Friday, February 14, 2014


Should the state decide what churches should believe ?

A comment on a previous post: "Massive attention given in Parliament on marriage - do you want to make your voice heard”? Writes: " Do not assume it stops with the marriage issues.

This is a massive campaign against Christianity as we traditionally know it.  As early as the next mandate term , I believe that churches that do not accept homosexuals on equal terms with others will be banned and pastors will be jailed; alternatively, Mona (as the PM) with her minions will turn a blind eye while the autonomous leftist movements like the AFA  mill around with baseball bats and molotov cocktails in the pews ."

Just one day later, The Day newspaper reported the results of an inquiry among our MPs . The Day writes:
"Many in the parliament want Pastor: “Matrimonial vow coercion!” A large proportion of MPs want to force priests to perform homosexual marriages. But the parliamentary party 's official position is that it should be voluntary. According to Today’s  “long-term survey ." So far, 70 members have responded. At  one can see who has responded - and when. "

The survey results are frightening. Although the official message that is constantly repeated is that there should be no forced compulsion for any church or priest / pastor to officiate at same-sex couples marriages, as the survey demonstrates many MPs believe that the churches should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. It is apparent that there is a hidden agenda among many MPs . First, implement a new law on same-sex marriage , and then enforcement action against those who do not adapt.

Should the state decide what the churches are to believe?

There are , and have been, many countries where the state with powerful agents have tried control what the churches are to believe. Sweden should not become one of those countries.

Jeloy, Norway

(translation: Sven Ljungholm)


Peter J. said...

On the other hand perhaps this is what Gay people have experienced from the church for centenaries?

Kjell Edlund said...

Peter Baronowsky is a brilliant, karismatic preacher and I have enjoyed listening to him on a few occasions.
Though I do differ in the understanding and interpretation of the readings of the bibeltexts, I admit Peters skills.
It must though be pointed out that Peter is on the more conservative side, even within the Salvation army.
In accordance to that, it's not to be surprised of his opinions in the SS-marriage debate, or about how homosexuals should be treated in the army.
I do not agree with him, I guess no one is surprised over this, my statement.

Kjell-Erik Edlund

Anonymous said...

Peter J's comment is naive in the extreme. It's obvious that this is going to be what will happen,and we (Christians) will be driven underground if we do not conform. The number of denominations which exist gives you an indication of the many and varied interpretations of Scripture, but at the moment we can all operate and exist in freedom. Once this mandate is introduced, real persecution will follow. And all for something as base as giving LGBT people the legal right to claim the term 'marriage' - in church - for something that clearly is not the same as the marriage which God intended for his people.

John Sullivan said...

When I read fear mongering posts by Christians who are named Peter, I know right away that Jesus wasn’t referring to them when he said: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” I wonder if the other Peters are so sure of their convictions that they would be happy to rot in jail because of them. 

One does not have to be a cynic to see that certain parts of the Church are threatened by the concept of same sex marriage, just as they were about the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. Let’s face it conducting weddings is a lucrative source of income for churches, their clergy, their organists, their wedding receptionists, and their caretakers.

All the State would have to do in response to the opposition is to take away the legal right of churches to conduct any kind of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. In fact it is becoming increasingly apparent that it would not even have to do that, because more and more couples are turning their backs on the church and the high cost of being married in it with the high expectations of the reception to follow. Instead they get on the plane with their wedding party and anyone else who wants to go along for the ride, and end up getting married on the beach of some exotic place, and combine their wedding, reception and honeymoon in one cost-saving package.

Sadly, there have been lots of marrying Sams in the church, who were happy to prostitute themselves by marrying people who had no relationship with their congregations, providing them no pre-marital counselling, and using their sanctuaries as revolving doors with one wedding after another scheduled on the hour after hour.

The truth is that the Church should get out of the marrying business altogether, turn it over to the State, and if a couple sincerely want God’s blessing, let them return to the church for a separate service – at no cost – and that goes for both kinds: Christian straights and Christian gays:(depending of course that the congregation gives its approval).

IUKT said...

I have been following this non-SA sanctioned, non-SA supported blog for 3 years. It's the one place I know I'll consistently find topics relevant to my ministry and also discussions on topics important to the SA and church in general. I particularly enjoyed the 2 recent ones on Sweden.
I have used much of it in conversation and in Sunday meetings. 

