Yesterday on Saturday the 3rd of September 2011, the Auckland Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand passed a motion that people involved in sexual relationships outside of marriage but within committed same-sex relationships would not be impeded from being ordained into ministry.

The mover of the motion was Glynn Cardy, notorious for his parish (St Matthews in the City) displaying billboards openly mocking historic Christian belief (I mentioned this a whole ago). Not terribly surprising I suppose!

Here is the motion:

That this Synod
[1] Holds that sexual orientation should not be an impediment to the discernment, ordination, and licensing of gay and lesbian members to any lay and ordained offices of the Church; and further
[2] persons in committed same-sex relationships likewise should not be excluded from being considered for discernment, ordination, and licensing to any lay and ordained offices of the Church.
[3] commits to an intentional process of listening to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, organized by the Archdeacons in consultation with the gay and lesbian community.
[4] commits to an ongoing discussion with the ministry units, asks the Archdeacons to facilitate this, and invites responses to those discussions to be submitted to Diocesan Council by 31st March 2012; and
[5] commits to support the process and work of the Commission to be appointed by General Synod Standing Committee, as resolved at its meeting in July 2011.

It’s absolutely crucial to state: Prior to this motion being passed, there was no ban on homosexuals becoming ordained. None whatsoever. This is not about the church’s willingness to include people who identify as homosexual (some popular misrepresentations notwithstanding). This is about whether or not the church is right to refuse to ordain people who are living in a sexual union outside of marriage, something that the Christian faith has always disapproved of, regardless of anyone’s sexual orientation.
Read the rest of the entry »

Sometimes the facts are unpopular. The title is not meant to imply that I’m going to talk about facts that connect homosexuality and Islam. Simply because neither one of these statistical realities really deserved a blog post of its own, I’ve combined them into one.

Unpopular fact 1: There aren’t nearly as many homosexuals out there as some would like you to believe.

Sorry folks, it’s true.

Just one in 100 people in the UK say they are gay or lesbian, the first ever survey of British sexual identity has revealed.
A further one in every 200 people are bisexual, according to the data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

So if we combine the homosexuals and bisexuals, that’s 1.5%. Now, depending on which homosexual group you ask (until this data came out), you might have heard anything from 7% to 10%. A recent article by Jacqui Stanford over at New Zealand homosexual / bisexual / transexual interest website GayNZ expresses “disbelief” at recent statistics to come out of the UK.

The new estimate that just 1.5 percent of Britain’s population is gay or bisexual is being met with utter disbelief. The Office of National Statistics came up with the surprising figure after interviewing more than 450,000 people. It’s a massive drop from previous estimates of 5-7 percent.

Well, here’s the unpopular truth (well, unpopular with some, anyway): The figure is not even slightly surprising, and there has never been a reputable estimate of 5-7 percent.

Here’s the unusual line of reasoning that the GayNZ article draws on:

Correspondent Mark Townsend points out in The Observer that the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, most recently conducted 10 years ago, asked 11,000 Britons: ‘Ever had sex with a same sex partner, including genital contact?’ More than 6 percent of the respondents replied: ‘Yes.’ “Are we to believe the pool of potential partners for gay and bisexuals has recently evaporated by millions? If not, then why the vast discrepancy?” he writes.

Notice the slippery standard: Townsend notes that in a (very much smaller) survey, a little over six percent of adults said that at some point in their lives they had either had sex with a same sex partner or had genital contact with one. Notice that this is not a question about the present, nor is it a question about whether a person considers themselves homosexual or bisexual (for example, a respondent may have been thinking of a drunken mistake, and experiment that turned them off ever considering bisexuality, or a dare, any one of which might have occurred some years ago), and it includes people who have engaged in behaviour that may not even be regarded as having sex of any kind. But notice that the article at GayNZ uses that data to attempt to overturn a vastly more comprehensive study (with forty times as many people surveyed – the “largest social survey ever produced by the ONS” ) which actually asks about whether or not people consider themselves heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. GayNZ is clearly comparing apples with oranges. It’s like saying that if a person has ever tasted meat at any time in history (or even just touched it!) then they can’t possibly be a vegetarian.

As I have noted at this blog before, the UK is not unique here. Similar statistics exist for New Zealand as well, for example. According to a well known University of Otago study (see the last link), “Less than one per cent of people identified themselves as homosexual, but three per cent had a same-sex encounter.”

