Hi All,

I've been really impressed with the reception of IDAHO Day (the International Day Against Homophobia) and how so mnay LGBT organisations worldwide have publicised and supported it. I thought I would do my bit by writing about homophobia on the BGBC Blog.

Please feel free to take a look and leave a comment if you like.

http://beinggaybeingchristian.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/idaho-day-2012.html

Isn't it great that things are getting so much better! But there is still a long way to go for so many societies and so many people.

Best wishes – Stuart

Hi Stuart

Thanks for posting. I heard the comments of Rev Charles Worley this week and was horrified by them. The idea of imprisoning gays and lesbians behind an electric fence until they all die out is not only abhorrent and Nazi-like but flawed. It's as if Worley is implying that the gay gene will die out that way when in fact there is nothing to stop gay children being born outside those walls. And homosexuality is not some kind of disease that infects others thus leading to a need for quarantine to stop the spread! He doesn't seem to understand that gayness doesn't come from being with gay people and gay people don't necessarily produce gay children. So if he wants to stop gay people he'd better imprison any child bearers which would be all women of child bearing age. It would need to be a big prison.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Hi Anne Maree,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, Charles Worley is a bit of a worry, as are all of them who seem to be coming out a far right conservative agenda that espouses 'Bible-based' Christianity. Of ocurse you are right about the fence. Fence us all in and there would still be gay people. The gift of gayness to the world is part of the incredible way that God has created us as humans. I certainly do not endorse that kind of Christianity and I think I would be hard-pressed to even consider it Christian; so antithetical is it tot eh absolute fundamentles of the Jesus message.

Both this post and the one before it attempt to declare what is right and what is wrong, for we know at least this much: if it's not of love, it's not of God.

Thanks again.

And Thingymabobie,

Whoever you may be, thank you so much for your lovely endorsement of the BGBC Blog. I really do appreciate it and I am thrilled that you are enjoying it and hopefully growing as a result of reading it too. Bless.

Cheers

Stuart

In fact Ann Maree – there are multiple pathways to being born "Gay" – and whilst there is evidence for gay genes – there is also clear evidence that the number of children a mother has also has an effect in causing a son to be Gay.

[url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc

point being – even if you did eradicate the gene – it wouldn't eliminate homosexuality…. and of course evolutionists believe that it gives an advantage to have a certain percentage of the population able to defend, gather food and look after orphans etc who wont have children of their own – its Gods backup plan as it were and so God has designed it well – with multiple methods of redundancy to make sure it works….

Quote from PhillWall on June 4, 2012, 3:53 pm

In fact Ann Maree – there are multiple pathways to being born "Gay" – and whilst there is evidence for gay genes – there is also clear evidence that the number of children a mother has also has an effect in causing a son to be Gay.

[url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc

point being – even if you did eradicate the gene – it wouldn't eliminate homosexuality…. and of course evolutionists believe that it gives an advantage to have a certain percentage of the population able to defend, gather food and look after orphans etc who wont have children of their own – its Gods backup plan as it were and so God has designed it well – with multiple methods of redundancy to make sure it works….

Well, hmmm…

I think what that PROBABLY shows is the interaction between genes and the hormonal environment in the womb. So I don't think that means that you could have homosexuality without "the gene" (highly unlikely to be a single gene). What it does show you is that it's not simply a question of 'homos have the gene(s) for homosexuality, and heteros don't'. The gene(s) are probably occurring in the heterosexual population, but only switched onto 'homo mode' in particular people because of the environment in the womb.

Most genes are like that. They're not simply on or off, they are on in certain circumstances. To pick an easy example, all of your cells have the same genetics and therefore have the coding for your eyes, your nose, your fingers etc etc, but only the cells in certain locations ever got the instruction to BECOME your eyes, your nose or your fingers.