Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[jollytiddlywink]

Everything has to be spelt out for you.

If that were actually the case, I would prefer that everything be spelt out for me by someone with a full command of English, thank you very much.

I was suggesting that depending of the form of homosexual lifestyle it can risk high rates of STI transmission, which is what that study is aiming to analyse. If even gay couple are accepting of promiscuity within marriage this does not bode well for health. As much as it would in a heterosexual marriage. Generally heterosexually relationships there is an expectation of fidelity, if this is entirely absent from a large enough number of homosexual relationships there will be no hope at controlling STIs, especially given the comment in the link about unprotected sex.

Your attempt to insinuate that a study on non-monogamy in gay relationships meant that gay relationships are less monogamous than straight relationships is a sloppy argument. It is a study of open relationship dynamics, not the number of open relationships amongst LGBT couples.
As I suggested earlier, there is no point in doing a study on open relationships unless you make an effort to ensure that a large proportion of the couples in your study are in such relationships. I suggested that the study was likely to have selected as many such open relationships as possible. A little digging has confirmed that this is indeed the case. Here is the press report they put out in 2006 asking for participants. The opening line is "...researchers are looking to interview 450 gay male couples as part of an ongoing study on open relationships." It isn't necessary to add "monogamous couples need not apply" because its a given.
http://crgs.sfsu.edu/pdf/Researcher_See ... R_2006.pdf

And please note that lesbians have lower rates of STI transmission than heterosexuals. If we follow your argument down that path, then there are going to be a lot of very frustrated straight men with nothing to do while all the women pair off, because that will help to keep STI rates down!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magaz ... ral&src=me
It discusses homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, and also discusses the evolutionary and genetic benefits of homosexuality...

That example about albatrosses, one of the 'homosexual' partners will have zero sexual reproductive success. The only way that it may be beneficial would be if was an example of kin selection where an aunt / uncle / cousin helps improve the reproductive success of their relation. Clearly this does not require homosexual sex. So really the only way that homosexual sex can be understood to be a beneficial trait is if one is having incestuous intercourse which maintains the bond, and in exchange resources are used to raise the offspring resulting from heterosexual sex.

I suppose a human equivalent would be some sort of menage a trois with a homosexual being the third party.

Did you read as far as page eight, where it discusses humans, and the genetic impact of homosexuality?

"In the beginning..." Does that ring any bells? Or is Genesis one of the bits of that book that isn't convenient for you, so you ignore it?

Thanks, but I don't need you to interpret the bible for me. Provided that I acknowledge that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, it is up to our own consciences as to how it all came about. So evolution is the best theory to explain how the diversity of species came to be.

My apologies for trying to usurp the position of interpreter. That is clearly the pope's job. Does your argument mean that your acknowledgement of god, etc confers on you the ability to rule on the relationships of others? Presumably it is up to my own conscience as to how to interact with another consenting adult.

Spare me. Having sex with only those of the same gender IS THE DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUAL! You don't need to affix a bacterial adjective to the term to make that clear... all you've done is construct a rather sinister tautology and stick to your habit of using different terms than anyone else, apparently just for the hell of it.
For your information, there is a term for the people who inhabit the middle of sexuality spectrum. They are bisexuals, or 'bi' for short. Just so you don't further muddy the waters by inventing more terms that don't need to be invented.

There is a difference between attraction and practice. For me, a homosexual is person who practices homosexuality. Attraction is no always black and white, rather a continuum. A married person who has children and practices heterosexuality, may also have also experience homosexual attraction from time to time but never engage in homosexual sex. This does not make them a homosexual or a bi-sexual. They are a heterosexual.

Yet again, you are using language in your own way ("for me" as you put it, with the omitted qualifier "but not for anyone else"). I will repeat: if you insist on using terms without a regard for how they are understood by everyone else who is engaging in debate, nobody is likely to get very far.

Homosexuals are people who are attracted to the same sex, whether they act on it or not.
Heterosexuals are the opposite, whether they act on it or not.
Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, whether they act on it or not.
Your definition of heterosexual is wrong. Your example is not heterosexual, but bisexual. That they do not act upon part of their sexuality does not negate it.
Or to phrase the debunking another way: consider your case, since you haven't had sex. Your argument indicates that you don't have a sexual orientation. After all, you don't practice either hetero- or homosexuality. In your own terms of reference, you seem to be a non-entity.