I admire the zeal of all you "formers" and pray it continues to spill over to all we 'actives'.


Anonymous said...

Kjell Edlund and John Sullivan always seem to have such down to earth, well thought out statements on this site and always without any steam coming from out of their ears and nostrils as I sometimes come across as having. I can certainly learn a lot from them as I both admire and wish I had their much cooler demeanors!

Lt. Peter Baronowsky is also an amazing man and a dedicated Salvationist who has some very well thought out viewpoints on a myriad of subjects. However, when it comes to any subject that is related to homosexuality, unfortunately he always comes across as a bit paranoid to me. His latest contribution does nothing to improve that image.

Luv ya' Peter and have always enjoyed reading your stuff even when I disagreed with you but I sometimes think you may have missed your true calling! You should've immigrated to the United States years ago and gotten a gig on radio and/or television as a far right wing, self-appointed anti-gay mouthpiece of YHWH. You could've made a lot of money and been sitting really pretty today in a mansion somewhere, with a $23,000 toilet in your master bedroom suite, instead of preaching for a comparatively paltry sum in TSA! (lol!) God Bless You kiddo.

Daryl Lach
USA Central

P.S. "You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus In the Morning!"

Anonymous said...

I was concerned to read the following on the net - about a person who had left the homosexual lifestyle and got married. What I read chilled me:

"Homosexual activists are ripping a former homosexual who deserted their ranks and married a woman.

Michael Glatze was an activist promoting special rights for homosexuals for an organization called Young Gay America. He saw the truth about the lifestyle through Christ and got out of it, leaving a note on his computer screen at work that read, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."

Glatze recently married a woman and that lit a fire among activists.

Greg Quinlan of PFOX, himself a former homosexual, says anybody who leaves the homosexual lifestyle "is treated as if they're a member of the mafia.

"You just can't do that," Quinlan explains, "You can join but you can't leave."

The PFOX spokesman says the person who attacked Glatze is Wayne Besen, whom he called a "personal enemy" who once sued Quinlan for slander but lost.

The attack against Glatze intensified when it became public knowledge that he had married Rebekah.

"What a crime that is," Quinlan remarks. "It is as I've said before: those who demand tolerance the most possess it the least."

The problem activists have when someone leaves the homosexual lifestyle is that it proves that change is possible, and through Christ."

Why don't they leave this man in peace with his life choice? It seems a very dark world to me, and definitely not 'of God'.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that there are a lot of bi-sexual people who were at one point seeking SS relationships etc, and championing gay rights. These people are very much able to marry women and live the 'heterosexual life'. This does not mean that they have changed, nor does it imply that change is possible. It just means that those who were always, all along, able to live a heterosexual life have chosen to do so because it is too difficult to fight anymore.

But for those who are not bi-sexual, there is no option. There is no evidence of anyone anywhere, at any time, ever, having gone from being gay to being straight, and those who have attempted to do so, have ALL, without exception, either lived with depression because they are living a lie, or living a secret double life, where they still go off to sex clubs for anonymous sex etc. There is no evidence that God has ever helped anyone overcome their homosexuality, or changed it. What there is PLENTY of evidence of, is God blessing people who choose to honour Him in their SS relationship.

If God blesses it, then who are we to argue with God? Are we better Theologians than God?

Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall - Former Australian East in London

Kjell Edlund said...

In respect of that I don't know anything about this man or his struggles of life, and that I haven't read this...
Have you conceived the possibility that, in cases like his, is a matter of Bisexuality..?

Why is it that I mention this?
Well... I have, throughout my life, met this kind of persons, and also listened to their special troubles.

I have also met and talked with folks that have made this trip twice.
They have tryed to follow their believes, and tryed to manage a traditional marriage. But life it self gave them no choice. They just had to comply with who they really is, and had to relinquish their spouse and get divorced.
How sad it have been talking to those gals and pals, I say!

It's particular through those experiences I, my self, have been forced to evaluate my own convictions and believes.

John Sullivan said...

