradition then black people should not even be allowed in the Church far less get married. Why do you think Sarah Ann Gill suffered so much?

    You can bet your last coin to put in the collection plate that at least 10 % of those โ€œanti-gayโ€ priests are themselves closet homosexuals with a good few paedophiles thrown in for good measure even some of those claiming to be heterosexual.


  4. this is more of a Government V Church power battle to remove Churches influence in Politics, Law, Marriage, People and Families. Generic Countries without different religions are easier for New World Order Business takeover


  5. @ David
    Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) :-

    He said….”We must not promise that which we ought not to, lest we be called upon to perform that which we cannot do.”

    I think, David, this is a most timely thought, in more instances than one, for what is taking place worldwide at present. Most appropriate. Agree?


  6. @cASWELL
    what about a woman who marry and cant bear children, what did the bible say about that.


  7. philosophically speaking i cannot disagrre with your comments because i asked for it by invoking the bible. but, mr miller not trying to be facetious are you the product of a man and aman or a woman and a woman, no mr miller- you are the product of a man and a woman. common sense would dictate and i credit you with much commonsense that men marrying men or women marrying women cannot be part of the natural process.


  8. the churches teachings about marriage is about male and female , however we have reach a point in society where these teachings have in one way or another impeded on the civil rights of some sect of society giving them no other option than to seek relief through matrimony.all the other talking points about having children is null and void since the focus is on same sex couple acquiring the same rights legally as heterosexual some of those rights being mainly to do with the well being of each other during critical times which would make it legally permissive for one couple to make critical decision in the event of sickness or death. as it stands now these couples after being in long term relationships has no such rights or recourse by the law because of the church’s position pertaining to matrimony


  9. Yardbroom’s post is a sensitive and thoughtful appraisal and although I think he is right to say Barbadians must face this one day, I really do not think it will be something to be confronted by most of us in our lifetimes.

    As previous posts on ‘gayness’ have shown, the acceptance, toleration, and understanding of that – in reverse order – is still far off. The more reflective here have no problem and the tide is clearly moving towards acceptance in all spheres of life. But I do not see government legislating about it, nor ordinary people going for it, nor the Church taking a bold stance – though some priests, I have no doubt, would be prepared to ‘come out’ in support of whatever positive legislative proposals might surface.

    On the issue itself, I am not persuaded by the procreation argument and might just want to argue that ‘marriage’ is a fake construct anyway. Yardbroom has asked us to choose our words carefully – and so I think I,lean to the view that unless we really want to change the use of language – as we might the rules of tennis – then ‘marriage’ remains a heterosexual endeavour. Havng said that, I see no reason why ‘partnerships’ of all kinds should not attract legislative recognition. Moreover, I think that a Church blessing of a gay union would be a very beautiful thing and not at all inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. It follows that I have no interest whatsoever in the fulminations of Leviticus.


  10. .DaveinMass wrote:

    “How? Specifically, how does civil marriage equality, commonly known as same-sex marriage, pose a threat to American civilization?|

    “Civil unions are contracts, marriage is more. It serves a function, so children will be raised by their mother and father. That’s why society rewards marriage with status and benefits. Same sex ‘marriage’ can’t serve that function. Same sex marriage detracts from husband/wife marriage by changing the rules in the middle of the game. It’s an ex post facto law for anyone married. Changing marriage in the middle of this social contract is unconstitutional. Just as the Federal government can’t force a citizen to sign a contract with an insurance company; you can’t change the terms of a contract by court fiat in the middle of everyone’s marriage.”

    As ancient societies, reveal, from the “…definitive work on the RISE and FALL* of civilizations, published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin in “Sex and Culture,” Unwin studied 86* human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to might Rome. He found that a society’s DESTINY* is linked inseparably to LIMITS it imposes on SEXUAL EXPRESSION* and that those sexual restraints correlate DIRECTLY to its theological sophistication and religious commitment.”

    “In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” PROVED to be most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative scientifically innovative and geograpgically expansive socoeties on earth.”

    Brian Fitzpatricj is a news editor for WorldNetDaily. com and Whistleblower.