[malcolm166]

ain't it amazing!!!!
what feels now like a month ago, I suggested that the reason that Tom Wright had suggested and hinted that not voting quite yet on same sex marriages and the ordination of gay Bishops might be a good idea because it would be divisive and possibly usher in a schism in the Church..........and here some of us are.........doing precisely that. Attempting to define what homosexuality consists of and how it is practised!!!!

And that's just two(ish) people at it. Never mind an entire congregation that consists of every single member of the Anglican Church across the whole damn globe being entitled to express an opinion that would have to be attended to. His words " mankind after two thousand years has yet to come up with an all encompassing acceptable to all definition of homosexuality" so let's take it easy, not rush into any specific binding vote on same sex marriages and the ordination of gay Bishops until all opinions on how we as a Church perceive homosexuality in this day and age...........and that unaccountably has defined him as being "anti-gay"!! Because he would seem to want rationale and perspective to prevail.

And right on cue - regardless of the fact that the Anglican Church is constructed differently when it comes to debate and decisions and we are plunged into yet another "how many Angels on the head of a pin" debate withinn a totally different Church. And references to archaic, irrelevant quotes from the dictats of Pope Olly Innocentius Bipolar the XVIIIth and a half dating back a couple of centuries.

Small wonder he counselled patience - he could see the prat falls and difficulties of being able to define it acceptably in the first place.

[RedCelt69]

[jollytiddlywink]

ain't it amazing!!!!
what feels now like a month ago, I suggested that the reason that Tom Wright had suggested and hinted that not voting quite yet on same sex marriages and the ordination of gay Bishops might be a good idea because it would be divisive and possibly usher in a schism in the Church..........and here some of us are.........doing precisely that. Attempting to define what homosexuality consists of and how it is practised!!!!

Speaking for only myself, I can't say I think Tom Wright is homophobic. All I've seen on here are accusations, and not much in the way of evidence. My reason for partaking in this thread concerns Roger Scruton.
As you correctly point out, we are indeed engaged in a debate over how homosexuality is defined. Or, rather, I should say that I'm pointing out to macgamer that legions of medical and scientific people have arrived at a definition that satisfies them; a definition that also features in the dictionary. He chooses, for whatever reason, to make up his own definition. That a similar debate might well take place between the conservative portions of the anglican church and the more modern portions does not surprise me, although it does dismay me. The definition is not 'up for debate' any more than the theory of gravity is up for debate. The evidence is all there, and the jury have returned a verdict.


Your point about the anglican church taking its time to arrive at a thought-out position is, I think, a sensible one. Its a policy that the church of Scotland has adopted; they are currently somewhere in the middle of a two-year study of the issues, and prior to its conclusion and presentation of findings, the church will make no policy on the issue. My only quibble with your argument is that you make it sound as if the anglican church is equally concerned with avoiding schism as with adopting a logical and moral position. Maybe that's not the case, but if it were, it would be a sad example of politics trumping what is right.

Lastly, while I am guilty of holding up half of the debate on various catholic matters, your point that the thread concerns an anglican (well, half concerns an anglican and half concerns Scruton) is valid. But while macgamer is here to comment on anything, it will be difficult to avoid catholicism. You may not believe me, but I share your frustration over this. It seems, unjustly perhaps, that he has no other lens through which to view the world. So the moment he joins the debate, catholicism becomes one of the subjects.

I am heartily sick of being told, on flimsy pretexts and even flimsier arguments, that I am "intrinsically disordered," "immoral," unfit to raise children, a disease vector, and unworthy of any form of social recognition if and when I meet a man I wish to spend the rest of my life with. So, while I do entirely agree with you that this thread concerns anglicanism (and Scruton), I hope I may be forgiven for the zeal with which I go tilting into the argument against macgamer and catholicism.

[malcolm166]

ain't it amazing!!!!
what feels now like a month ago, I suggested that the reason that Tom Wright had suggested and hinted that not voting quite yet on same sex marriages and the ordination of gay Bishops might be a good idea because it would be divisive and possibly usher in a schism in the Church..........and here some of us are.........doing precisely that. Attempting to define what homosexuality consists of and how it is practised!!!!

.......As you correctly point out, we are indeed engaged in a debate over how homosexuality is defined. That a similar debate might well take place between the conservative portions of the anglican church and the more modern portions does not surprise me, although it does dismay me. The definition is not 'up for debate' any more than the theory of gravity is up for debate. The evidence is all there, and the jury have returned a verdict.
................ My only quibble with your argument is that you make it sound as if the anglican church is equally concerned with avoiding schism as with adopting a logical and moral position. Maybe that's not the case, but if it were, it would be a sad example of politics trumping what is right.

