Gay Prince

[philmayfield 6,153]

I read in the paper this morning that a senior Anglican minister has asked Christians to pray that Prince George, aged 4, will become gay. Sadly, not being a Christian (thank God) I will be unable to share in his prayers. Just off into town to wave my Union Jack to lend my support to the Royals! 

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

Well, he wouldn't be the first! His namesake, George, Duke of Kent, son of George V, was widely acknowledged to be AC/DC with Noel Coward being among his conquests.

 

There have even been suggestions that The Duke of Windsor was that way inclined, hence his obsession with the androgynous Wallis  who, rumour has it in some quarters, was actually male!  Confused? I am. 

[plantfit 7,608]

I somehow cant see a rainbow flag on top of Buck house

 

Rog

 

But then again !!!!!

[DJ360 6,733]

Goog grief what a thread! 3 posts and it's already covered politics, religion and sex!  What papers do you lot read?  I'm obviously missing out!! 

 

 

Col

[philmayfield 6,153]

This was on the front page of The Times - supposedly one of the "quality" newspapers but I feel it's becoming more "Daily Mail" these days!

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

What worries me is that, one of these days, they'll make it compulsory! 

 

senior Anglican minister has said.

The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth wrote in a blog post that Christians should hope that “the Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman” to help the progression of LGBTQ+ rights in the church.

 

When is somebody going to put a stop to this damned nonsense. This is a four year old child who wants nothing more than a toy police car for Christmas. Is it any wonder that children today are suffering from anxiety, depression and assorted mental health issues. They're children! Let them enjoy their innocence without bombarding them with pressures they neither need nor understand.

 

Ye gods, I'm glad I'm 60 and not 6.

[woody 552]

It's high time these perversions were recognised for what they are. If things carry on at this rate it does not bode well for the human race. When all is said and done it takes one of each to create new life so where do we go if we pair up with one of the same persuasion?. The do gooders of this world have got a lot to answer for in the damage they have done to society and the status quo of life.

[Gem 1,430]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Goog grief what a thread! 3 posts and it's already covered politics, religion and sex!  What papers do you lot read?  I'm obviously missing out!! 

 

 

Col

Maybe same as myself, every newspaper that I can find online.

[loppylugs 8,429]

Let's not refer to such a churchman as a 'Christian.'  By his actions he very clearly is not.  Our Lord said, By their fruit you will know them.  I could say a lot more but this is a public forum.  

[philmayfield 6,153]

Well the Bishop of Buckingham, a prominent liberal, who backs same sex marriage in church told The Times “at some point in the future, if a member of the royal family were to turn out to be gay and wanted to get married, it would make an interesting conundrum.” Kensington Palace declined to comment! It seems that the Church of England is a broad church. Obviously there have been some departures from the interpretation of the Bible. Where is all this going?

[FLY2 10,108]

Backwards !

[Brew 5,422]

Damn! when I read Jills quote I spilt tea all over my keyboard! My first reaction was to write something derogatory using good old fashioned Anglo Saxon expletives but I don't want to be banned just yet.

[NewBasfordlad 3,599]

No comment I dare not or like Brew you may not see me again

[plantfit 7,608]

1 hour ago, philmayfield said:

Where is all this going?

Down the pan rapidly, there's no stopping them now, I feel very sorry for the honest young people of today but in the same breath I'm pleased I've got less time in front of me than behind

 

Rog

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

8 minutes ago, plantfit said:

'm pleased I've got less time in front of me than behind

 

Rog

You and me both, Rog!

[woody 552]

It beggars belief to think what sort of world the youngsters of today are going to be left with. When I was young my parents didn't have a lot but they were content and prepared to save up for big items. This way they appreciated what they got, not like today when the expectation is to start where the older people took twenty years to get to. It really gets me going when I hear that parents have provided for their offspring with the comment "we helped them". Allowing them to have things they can't afford is not helping them to understand the realities of life. We all know the fate of the oozlum Bird and I Can't help but think society is going the same way.

[loppylugs 8,429]

Just got back from a bit of shopping to see some good posts here.