To Anonymous,

I am sure you realize that you have taken an isolated incident, not known to you, and used it as a case against the LGBT community. Have you thought of the fact that the man concerned who left the "homosexual life style" and married may actually be bisexual? Nothing is ever as simple as it first appears. If the man is truly bisexual he does a terrible injustice to his wife, unless of course she is also bisexual. The same applies to a bisexual woman who marries a heterosexual man. In both cases the temptation lies always, in spite of one's good intentions, to play the field.

When I was a post-graduate student in seminary I got to know all the students. In a conversation one day, a woman who tagged herself as being a lesbian said our loud: "If I thought I could marry a man it would be", and then she named the student. I asked her "why him?" and she replied quite rightly "because he is authentic", and then she blushed. My response was to say: "You should listen to your body; I think that blush is telling you something". Sometime later, the two of them came to my room and asked me to marry them. I counselled them to think seriously about what they were asking, because they needed to be totally honest.

The whole student body turned out for the wedding. Each year after on their anniversary they would phone me, tell me about their family expanding, and then one year no more phone calls. I discovered that the husband had died; the woman had moved on and was now an activist in the LGBT rights movement. The two of them had been ministers in a mainline denomination in the States. I have no idea what happened to the children, or if the wife had been faithful, or how it was that the husband had died so prematurely.

On the other side, there is the homosexual man, who listens to conservative Christians and pastors telling him that he can leave his orientation, and change as a result of marrying a woman. With all the best of intentions he does so, fully trusting in God's redemptive power to bring about a change. After years of marriage he discovers that "the leopard cannot change his spots", and he leaves his wife and their children for another man. It is a terrible embarrassment to his wife and children and he leaves them affected by it for the rest of their days.

There is a continuum on the sexual scale all the way from macho men to macho women. There are heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transgendered. Who made these people with their various sexual orientations? I think of a text in the Old Testament. Moses is telling God "that he is slow of speech and slow of tongue", and God answers: "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute, or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? If God made them that way, I would expect God to be compassionate. Those of us who have relatives who are gay understand. Is our love greater than God's love?

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, the Swedish government does not grant the church the right to act freely in matters of ethics or morality. The state decides how the church is to act and decrees that right a privilege, not a freedom. No wiggle room allowed! Do as the state dictates or face a possible harsh discipline-

Monday's blog article's focus is orientation and its options…

John Sullivan said...

How would "anonymous" know what tomorrow's Blog is going to be Sven?

But whoever this "anonymous" is, perhaps we have an example here in Sweden that "the children of this age(the State) are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light"(the Church. Luke 16:8

Anonymous said...

In the face of the adamant statements above that a leopard can't change its spots, perhaps you should all read my posting again. (begins 'I was concerned').
Whoa - slow down, folks! My point was directed at the overly aggressive statement by Greg Quinlan who said 'anybody who leaves the homosexual lifestyle "is treated as if they're a member of the mafia.
"You just can't do that," Quinlan explains, "You can join but you can't leave."
What's all that about? Why can't he leave that lifestyle if he wants to? That's outright bullying - the very type you all condemn (and rightly so).
All I asked was why didn't they leave him in peace to get on with his life the way both he and his wife want to do!
It may well be that he will never be 'cured' of his homosexuality, or it may well be that he IS cured of it. Who are we to say? The point is that he recognised - as a practising homosexual - that it was wrong for him, and he has RENOUNCED that lifestyle. You may well decry it and deny it to yourselves, but it has happened, and between them they have decided to marry. The woman is not a victim here - she has entered into this marriage fully aware of the past, but they are both trusting God for the future, and we believe that He can do the impossible - or don't we?


Simply because yours truly hit the wrong button as I rushed out the door to treat my wife to a Valentine lunch… sorry; not my intent to be anonymous. Sven

Anonymous said...

During nearly all of these articles on LGBT issues, the assumption by its well-known supporters state that homosexuality is a given - it's from birth - not a choice, and when people say they are no longer homosexuals their word is challenged, with evangelical shouts of 'No! Not possible!

When someone who has been married in a heterosexual relationship for 30+ years and 'comes out' as gay, these supporters say he has suppressed his sexuality all the time during his marriage and before, because this 'orientation' has been ever present with him.
Just a simple question: why, then in a reverse scenario, when someone who has been homosexual for a number of years decides he's had enough of it and renounces his homosexuality to pursue heterosexual relationships, why do you not say ' well, he must have been heterosexual all along, and has been suppressing his heterosexuality? Surely you can't say it for one and not the other? But you do.
Just asking.