I hope I may be forgiven for the zeal with which I go tilting into the argument against macgamer and catholicism.

aye - no problem there. At least it's readable

I think tho' my point about "homosexual practice" doesn't actually embrace the fact that a definition if homosexuality is cut and dried and not up for debate. There's no doubt that clinically and medically it has been accepted - or at least accepted as a reasonable definition - that it consists essentially of finding that you express your sexuality towards members of the same sex basically and invest your emotional resources in that direction.

But my point - and maybe Wright's too - was how do you go about defining "homosexual practice" - rather than "homosexuality" itself. There is a difference and it is something that has eluded "full" definition for centuries and obviously still concerns the congregation of the Anglican Church.

Is it "homosexual practice" for instance for footballers to embrace each other when they score? Or when two men are flat out in the bottom of a mud filled trench sobbing in each others arms? Is it "homosexual practice" when two eight year old boys walk down the street arm in arm. And if it is, why isn't some comment made on it? How dangerous and serious should we take it when two brothers hug one another and what does it suggest about other parts of their lives. Is it a sign of homosexuality when a grown man cries at a funeral or a particular film? If it suggests that some men prefer the company of other men rather than women then does that mean that a tableful of guys in a pub getting happily rat-arsed with no women in sight are all latent homosexuals?

That's the sort of definition I was looking to and just how a so-called "heterosexual" society otherwise comes to terms with the fact that there are times when grown men will exhibit "behaviour" that in other circumstances might be regarded as "homosexual practice" or behaviour. And the part of life that we have never been able to define satisfactorily for the past two thousand odd years.

And in somewhere like a Church, the dilemma is two fold. Most Christians I know for instance are decent human beings. They will have views as they have grown-up and when faced with the subject of "homosexual practice" may well have difficulties in getting their heads around it - just as a father may find it difficult to learn how to respond at first to his own son's sexuality. That doesn't mean the result will be one of hatred or bigotry - but just the demand of a new learning curve. And most Christians - like most other human beings - are ordinary decent folk whose lives are spent in shops offices factories and fields. Most of their life is not spent debating such dilemmas.

And/but how does that congregation or a member of it respond to it when they find that their minister is "homosexual"? How easy will it be for them to go and look for help and solace when faced with huge personal problems or the loss of family members or close friends? How easy will it be for them to open up to someone who "belongs" to a group that they are not necessarily comfortable with or have not had too much experience of? Simple difficult question - and how might they react when said minister looks to hug them to help them over something?

That minister might be the greatest most caring counsellor and committed Christian known in the history of history. But if he is unable to reach out and earn the trust of a congregation then that talent will be lost to them.

Which is why I believe Wright was counselling care and time. To allow ordinary human beings to discuss and think and debate the issue in their own time - and then be given the right to express an opinion. Again rather than some bunch of oinks waaay up the system passing a ruling from on high. It's open minded in itself, him arguing that the one dominant leading light a couple of thousand years ago had an opinion but then himself asking if that is particularly relevant to the 21 century? And all I hear from him now is an insistence that this isn't rushed so quickly - by zealots who want it now or don't want it now regardless - that ordinary human beings are given a chance to think about it and form their own opinion.

[RedCelt69]

And in somewhere like a Church, the dilemma is two fold. Most Christians I know for instance are decent human beings. They will have views as they have grown-up and when faced with the subject of "homosexual practice" may well have difficulties in getting their heads around it - just as a father may find it difficult to learn how to respond at first to his own son's sexuality. That doesn't mean the result will be one of hatred or bigotry - but just the demand of a new learning curve. And most Christians - like most other human beings - are ordinary decent folk whose lives are spent in shops offices factories and fields. Most of their life is not spent debating such dilemmas.

Having read your post, my head hurts. More than a little.

Read it back to yourself, only replace "homosexual/homosexuality" with "black/blackness". You'll have to slightly adjust your examples of homosexuality to include people who like Reggae, or wear their baseball caps back-to-front... or any other theme that originated in black culture.

Go on. Have a try.

Then see how much sense your entire post makes regarding the discrimination of one group of people by another group of people. Centuries of debate and definition? Jesus urged people to love one another. When will those idiots who claim to be his followers wake up to that one simple fact and shut the hell up about gay people being treated differently?

Jesus wept. No. Seriously. If he ever existed and (by dint of "miracle") was alive today, he would. Because his followers really really didn't pick up on his key messages.

Prophet Fail.