So this isn’t news. It will merely be spun as “surprising” or “doubtful” by those who perhaps wish things were otherwise. Sorry. Facts is facts, and it’s no good complaining that the facts are in poor taste.

Unpopular fact 2: Far more Muslims in America support suicide bombing than some Western Islamic spokespeople would like you to believe.

I know, I know, it’s supposed to be an unfair, ignorant stereotype: The crazed Muslim suicide bomber blowing himself (or herself) up, taking as many infidels out of this world as possible in the process. We’re not supposed to think that way about Muslims. That stereotype is based on a tiny tiny handful of very unique extremists in non-Western nations where they don’t have democracy and all that good stuff. To say otherwise is not merely mistaken, it’s impolite!

So for the second time in one month let me make myself unpopular (with some people, anyway). The facts indicate that this politeness may be misplaced:

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

Reflect on that. In the American Muslim population below the age of thirty, twenty six percent maintain that suicide bombing is acceptable in some cases. That’s just over a quarter of them.

Say it’s unpleasant, say it’s mean to point the facts out (but be prepared to say why, of course), but don’t say it isn’t true.

The facts, quite frankly my dear, don’t give a damn about what’s popular.

Recently I posted a couple of blog entries that made reference to homosexuality. I didn’t seek the subject out, it just popped up in current affairs due to the publicity surrounding a couple of recent studies. However, writing those two blog posts reminded me that I haven’t actually written a blog entry laying out what I think about the legal status of same sex marriage. Contributing at least partially to that end, I submit the following.

The following is not written to convince you that my view on the legal status of same-sex marriage is correct. All I intend to do here is to ensure that you know what my view on the legal status of same sex marriage is.
Read the rest of the entry »

A recent University of Otago study has indicated that people who suffered sexual abuse or rape as children are more likely than others to later identify as either homosexual or bisexual.

Otago University researcher associate professor Elisabeth Wells has looked at the connection between adverse childhood events and sexuality and found those who experienced trauma were significantly more likely to be non-heterosexual.
The study used results from the New Zealand Mental Health Survey, which surveyed almost 13,000 people aged over 16 between 2003 and 2004.
Participants were asked whether they thought of themselves as bisexual, heterosexual or homosexual and if they had same-sex sexual experiences or relationships.
Less than one per cent of people identified themselves as homosexual, but three per cent had a same-sex encounter.
Wells said the more “adverse events” experienced in childhood – including sexual assault, rape and domestic violence – the more likely the person identified with one of the non-exclusively heterosexual groups.
She said most people from disturbed backgrounds were heterosexual.
However, the study showed a clear relationship between negative events in childhood and homosexual or bisexual relationships later in life.
SOURCE

What has struck me most is not the study itself which, as far as I am aware, had a fairly unremarkable method and reported on the facts as they are. What I’ve found interesting is the reaction of some people in the “gay community.” I dislike that term somewhat because it suggests that homosexuals all think alike when clearly they don’t. But when I use it, I have in mind the more outspoken and often politically involved or politically motivated self appointed spokespeople for non-heterosexuals. That’s a pretty wordy description, so I use the less than ideal phrase “gay community” instead.
Read the rest of the entry »

Today I spotted a (now inactive) comic called Cectic. Here’s how the author, Rudiz Muiznieks, describes his comic:

Cectic is the user manual for your brain, in comic-form. It was originally published every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but real-life interceded, and as of November 2008 was only published (approximately) once every few weeks on Sundays. On January 24, 2009, Rudis announced that Cectic had come to an end.
Cectic is for skeptics. If you’re not amused, try Chick Publications, or Dan’s Pulpit (sent to me by a reader who referred to it as the Anti-Cectic).

The particular comic on this site that served as my introduction to Cectic was this one:

(Taken from http://cectic.com/146.html)

I was a little stunned at first. Not at the profundity of the point being made – anything but! I was stunned by the realisation that the author of the comic appears to genuinely think that he has scored a rhetorical point. Unfortunately, I’m fairly sure that many of the “sceptics” for whom Cectic is intended would have read this, smiled and nodded wisely, saying to themselves something like “Haha, yes, excellent point. You’ve really cornered those fundies on this one! Why don’t they see this?”