    The above, NOT from a Christian research anthropologist, confirms exactly what God’s Word, the Bible, says, whenever ANY society deviates from His* His* standards for a family UNIT* of One Man, One Women, Father and Mother, watch OUT, it will ultimately fail, fall, and crumble into RUNINATION!


  11. What percentage of homosexuals choose to be homosexuals?

    Do you my fellow BU bloggers think that this is a chosen lifestyle?

    How many of you are bullersandwickers by choice?

    Homosexuals are human beings and we should treat them the same as we treat heterosexuals.

    If you are Christians let God judge whether they are bigger sinners than us or not.


  12. WHY this topic again ??
    Somebody in here is a Buller ! Straight ! –pr rather bandy
    Zoe always shows up when this topic is on
    Wonder why !


  13. Stupse, If gay people want to get married then they should go to a judge or which ever judicial officer that has the power to do so. Not in the Church. If they want to say that it is discrimination well they can go ahead. Don’t get me wrong, GOD loves the sinner, but HATES the sin.

  14. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ balance | July 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM |
    “common sense would dictate and i credit you with much commonsense that men marrying men or women marrying women cannot be part of the natural process.”

    There is nothing natural about marriage. There is everything natural about a human male impregnating a human female and producing offspring to carry on the species. That’s the way Nature intends it.
    Marriage on the other hand is a man-made cultural arrangement to protect the interest of the offspring and the woman entrusted with the task and responsibility of raising the offspring.
    A religious ceremony only facilitates the declaration of that arrangement and public approval of the two partiesโ€™ contractual obligations to have sex and raise the offspring according to some guidelines set by the community in which they live. Marriage has nothing at all to do with God. It is strictly a contractual undertaking registered with by State. The church is just an agent of the state.

    Marriage is a social institution fashioned by the cultural peculiarities of the people. Why is it OK for a man following some Islamic faith to be allowed to marry more than one wife whereas in Christian Barbados it is wrong? Which is right in the sight of the unseen God?

    If marriage is based on love then why should it be restricted to man and woman? Canโ€™t a woman love another woman? However, if it intended for purpose of procreation with the resulting off spring to be looked after by the two parties under a pre-arrangement then it should be limited to male and female.
    Balance, marriage is not necessary for the continuance of the human race but sex between male and female is; even if we use modern day fertilization techniques to achieve the same outcome.
    If marriage between male and female was a precondition for sexual union and procreation then there would be no Black people in Barbados today. Slaves and even so-called free blacks were not allowed to marry or establish strong family ties based on the concept of one man one woman. This condition prevailed well into the 19th Century.


  15. @de hood

    It is a conversation we must have.

    Remember the AG in the wrap up to the budget just gone signaled that Barbados supports traditional marriage.

    We shall see if this is a position which can be defended.


  16. @ Zoe and Millertheannunaki
    You both are missing the REAL significance of marriage. True, it is NOT a natural phenomenon, ….nor is a special requirement for procreation.
    The REAL significance of marriage is that it SIGNIFIES and physically replicates a VERY SIGNIFICANT spiritual concept.

    The REALITY is that marriage was ordained to physically model the spiritual situation where God has established a contractual relationship with “the church” in such a way that the offspring of that relationship acquires God’s name and character. Marraige was thus given the importance and status that it was in the Bible, because of the SYMBOLISM that it represents.

    To all intents and purposes then, it does not really matter – at this stage- if this symbolism is desecrated, since this phase of our “life-on-earth” experience is essentially at a close.

    That it is being desecrated by persons of unnatural sexual orientation is also a reflection of another spiritual analogy, as Bushie previously pointed out…

    In the physical world, uncleanliness is a well established cause for the spread of various diseases. Spiritually, this is paralleled with the situation where crime, sexual devience (like homosexuality), drugs and other complex consequences result from generally accepted unrighteousness, and institutionalized wickedness.

    We are so far gone in this regard that perhaps it is too late to do anything more than enjoy the drunken stupor of our unrighteousness.

    ….like the party folks on the upper deck of the stricken Titanic.