[malcolm166]

And in somewhere like a Church, the dilemma is two fold. Most Christians I know for instance are decent human beings. They will have views as they have grown-up and when faced with the subject of "homosexual practice" may well have difficulties in getting their heads around it - just as a father may find it difficult to learn how to respond at first to his own son's sexuality. That doesn't mean the result will be one of hatred or bigotry - but just the demand of a new learning curve. And most Christians - like most other human beings - are ordinary decent folk whose lives are spent in shops offices factories and fields. Most of their life is not spent debating such dilemmas.

Having read your post, my head hurts. More than a little.

Read it back to yourself, only replace "homosexual/homosexuality" with "black/blackness". You'll have to slightly adjust your examples of homosexuality to include people who like Reggae, or wear their baseball caps back-to-front... or any other theme that originated in black culture.

.

Jeez - and there was me thinking I had made it as simple as possible so you would understand!!!!! I'm obviously going to have to make it even simpler.

Just where did you gather up any suggestion that I agreed with any form of discrimination being reasonable or sensible? Some of us have been trying to drill that out of the human lot for longer than others. And probably don't need any help from newbies. Interesting too that you choose to ignore all the other examples of what they are terming "homosexual practice" which is what the entire debate there is all about and not "homosexuality" per se.

I didn't say it was sensible - any more than I was saying was that it was logical. Most of what human beings do isn't totally based on rational thinking. But when you consider that the likes of the Armed Forces are still trying to find some kind of format to accept and find a place for people from all walks of life, where in the name of Christ do you get off thinking you've found a magical formula? Forty plus years on since the first legislation do you really believe that among those self same baseball cap back to front toting dudes that there is not one single homophobe? Yeah right!! And none in the ranks of women?

The main factor in any and all of this, is that old perceptions and fondly held beliefs take longer to die off than you seem to perceive. You really believe that a father today for instance is somehow going to find it easier to come to terms with the fact that his son has told him he is gay than it was say 50 years ago or a century ago? That doesn't guarantee that it will lead to fear or loathing on either side's part. It just means that it takes time to come to terms with it and anything new that might then emerge as part of their relationship.

That's for two individuals. Now focus a tad and try and imagine how it would be for entire communities to discuss the matter and come to terms with a new situation. Again - it doesn't guarantee that the whole system will fall apart but you seem incapable of understanding that those self same congregations should still be granted the privilege of talking about and working out all the possible wrinkles. Like I said, the main function and calling of any "person of the cloth" is to minister to his/her congregation. That takes time and trust and confidence. Otherwise that daily task in the community is not going to happen - to the detriment of all involved. Not necessarily through malice or discrimination - but because of what ordinary mortals - presumably excepting you - suffer from. Which is fear or suspicion of the unknown. And for that matter - you seriously somehow believe that congregations in the likes of London and elsewhere weren't faced with those exact concerns over "colour"- and somehow managed to finally rise above them? Jesus!!!!

You and I both know that Jesus said nothing discriminatory or demeaning - in fact didn't say anything at all - about so-called "homosexual practice" - gross expression in itself. Now at least grant to those more directly involved than you and I will ever be presumably, the time and the space to define how they want to respond to it in the 21st century after centuries of distortive teaching rather than attempting to lay it down as some form of hectoring dictat from outside.

[RedCelt69]

Jeez - and there was me thinking I had made it as simple as possible so you would understand!!!!! I'm obviously going to have to make it even simpler.

Interesting. You fired back a whole lot of anger. Smarmy anger, but anger nonetheless.

Did you follow my suggestion and find yourself embarassed, thus overly defensive? Or did you not see my point? Shall I type it all out for you, so you can see how outrageous it is for anyone to be an apologist for the hatred/distrust of a minority?

To skip to the more relevant points... a father will likely be distressed with his son's sexuality because it instantly blocks the possibility of grandkids. It's natural for him to be upset... at first. We're genetically wired to reproduce and have our offspring reproduce. Expanding that personal issue to a more widespread social issue is, to say the very least, flawed.

The church is struggling with the issue of homosexuality in the 21st century? Bless them. Poor things. Homosexuality was very present in the 1st century... and well before that. If, in modernity, modern Christians are struggling to cope with how to deal with homosexuality, all they have to do is remember 2 key points:-

1) It was their (Christian, well, Paulian) forebears who demonised homosexuality into modernity.
2) Jesus wanted everyone to love everyone else, so what (in the name of everything holy) has sexuality got to do with that simple message? The debate isn't only over - it never needed to take place.

You say that Christians you know are basically good people? That it's a learning curve?