Kjell Edlund said...

Now, you may have a point here.
But your biased comment does show your opinions on the issue.

When a man faces bad health - on what does he reach out for hope of rehabilitation?
Of course he lean on science of health. Doesn't he? He seeks help from the doctor, of course he do.

Now, when science purpose that a sexuel orientation is indigenous, that it's a matter of natural processes in the infants brain early during the pregnancy.
Well... then it's obviously ok to neglect such sciences in accordance to ones owns convictions.

When we get new information through dedicated scolars how things works out, we might be more humble.

And again - we know that there are many that are constituted with a Bisexual orientation.
What we don't know - even that we've heard about some declarations about it - is if it is possible to revert a sexuel orientation.
A simple test could be: Imagine your self in a romantic situation "in the other way"... Possible... ...?

Anonymous said...

.....'A simple test could be: Imagine your self in a romantic situation "in the other way"... Possible... ...?
What do you think? No, it's not possible, I'm glad to say. You have dismissed my arguments with your fudged response, but thank you for admitting I had a point.
You also said 'But your biased comment does show your opinions on the issue.'
And yours don't? I think we both know which side of the fence we're on. I'm just saying your argument doesn't hold water, and that it is skewed unjustly in favour of the LGBT person. Please give the same consideration to the reverse of the coin.

Kjell Edlund said...

Dear Anonymous!
I hope you don't find my comments patronizing.
You have to consider that English doesn't come as easy as my own language Swedish. So sometimes it might look more confrontational than it really is.

Yes, we do have different views on the topic.
But I rather prefer to consider us on the same side of the fence, but with different views.
After all - it's all about bringing the message of Jesus out to all people. Isn't it!
Sometimes one does best to agree on that we don't agree, and in my experience it's possible to do just that and remain friends in Christ!
Kjell-Erik Edlund

John Sullivan said...

Unfortunately anonymous is not getting the picture. Let's see if I can elucidate something that is very complex. Here is an example from pastoral ministry. One day I received a phone call from the CEO of an NGO. He has since died, but at the time he was a colleague in ministry. He phoned concerning one of my associates, a married woman with six children. Her husband, also an ordained minister was on the staff of the NGO. The organization was a ministry to men. Apparently the husband in question would arrive early each morning when the men were showering, join them, and have consensual sex.

My colleague asked if I would arrange a meeting between my associate and her husband to inform her that he had been fired from his position, and to seek a confession from him as to the real reason why. He confessed, and told his wife that it had been going on for years in one job or another. Her response was to say that it was all over. She immediately began divorce proceedings. Her husband, a competent manager had no trouble finding another job. Not long after I discovered that he had married again: a woman who had no idea of his past history. When I asked my associate how this could be, she simply replied "He is bisexual".

Now why didn't this man choose one orientation over the other? Some bisexuals obviously do, in the hope that they will be able to live the "straight and narrow". They may do so out of the fear of public criticism, or of the Christian community, or losing their employment, or because they honestly and sincerely feel that who they are and what they do is sinful and destructive. That said when they do not live up to their fidelity vows it is certainly destructive to their wives and children.

What we have been endeavouring to say, is that this might possibly be the situation with regard to the illustration you provided.

What we all need in this discussion is compassion, but for the grace of God we could be in the same boat, neither fish nor fowl. Do you understand?

Anonymous said...

....'Do you understand?'.... With respect, Mr Sullivan, I am not stupid - and your example is also an isolated one which may be true for the person you quoted, but not for everyone. You have no evidence that the person I alluded to above has tendencies towards bisexuality. And my intention was not to get drawn into a discussion about bisexuality, of which I have no doubt there are many examples, but my comment was pointing out that the LGBT community is discriminating against and bullying those who wish to leave its ranks, this gentleman in particular, and to my mind, to provoke and threaten someone who wishes to do so is reprehensible - that's all. Perhaps you could read the posting again. It was you who introduced the theme of bisexuality, not me. I'm not sure why. I'll repeat what I said, just so you'll understand - the LGBT will not allow people to leave the lifestyle when they decide enough is enough - not my words, but words of the leader of PFOX - Greg Quinlan. I'm not sure I know what else I can say to clarify the matter for you. Your elucidation of the complexities was all so unnecessary in your enthusiasm to keep alive your LGBT sympathies, because my comments did not relate to the point you were desperately trying to 'elucidate'. And without the benefit of seeing into the future, whether this man makes a success of his marriage or not, it's very unfair of you to label him bisexual at the outset, and it's limiting the transforming power of God to suggest it.
And Kjell-Erik - no, I don't think your responses are condescending at all. I understand the language issues - I find them quite endearing. We agree to differ, regretfully.