 

We really shouldn't be surprised at this, folks.  It's been coming for a long time and the bad news is that it will get worse.  I'm not going to start quoting a ton of Bible verses but if you have a Bible in the house just read in the New Testament book of 2nd Timothy ch 3. Especially the first few verses.  It wiil take less than a couple of minutes, you could even pull it up on line.  It describes the things we are seeing today to a T.  The book is actually a letter to a young preacher that Paul was advising.

 

What rattles my chain is that this reflects upon all of us who name the name of Christ.  We all get classed as perverts because unfortunately it would seem a lot are.  All who join the church, wear a dress and a dog collar as well as grabbing the title 'reverend'. Which btw, is only used of God in the Bible, are not true believers.  To some it is just a cushy job.  You can believe what you like or not believe at all.  I despise such hypocrites and heretics.  As one old preacher said, "what's down in the well comes up in the bucket."

 

Rant over! .  PLEASE!!  Don't think we are all like that.  We have no time for wolves in sheeps clothing either.

[catfan 14,793]

We will reap what we sow.

[DJ360 6,733]

I was pretty amazed to read the alleged comments of Rev. Kevin Holdsworth.  Praying for a child to grow up 'gay' is of course unacceptable.  But then you dig around a bit and...

 

This may or may not modify some people's dismay, but it looks to me as though something has been taken out of context.  Again.

 

Quote

Statement regarding Prayers for Prince George

01/12/2017 By Kelvin

Nearly two years ago, I wrote a piece about how campaigners might change the Church of England to make it more inclusive of LGBT people. The post was copied and pasted elsewhere and commented on widely at the time. In those two years I can’t remember any negative comment about it.

It included the suggestion that the church might change faster if a member of the Royal Family wanted to get married to a same-sex partner in 25 years time. It speculated that a 27 year old Prince George might well find that the Church of England would allow him to be able to enter into such a marriage.

This week, this old post has received much media attention, many people presuming that it was a new post and part of a commentary about the Royal Family rather than the church. The post was entirely about the church and its policies around LGBT inclusion.

I could spend the next few weeks defending that post and keep reminding people what it was originally about. However, it seems to me that isn’t likely to be fruitful. The ironic comment that I made quite a while ago could be seen as hurtful to members of the Royal Family, a group of people whom I actually rather admire.

I’m sorry that something that I wrote has been interpreted in the way that it has. It was not my intention to cause hurt and I regret that this has led to the current focus on Prince George.

The issues about the church and its capacity to welcome same-sex couples who want to be married remain important. However, I won’t be part of a media circus that puts further pressure on members of the Royal Family. They need peace and young members of the Royal Family need privacy too.

Sadly, this has now become a story entirely about Prince George. I’ve had countless invitations to appear in the press and media over the next week. I’ve refused them all and will continue to do so. I have found most of the invitations rather tasteless – as though media organisations actually wanted to have a prolonged conversation about a small boy rather than discuss the issues of justice and fairness that I was trying to raise. We’ve seen media frenzies around the Royal Family before. No doubt we will see them again. I’m sorry that I inadvertently provoked this one by something I wrote some time ago.

I tend to try to accept media invitations when I think I can say something positive about the love of God – love that is for everyone and which is known in kindness, generosity and grace. I see none of that in any of this. I could stoutly defend what I wrote and stubbornly insist for days that it was right. But the rights and wrongs will still end up causing harm and not love and love matters more than political point scoring.

The debate about the church and sexuality will go on. I’m not interested in continuing it through a conversation about Prince George. I would urge others, those who agree with me strongly and those who disagree with me strongly to turn our attentions to the actual matter at hand.

 

Full text here:

https://thurible.net/2017/12/01/statement-regarding-prayers-prince-george/

 

As for homosexuality and other shades of sexuality.  It seems to me that the one constant throughout history, is that homosexuality has always existed.  What has changed across time, various cultures and faiths, is the attitude to this.  In my own lifetime, homosexuality has gone from being viewed as a seedy hidden perversion, to something to be celebrated openly.  ( This is an observation.. not an endorsement)  I recall some time ago in another context saying that there is a difference between tolerance, and active promotion.