Well, as a card-carrying (there aren't actually cards) lifelong atheist, I hold no hatred or distrust of gay people. I have no issue about what they do for a living, nor whether they are allowed to hold ceremonial positions. I don't discuss, debate or agonise over anything about their sexuality. On those grounds, I'm a better Christian than many Christians. If that doesn't make you (or them) more than a little uncomfortable, it's really time for them to wake up, or stop pretending to be Christians.

[malcolm166]

Did you follow my suggestion and find yourself embarassed, thus overly defensive? Or did you not see my point? Shall I type it all out for you, so you can see how outrageous it is for anyone to be an apologist for the hatred/distrust of a minority?

there you go again - making presumptions about someone else's views - and then reacting to it even tho it completely misses the point. And you accuse me of smarm? So please don't pull the amateur psychology crap on me. No I didn't find myself embarassed or overly defensive - don't flatter yourself - because I did anything but act as an apologist yah da yah da yah da for a minority. What I said was that in fact despite the best efforts of many of us, some old discriminations and attitudes still prevail and that more work needs to be done to undo them. Precisely the opposite of what you claim I actually said. Even among those paens that you chose to cite as shining examples of the way ahead. Although you pointedly chose not to reply to that question.

.. a father will likely be distressed with his son's sexuality because it instantly blocks the possibility of grandkids. It's natural for him to be upset... at first. We're genetically wired to reproduce and have our offspring reproduce. Expanding that personal issue to a more widespread social issue is, to say the very least, flawed.

And that's all that might cause him concern? It's pretty perspicacious for you to be able to speak out so confidently on behalf of every single father in the world from a myriad of cultures that that's all they want or expect from their sons - well done you!! My point actually went beyond simply reproductive reasons. And a great deal to do with fears over how that "child" will be able to cope with the reaction of others in society given the way that some dinosaurs view anyone they regard as out of place for what ever bigoted reasons. Whether the son will be able to cope...and how they (the father) deals with something that has come into their own lives as a new element and how it challenges their own perceptions of the world and life in general. Quite how that is apparently "flawed" when extended to the members of a church and the effects something might have on them is beyond me as as simple analogy.

The church is struggling with the issue of homosexuality in the 21st century? Bless them. Poor things.

1) It was their (Christian, well, Paulian) forebears who demonised homosexuality into modernity.
2) Jesus wanted everyone to love everyone else, so what (in the name of everything holy) has sexuality got to do with that simple message? The debate isn't only over - it never needed to take place.

And yes I know all about the Paulian forebears versus real Christians involved thank you - and have a deep distaste for the job that SOB did.
And no, the point I was making was not that the Anglican Church is struggling with the issue in the 21st century. My point was that in fact each and every single member of the community/global congregation has been offered the chance to debate the matter and put it into some sort of 21st century context by re-examining and challenging the place of Paulian teaching in the 21 century. To in fact do precisely what you seem to want them to do but which they have been denied to date.

Incidentally your understanding that "Jesus wanted everyone to love everyone else" is a classic case of being misled by Paulian deliberate misinterpretation. What he did say was "love one another" just as he also said "to turn the other cheek". Point and problem is that when he said it he was addressing exclusively the Jews and was warning that if the various bickering sects who were constantly at loggerheads with each other didn't settle their differences and ignore minor slights - turn the other cheek - then the Gentiles - AKA the Roman Empire - would destroy them totally and for good. It had nothing to do with any other group except the Jews and was more of a battle cry rather than some sort of philosophical and spiritual statement for all. In fact it specifically excluded non-Jews - Gentiles - since they were viewed as the enemy to the plans for establishing a physical actual Kingdom of God on Earth. It was only later that Paul went at it and distorted yet another statement into something that assisted his masters.

But that discussion involves ordinary human beings. It includes the likes of 80 year old spinsters in Nebraska who have found solace and comfort and strength in the community of their Church. But are you seriously saying that some of them - some of them! - might not have some reservations about confiding in a minister or who after seeing Gay Pride marches in San Francisco or the scandals surrounding the Catholic Church might not have a smidgeon of a reservation about letting her grandchildren attend the Church? Especially if her own personal experience of gays is possibly pretty thin? She at least has the right to express an opinion. And again, why presume that every member of the Church from whatever walk of life is opposed and bigoted and full of hatred? And why is it another presumption on your part that she is inexorably opposed to it because of faulty Scriptural interpretation? Until it's discussed openly no-one will ever know the views of everyone else. Many will have experienced a "coming out" - another ghastly frikkin phrase - of a grandchild and have no problems with the fact. But can still face a dilemma given the job the Scriptures have done.
And that is only one part of the global Church. There are others from different cultures across the world also involved where social - not religious - but social views are less than charitable.
The Anglican Church is as I understand it a democratic institution not dominated by the "top brass" and they are in the process of challenging Scriptural teachings.
I'm not a member of any Church but it is gratifying to know that at least one Church is attempting to debate the malicious efforts of some 20 centuries and come to some more relevant view of things.