John Sullivan said...

Ok brother, I am not stupid either, nor was I the first person in this dialogue to mention the bi-sexual issue, my post followed two others who raised it.

I have been a pastor for the past fifty years and still minister to a congregation now that I am in my eighties. In those years I have encountered a lot of sad pastoral situation involving the LGBT community, and our particular denomination in Canada was the first both to accept gays as members of the church and affirm same sex marriages.

If I have offended you in any way please accept my apologies. I am neither "enthusiastic" as you suggest, nor blind to the pain a lot of people have suffered over the years, by people on both sides of this issue.

Tell me why you do not have the courage to identify who you are.

John Sullivan said...

I am curious as to where the concept comes from that the transforming power of the gospel can make radical changes to people's sexuality? If one follows it to its ultimate end does it mean that God as a result of prayer could change males into females? Can pedophiles be redeemed by the blood of Jesus; if so why are they placed on serious offender lists and people warned when they move into a community? Can God do something to change the wired minds and spirits of the transgendered? If God can change homosexuals into heterosexuals there wouldn't be any need to require that they remain celibate would there? A trip to the mercy seat could do the trick, if not once, at least after a half a dozen times.

Perhaps someone could be asked to write a post that would enlighten us all, answering the question whether or not there are limits to God's transforming power. Can God do anything; is nothing impossible to God? If that is true where are the tangible results? I'm afraid I've left this kind of thinking fifty years ago.

Anonymous said...

Mr Sullivan - my decision to remain unidentified is not a matter of courage, but a matter of choice. I just prefer to 'speak' from anonymity. You don't know me anyway, and we're unlikely ever to meet, so my name wouldn't mean anything to you. You haven't offended me in any way - I guess I was just fired up by the way you stated that I wasn't 'getting the picture', which suggested to me a superiority of attitude in your writing, and a dismissal of my views as of no consequence - whereas I, of course, have a different (and I believe a biblically correct) perspective. It's my prerogative, just as yours is to you. I assure you I 'get' the picture - it's just not as appealing to me as it is to you, and my 'getting' it is in direct opposition to your views. I commend you on your longevity and active Christian service, but I'm not sure it has any bearing on a few sentences spoken with passion on either side. I know you are held in deep respect by those who often frequent this website, and by its leaders, and I acknowledge this and respect their opinion of you, but your statement of being the first denomination to accept gays and affirm same sex marriages doesn't impress me at all, and I don't think you would expect it to.
I'm sorry we don't agree, but that's the way it is. May God bless you.

Perpetually anonymous

Anonymous said...

One of the issues here is the assumption that the individual was homosexual. Even the now defunct Exodus organisation admitted that no-one has ever changed from being gay to being straight. Many have tried, but ALL (according to them) have either slipped back, or lived a life in permanent depression. The only ones who have 'successfully' led a heterosexual life are those who were either bi-sexual, or were never gay to begin with.

The offence that the LGBT community has is not that a person 'left the ranks' as has been suggested, but that the person claims they were gay in the first place. Such a claim, rather than providing hope for others, locks people into further despair and depression as they try even harder to 'live a heterosexual life'. Suicides increase when such a view is put forward. Nothing about this is from God.

I do believe that God is all powerful, and can do miracles. However, I also believe that God will not change something that doesn't need changing, or fix something that isn't broken. Hence, He has never changed anyone from being gay to being straight - no matter how much people beseech Him, agonise with Him etc etc etc.

It would seem that a view which assumes God does change people from being gay to being straight, or that an actual gay person can live a heterosexual life etc., is either wrong, or assumes that God is a vindictive, hateful being that loves to see people suffer. The latter leads to a conclusion of no salvation for anyone, the former means we need to re-think our Theology to be more in line with the actual experience of our relationship with God.

Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London

Anonymous said...

I find the last posting from Graeme Randall quite breathtakingly unbelievable in its crassness. I used to smoke, but no longer do so. It doesn't change the fact that I once did, and was classed as 'a smoker'. And it cannot change that fact - I WAS. But now I am NOT - I am most definitely a non-smoker, and would never go back to being one, having seen the stupidity of doing so healthwise. Please contrast this with the above and make your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

I can only assume that you must have been genetically disposed to being a smoker in the first place, if you think that Graeme's post was illogical.

Anonymous said...

What is the equivalent of bisexuality for ex-smokers? There must be one, surely!

Anonymous said...

....I can only assume that you must have been genetically disposed to being a smoker in the first place,'.......... nope - it was peer pressure. There's a lesson in there as well. No genetic predisposition, just encouragement from my friends that it was OK to do so.

Anonymous said...

Having just read some of your recent articles, I would have you beware the process of picking people just because they support the "one" LGBT issue. You will end up with much more serious consequences, much like the Republicans have..... You don't want to Kill the Salvation Army in the process of changing it's mind... Allowing people in who aren't even good Christians for no other reason than they support the agenda puts people in who aren't there for the right reasons. Some of them just see it as a "comfortable" lifestyle. When the going gets hard, or they are asked to transfer to a site they don't like, they will just walk away.

Anonymous said...

I think I now see a big part of the problem in this debate - as illustrated by anonymous ex-smoker. It is a matter of definition and understanding as to what a homosexual is.

Anonymous talks about previously identifying as a smoker because he smoked. When he stopped smoking, he was an ex-smoker. Here, his identification is based on an action. By extrapolation then, it would seem that his definition of a homosexual is someone who engages in same-sex sexual practices, or who seeks them.

That is where the difference lies. My understanding, along with most of those who have written 'pro' articles, is quite different to that understanding of homosexual or gay. Most gay people would say that just because you have sex with the same gender, or you fantasise about the same gender, does not mean you are gay or homosexual. You could be bi-sexual, or there could be a host of other reasons. It does not mean you are gay. A man having sex with another man no more makes him gay than a Big Mac sitting in a garage makes it a car.

The 'pro' articles, and many of the 'pro' comments have been assuming people who are either in, or who are looking for, monogamous same-sex relationships. Many of whom are committed Christians, worshiping in many churches around the world. It assumes that those who are LGBT are no different to heterosexuals except in whom they love.

Hence my comment that a person who is capable of loving someone of the opposite sex, and being fulfilled in that relationship, was never gay. They may be bi-sexual, or have been in a same-sex relationship (or sought such encounters) for a host of other reasons, but was never gay.

Perhaps we need to agree on an understanding and definition of what homosexuality is before we can really engage in dialogue, otherwise we are going to be talking about completely different things, such as comparing horses with airplanes.

Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London

Anonymous said...

I think most people are clear on what homosexuality is - having a rather more simple interpretation than Graeme Randall. Not sure where he's coming from, but wherever it is, it will not transcend the minds of most people in their thought processes. I would guess most people, even the supporters of inclusion, would identify with the following dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webster definition of ‘homosexual’:
Full Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Oxford English dictionary definition:

• sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
• 1.1
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex: homosexual desire
Back to top
• a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

Wikipedia definition:

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex.

I find Graeme Randall's comments bizarre to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous who left the comment: "I think most people are clear on what homosexuality is - having a rather more simple interpretation than Graeme Randall. Not sure where he's coming from, but wherever it is, it will not transcend the minds of most people in their thought processes. I would guess most people, even the supporters of inclusion, would identify with the following dictionary definitions: "

Well, that's sounds more like a dismissal than an attempt to understand who the LG person is. Would you use an equally simplistic term to define the heterosexual person?

I look forward to the lessons prepared for us. I'm hoping they'll be in the form of An Idiot's Guide to LGBT Persons; to marvel at God's creation of his children similar to me but with a different orientation.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

To the person who posted:"I have come to the conclusion that many fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals have never gotten beyond what they learned in the school yard, or in some Victorian manual that was handed to them by their parents"…

Please contact me - there were several inaccuracies in your post that need correction. Once that's been effected we'll post your comment. Thank you,