What irritates me further is the knowledge that Cectic isn’t alone. This breathtakingly shallow analysis is common – unless my experiences are atypical. So why do I take issue with it? Let me count the ways (OK there are only a few ways, but it was a short conversation!):

Firstly, the Christian in this discussion grants without hesitation that requirements that held in the Old Testament, by virtue of being in the Old Testament, no longer apply today. He doesn’t make a rather obvious reply like “Wait, no we don’t believe that at all. Kidnapping is forbidden in the Old Testament but not the New Testament, yet we don’t think that’s OK. No, that is not the principle we hold to at all.” This would have stopped the other guy’s faulty analysis dead in its tracks, because its underlying principle would be rejected right from the start.

Secondly, the Christian accepts without hesitation the claim that the biblical case – the entire biblical case – that there is something wrong with homosexuality comes from the book of Leviticus. There’s no reference to the creation account, to the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the early chapters of Romans or to the first letter to the Corinthians, all of which contribute to the Christian understanding that is being criticised here. The fact is, absolutely nobody would grant that this claim about Leviticus being the only relevant source is correct. This is to say nothing of the way that it is assumed that in reality, Christians should regard nothing in the book of Leviticus as being of any value (not even “love your neighbour as yourself,” which is in Leviticus, right after the list of sexual sins, including homosexual acts).

Thirdly, the Christian affirms that Christian leaders and teachers (in this case his pastor) affirm that the above claims are in fact what Christians believe. But Christians believe neither of these two things. Further, it is suggested that the case is so absurd that Christians are likely to see it as silly, but continue to rely on it anyway on the basis of church authority.

There’s little (if any) point in actually interacting with people who think this way. It’s clear that they didn’t get to this point of view by honest observation or by actually making an effort to find out what other people really think, so it’s not like accuracy is regarded as particularly important by people who present stuff like this. Pointing out to people who present things like this that the representation is faulty at every step of the way is unlikely to be a productive enterprise. I suppose it’s (perhaps) revealing that this is the way a self-professed sceptic writes a “user manual for your brain.” What’s truly ironic is that it appears that this comic was presented to show that conservative Christians are the ones with shallow arguments that they haven’t really thought about.

Glenn Peoples

Today the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ) voted to ban people in sexual unions outside of marriage from entering the ministry.What a shock. What other conclusion could they have come to? This means that a man who is in a sexual relationship with a woman that he is not married to – or to any person that he is not married to for that matter – cannot become a minister in the church. This is not surprising for a Christian Church. The wording of the vote was explicit: People in a sexual relationship outside of marriage cannot be ministers.

Now let’s look at how the media reported it. The International Herald Tribune, using Allied Press as a source, ran with this headline:

“New Zealand Presbyterians ban gays from church leadership roles”

Ooo, look, the church is singling out gays! No, actually the quote was that nobody in a sexual relationship outside of marriage can become a minister. This includes same sex couples, yes, but it does not single out gays. There is nothing about this vote that implies that a gay person could not become a minister, provided he or she did not engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, and exactly the same standard applies to heterosexual candidates for the ministry.

The Asia-Pacific News, using Deutsche-Presse Agenteur as its source, used a similar headline:

“Presbyterian Church in New Zealand votes to ban gay ministers”

No. This is false. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are in the same boat on this one. Nobody who is having a sexual relationship outside of marriage can become a minister. Get it?

The New Zealand Herald was equally dishonest:

“Presbyterian Church votes to exclude gay ministers”

Simon Collins wrote the story in this case. Simon, you lied (Or you’re gullible).

But all is not lost. In a shock revelation, I discovered that some media outlets used a headline that was actually not misleading! Radio New Zealand used this:

“Presbyterian church members vote in favour of relationship rule”

Thank you. The story accompanying the healdine is quite correct: “The rule bars anyone in a sexual relationship outside marriage from training or becoming ordained.”

A friend of mine, Stuart Lange was asked the question by a Three News reporter after the vote: “Isn’t this just intolerance, pure and simple?” His reply was right on: “Well, you only call it intolerance because it reflects a belief different from yours.” Bingo. Christianity has always been intolerant. There just is a difference between Christian and non-Christian. To have literally no intolerance would mean accepting all beliefs and practices everywhere as equally acceptable. To expect a Church to do that is beyond stupidity.