You say that Christians you know are basically good people? That it's a learning curve? .....................Well, as a card-carrying (there aren't actually cards) lifelong atheist, I hold no hatred or distrust of gay people. I have no issue about what they do for a living, nor whether they are allowed to hold ceremonial positions. I don't discuss, debate or agonise over anything about their sexuality. On those grounds, I'm a better Christian than many Christians. If that doesn't make you (or them) more than a little uncomfortable, it's really time for them to wake up, or stop pretending to be Christians.

good for you my friend good for you. But if you don't discuss debate or agonise then WTF are we doing right now? Amazingly enough neither do I - I could give a rat's ass for any of the above. So go easy on the assumption/presumption that somehow I should feel "uncomfortable" - why should I for Christ sake? - a view presumably based on the earlier equally unfounded twisted interpretation of what I said that turns me into some sort of outrageous apologist. What makes your point of view even more interesting is that you charge them to "wake up or stop pretending to be Christians" - and yet still reserve the right to accuse them of being outrageous hate mongering and ignorant when it's pointed out that that is precisely what they are doing - waking up and dragging the issue into the 21st century.

The point I've been making all along is that in this case, this particular Church is at least attempting to do precisely that and is involving every single member of the community. In stark contrast to history and the way at least one other Church that springs to mind still feels it has a right to behave.

[RedCelt69]

Let me know when you're done editing that post so I can reply to a completed version.

[malcolm166]

yeah OK
Actually that was all done this end by about 2 this morning!
No hurry

[jollytiddlywink]

Redcelt, I think you're tilting at windmills here. I've read malcolm's posts--twice--and I don't see anywhere that he's arguing a pro-discrimination point, or even wanting tolerance to arrive slowly. I had to strain to try to find one or two places where one might, at a stretch, manage to infer that he'd prefer tolerance to arrive slowly rather than quickly. But that's it. So I really don't think he deserves to be attacked for his posts. Rather the contrary.
As much as we might wish that peace love and happiness all break out tomorrow world-wide, it isn't going to happen. I'll fight whatever little corner I happen to find myself in, in the hope that it might, in some way, improve things or change one person's mind. I'll be pragmatic about it, because aiming to change the world tomorrow would lead me to despair. Witness macgamer, all ye you hold to rationality and factual evidence, and despair.
Malcolm is arguing for a pragmatic approach. He is not saying that being uncomfortable with homosexuality or homosexual practice (whatever it might be construed as) is right, or reasonable. He's saying that's the way the world is, and rather than try the impossible and change people's minds overnight, or split a church and leave some of the members to hold those views forever, he's arguing for whatever can be agreed on today (however little that might be), and bring them along in the hope of more progress tomorrow. At least that's what I'm taking from his argument.

So don't go jumping down his throat. Please.

And as far as what a father will worry about if his son comes out to him, you are wrong to think that the lack of grandchildren is the only concern, or even the main one. Most parents (who don't have an ideological hangup over a gay son in the first place) are primarily concerned that being gay will make his life more difficult. Lines like "This won't make it any easier to find a job, you know," tend to predominate; take it from me. Been there, done that.
Malcolm is right on this point; parents worry about how their child will cope with what does tend to make life that little bit tricker in parts, and how they'll fare in the face of a society that is not as tolerant as we might wish.

Note to malcolm: I hope that I have presented your views accurately. I don't wish to presume to speak on your behalf, but rather to comment on what I took from your argument.

[RedCelt69]

Mainly, my hackles were raised at how he replied. He basically called me a newb. On the flimsiest of information.

<removes boxing gloves>

On the parental-front, there are, I'm sure, lots and lots of reactions. Some are specific. Some are non-specific. Regardless, we're genetically engineered creatures and whatever the first words out of the mouth are... the ending of the genetic line is what's screaming out at them. That's a universal.

Certainly, life will be more difficult because of bigotry. Which is precisely why the sodding churches around the world should be doing their part to end the bigotry... not hold up bigotry as a reason to be wary/over-cautious of accepting people from every walk of life.

But anyway.