 

But whatever, homosexuality, and the other 'shades', have always been with us and always will.  I sincerely believe that the vast bulk of 'gays' do not choose their sexuality.  They are just who they are.  They cannot be 'cured', only suppressed, persecuted and made miserable.  I'm also certain that there is no more risk to , and probably much less risk to, vulnerable young people from 'gays', than there is from heterosexuals.  Some people are predatory, some people aren't.  There is no evidence whatever that gays in general are 'predatory'.   The case of certain Priests is, I suggest, a function of the sexual repression which is forced upon them as part of their 'calling'.

 

I'm neither for nor against homosexual relationships. I just accept that they have always existed and always will.  'Consenting adults' and all that.  The population of the Earth continues to grow at an alarming rate, so I doubt that the failure of the estimated approx 4% of UK population who are gay, to procreate, is having much impact upon the survival of the species.

 

Live and let live is my view.  Far more important things to concern us.

 

Col

 

[Brew 5,422]

Well put DJ but I'm of the opinion there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Homosexuality has been around a long time you say and so it has. So have paedophiles and they have had a much wider acceptance in some societies than homosexuals. Does that make it right?

Years ago Homosexuals were hounded, prosecuted and generally spat upon. Now using the cry 'we are born this way' they march up and down our towns and cities demanding rights to marriage etc. Given a few years more will we see paedophiles crying the same and demanding equal treatment as they tramp through our streets?

The USA has more states where child marriages are legal than there are those that allow same sex unions. Does that make it right?

The arguament about age, innocence and the ability to make a choice I fully support it but as we have seen attitudes can change, opinions swayed and I for one hope never to see it.

Live and let live is a fine sentiment but some things are just wrong.

[DJ360 6,733]

Thing is Brew I thought I'd made my case for allowing 'consenting adults' to have the relationships they wish.  This is a million miles from allowing paedophiles to exploit underage children. Predators of any orientation must not be allowed to act on their desires. We have a legal age of consent here which is I believe set at 16. As you point out though... it's a very complex issue and views/laws vary pretty wildly around the world. I don't think it is necessary for me to charge around declaring my heterosexuality, so I hope we'll soon reach a point of sufficient understanding that those of minority sexual orientation also no longer feel the need to proclaim their rights and we all just get on with being ourselves.

 

I've never knowingly met a paedophile, but I've known and worked with a number of 'gays' and Lesbians.  They were almost without exception very caring, funny, sensitive  and thoughtful people.  They certainly didn't make me feel unsafe, and I'd have happily left my girls in their company.

 

Some years ago I was more than a bit concerned when a 16 year old girl in our youth club told me she was in a relationship with her former PE teacher.  She told me it was 'OK' because she had now left school.  I told her it was still potentially a problem because he was technically in a position of 'power and influence' over her.  I had no more involvement because shortly after I was 'taken out' by health issues.

Around ten years later, I met the same girl again.  She was still with the teacher and married to him.  She had completed a degree at university and was clearly very happy and settled.

 

Col

[catfan 14,793]

But that doesn't make it right. That teacher was in a position of trust & he should have known better.

[plantfit 7,608]

In my opinion (and that counts for nothing) Homosexuality was wrong, still is wrong and always will be wrong

 

Rog

[Brew 5,422]

Yes you have the 'consenting adult' proviso in there and if it was behind closed doors who would know? who would care?  You mention predators but most child brides, whilst not always free to make a choice, are not the result of predation. The image of a monster leaping out and attacking a child is not the same as a paedophile. They are not necessarily predators many are married to underaged children by arrangement.

Who says when someone is underaged? It's a man made construct and as such can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

The point I'm trying to make is the way they have change societies attitudes and where they can't do that have used the law to force the changes on us.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

2 hours ago, catfan said:

But that doesn't make it right. That teacher was in a position of trust & he should have known better.

 

That's true Mike.  If things had worked out differently he would have been sacked.. as a minimum.  But the case points out some of the conflicting issues.  If she'd been to a different school and met him in some other context what then? 

Col