  17. Miller

    Jesus Chr%st you kicking dust tonight … But you must know that in matters of religion all of the logic in the world will lead you “know” where …! Faith based people “know” …! the rest of us only “believe”… HA HA HA HA

    Cas

    You sounding sexy again … Believe me, I ain’ surprise’ that you lead off the discussion …! Cas you should have been around in Europe (Rome, Naples, Germany ..) five hundred years ago. Man dey use tah accuse everybody that was a threat to anybody with Sodomy and burn them at the stake… What a proud moment in the history of Christianity …. HA HA HA. How come after all that barbequing that people still Sodomizing one anudder up to this day …?


  18. BTW David

    It should be clear by now that MP’s seek ONLY to appeal to the simplest among us. I challenge anyone to refute the fact that a majority opinion always represents least complex/complicated, ie that which is formed by the most simple. Parliamentarians over the years have themselves, in the main, proven to be from among that class of citizen; that is probably why they bond so well with the group which they seek to appeal to.


  19. Bush Tea

    Homosexuality is a NATURAL occurrence. You lose!

  20. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    BAFBFP

    Homosexuality is not natural no matter how hard you try to convince yourself. Sorry for using the word “hard” that is like rubbing it in, but you are still able to enjoy “hard” at the receiving end.


  21. @ BAFBFP
    Speak for yourself.


  22. Mr Miller- your posts indicate that you are a learned man and again philosophically speaking i am unable to disagree with your reasoning at 4.48p, but if as you post that nature intended a human male to impregnate a human female and produce offspring; then would i be wrong to posit that any other process must be considered unnatural and should not be supported tio the extent that it is allowed to compete with the process that nature intended..


  23. What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?

    Question: “What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?”

    Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals โ€œmarryingโ€ is not Godโ€™s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

    Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

    The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to โ€œfitโ€ together sexually. With the โ€œnaturalโ€ purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

    So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a womanโ€”why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive ofโ€”or at least far less opposed toโ€”gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

    The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, โ€œthey are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.โ€

    To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with โ€œgentleness and respectโ€ (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: โ€œIf the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates youโ€ (John 15:18-19).
    http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html


  24. it seems everybody is missing the point the question being is it fair that the the laws of marriage that have been instituted by the church should only protect certain sects of the society while others cannot have the same protection under the laws of the land because of same sex preference.how does a society address those problems do we as a society ignore those grievances by clinging to laws which were implemented at a time when pastsocities did not have to face such problems as equal protection under the law. or do we sit idly by and hope they problems would disappear. rather or not we are at the end of civilization or not as long as civilisation is alive these problems must be addressed


  25. Yawn @ ac
    The world is full of other deviants too… Not just homosexuals, should they ALL be accorded the same human rights as normal, regular law abiding citizens?
    How about pedophiles?
    Kleptomaniacs?
    Bullies?

    How about idiots? Should they enjoy the ‘right’ to get a job as a teacher? (oh shoot, we already have that…!) ๐Ÿ™‚


  26. Caswell

    Homosexuality has been with us for as long as there have been people on this Earth. So to has Dwarfism, Autism, Hermaphroditism and foolishism. You see “nature” does not always get it right according to our sense of Rightness. Now who the f%ck are you to speak as though you know the mind of a God or the rightness of its design. Leave that kind of shite talk to lesser mortals like Zoe…. with respect!


  27. Bush Tea

    You ever see me try to represent anyone else. ..?

    BTW, there is scientific evidence that homosexual behavior exists among ALL mammal species of animal (Did someone whisper that humans are NOT mammals).


  28. @ bush TEA
    YawN! you are comparing apples with oranges. BTW the all above you have mentioned expect if they are homosexual can get married and guarantee their civil rights nothing in the instuition of marriage does not deny them marriage.


  29. @ BAFBFP
    …there is also scientific evidence that we have always had crime, hate, murder and illness……among all species – and for all of time. That is just the nature of our world, that fact does not speak to the desirability or rightness of any of these realities.

    Our world have EVERYTHING. The objective of living is to CHOOSE….good from bad, right from wrong, righteous from unrighteousness. ….front from back…lol

  30. Gabriel Tackle Avatar
    Gabriel Tackle

    The books The Naked Ape and the Human Zoo might give a perspective on this matter.I think its a filthy subject but to each his own.It’s so un natural,it boggles the mind how bent some humans are.A nasty subject. For the degenerates of society.Women are so delicious and delightful,so beautiful,so feminine,such a natural companion to man,one is left to wonder how “people get so”.


  31. Go get some sleep ac…. Or go and let the man test the goat milk…


  32. Ha but you falter my friend. The Objective of life as YOU see it is to do chose from among these things, but once the choices have been made whether as a result of genetic constitution or not you hold a position that allows for the VALID judging of such. Oh Bushie don’ be an ass tonight … do ..!


  33. Gabriel Tackle

    You gotta try a sheep man, SWEET man, fah real …! HA HA HA

  34. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Bushie

    You are really batting tonight. But don’t be too hard on BAFBFP his views are the product of a sick mind. Same sex sexual relations do not occur naturally among all species of mammals. For example, take two heifers, their sex organs are not accessible to each other without the aid of a way view mirror except of course if they are engaging in oral sex.


  35. As one who likes to spice up the discussion how about this recent article about the discovery of a gay caveman?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/has-the-first-gay-caveman-been-unearthed/article613263/


  36. err yeah… people comparing crime, murder and rape to two consenting adults in a relationship.

    Yep I know not to take this debate seriously..

    But hope springs eternal, stupid always loses out in the end.


  37. @ BAF

    I hope you know your sheep from your goats

    @ Caswell on oral sex

    Don’t worry. We wont tell..

    I have never understood why some sex is natural and other sex is unnatural. The sexual appetite manifests in so many ways and most of you out there, as well as in here, have ‘DARK THOUGHTS’ of one sort or another. It is not unnatural and there is no need to create mountains of guilt about it – or to hide it behind prissyism or concepts about the ‘spiritual experience’. The last is such an overworked idea – the distinction between body – FLESH (ugh) – and spirit. To give him some credit – even Pope Benedict noted the fallacy in the distinction in ‘Deo Caritas’.

    How interesting, in terms of this discussion, that the Christian religion is rooted in the phallus rather than the yoni, the worship of the male rather than female. Is that unnatural too – at least for men? Indeed, in ‘King Jesus’ Robert Graves fashioned a Jesus determined to destroy the works of the female.


  38. Cas

    How my mind could be sick and I more often than not agree wid you … Man wuh you trying to pull? If you never try a sheep don’ knock it padre … Live yah life to the fullest I say and try NOT to get in the way of others …. BY JUDGING THEM … you mortals! There is a term for such behavior and it is called having delusions of grandeur …!


  39. Ross

    Thank you for mentioning the egotism that is intrinsic in the stupid Christian religion … Wait, now look at me. What a Hypocrite I am. I just judge a group of people after saying that it is wrong. (Well then Christians don’ count anyway…)


  40. British State Sponsored Homosexualising Of Children Steps Up A Gear. But To What End?

    By Philip Jones 17 Sept 2008.

    This morning, I was reading through the daily `Rusepapers` and happened upon an article in the London Daily Mail which simply defies belief. The headline read;`Teach the pleasures Of `Gay` Sex to children as young as five say researchers.`

    The article then goes on to explain that it is proposed that, โ€œChildren as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project. Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of โ€˜creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebratedโ€™.

    The Original Article can be found at

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html,.


  41. @ac | July 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM | . I agree.


  42. Wow, this blog thread is becoming quite a hoot.

    I will take a different line, not about homosexuality, but marriage.

    Marriage is a manmade construct, for regulation of social behaviours and to some extent, a guiidance principle.

    Procreation is between man and woman, marriage is not necessary, even if preferred.

    The Church is also a man made construct. Only love and the Almighty can bind souls together, saying a few words in front of a priest in a building cannot do that.

    So, whether the Church accepts ‘marriage’ between same sex, is largely irrelevant.


  43. That is not to say, that I am against people of same sex spending their lbies together, if that is what they want and they are happy, why shoudl I give a hoot?


  44. ‘lives together’.


  45. The Adam and Eve approach to marriage as oppose to Adam and Steve transcends religion. Many who are not Christian believe it to be abnormal behaviour. This is what is creating the tension for many. Yes it is a man made construct the Church, Religion, Marriage etc but what we are seeing playing out is the tension of managing a pluralistic society. Some would suggest this should be a straight forward transition. Those who do so are naive.


  46. Well call me naive because such activity should be STRAIGHT FORWARD in a society with a Government agenda that actually takes the educating of its people seriously. Unfortunately the sorry fact is that one such as ours relies heavily on the fickle nature of flagrant consumerism, and it is important to the continuation of such a system that idiotic citizens continue to be produced in their numbers. Clearly the Education Ministry is a sham that has been lead by a series of shysters, because it is NOT intended to do much anyway. The offshoot of this process of course is an abundance of churches and a level of ignorance that has no room for divergence of any kind.

    Fortunately the West Indies Cricket team is a true reflection of the region and you know, it getting its sorry ass kicked to the curb.


  47. WITH RESPECT TO TEACHING CHILDREN THE PLEASURES OF HOMOSEXUALITY- IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE FLOOD GATES OF SECULARISM AIDED AND ABETTED BY SOCIETAL OPINION WERE OPENED TO ACCOMODATE ALL KINDS OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOURS.I WARNED IN AN EARLIER POSTS DEALING WITH THE LEGALISATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE LONG BEFORE PAEDOPHILES CLAMOUR FOR RIGHTS. I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR; AS AN UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL I WILL EMPATHISE WITH THOSE SO INCLINED AND HOPE THAT ONE DAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ENJOY

    THE PROFOUND PLEASUR OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN


  48. Some important words in Romans 1:26-27:
    It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in

    In every case of Historians, Anthropologist, Sciologist, et al, NOT Christians, who have studied ancient civilizations, their RISE and FALL*, EACH ONE, came to utter RUINATION, because of gross IDOLATRY, and rampant FROM the Man/Women, Father/Mother, TO HOMOSEXUALITY, bar NONE!

    This IS the Historic FACTS of the reality of such wonton behaviour, from Almighty God’s Word, as declared in His Inspired Scriptures.

    The following is some interesting ‘exegesis’ from the Gk as taken from Romans 1: 26-27

    Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:

    About the words “vile affections:” The Greek phrase translated as “vile affections” in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as:

    “vile affections and degrading passions” (Amplified Bible)
    “dishonorable passions” (English Standard Version)
    “degrading passions” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)

    “shameful lusts” (New International Version)
    “shameful desires” (New Living Translation)
    “evil things” (Living Bible)
    “shameful affections” (Rheims New Testament)
    “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

    In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean “passions” or “lust” as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the “frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan “fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome” at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan “Great Rite” is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.

    About the words “exchanged,” “leaving,” “change,” and “abandoned:” These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had “exchanged” their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had “abandoned” their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior — in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.

    About the word “natural:” “The operative term in Paulโ€™s original Greek is “phooskos”, meaning “inborn”, “produced by nature” , “agreeable to nature”. 1 This term, and the corresponding phrase “para physin” described below, are open to interpretation:

    To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers, homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.

    To most religious conservatives, and perhaps to Paul himself, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done and regardless of the nature of their relationship.

    About the word “against nature,” “unnatural,” etc: The Greek phrase “para physin” is commonly translated into the English as:

    “unnatural and abnormal” (Amplified Bible) “contrary to nature” (English Standard Version)

    “against nature” (King James Version, Rheims New Testament “sin with each other” (Living Bible)
    “unnatural” (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
    “immoral, unnatural drives” (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

    This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. “Unnatural” implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines “para physin” as “Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience.” 3 The word “unconventional” would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase “Para physin” appears elsewhere in the Bible:

    In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.

    In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God’s positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.

    About the phrase “just reward:” Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for “their error which was due.” (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time. The general availability of condoms was millennia in the future for Paul.


  49. Homosexuality is NOT an IDENTITY* it IS* a PATHOLOGY. People afflicted with homosexualty, need to be delivered from such in the Name of Jesus Christ, with compassion, not tolerance, which then enables them, they need to be treated, NOT enabled!


  50. @ZOE OH LORD!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading