Claire a self-confessed homophobe nominated 6 of the new ex-co members including Josie. Claire come from the Cornerstone Community Church which was previously part the Anglican Order but has now gone independent.
Was there a falling out between Cornerstone and the Church of our Saviour on tactics? Claire who had been with AWARE for less than a year was elected President only to resign 11 days later. Cornerstone incidently was the lead agency to object when Govt first announced that it will begin to accept gays in the civil service in 2003.
So was there a falling out between personalities from these 2 churches.
ps. read the content in bold portion of the article below. Scary.
Stop bashing the majority for their views on homosexuality
SECTION: ST FORUM - ONLINE STORY
July 13, 2007 Friday
I REFER to the article, ‘Can mum, mum and kids make a family?’ by Janadas Devan (ST, July 7).
Speaking as a mother of two and one who fully appreciates the father’s role in the home, I am appalled at Mr Janadas’ simplistic arguments for his case that homosexuals who are ‘model citizens’ are qualified to raise children as a ‘family’ of sorts.
He assumed that homosexuality was normal and/or desirable, that two same-sex persons could raise children as well or better than a man and wife. His article read as one which berates Christians and also insults the intelligence of most Singaporeans for not being ‘clever’ in failing to support the homosexual lifestyle.
To use the lone example of a lesbian friend cohabiting with her lesbian lover to raise two biological children of hers (artificially inseminated), and declare that her ‘family’ is ’stable’ because they regularly attend church, hold many university degrees, et cetera, does not lend itself to the larger picture of whether such ‘homosexual families’ have any positive social consequences.
All children have a right to a mother and father. Medical evidence indicates that children from same-sex homes run a greater risk of suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, other psychological problems and tendencies to form adolescent same-sex attractions.
While Mr Janadas’ lesbian friends may be happy to remain as homosexuals, to raise children who may grow up as homosexuals, it would be irresponsible to ignore the psychological risks these children are exposed to.
The October 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s ‘Archives of General Psychiatry’ confirmed a long link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems. Youths engaging in homosexuality and/or bisexuality are more prone to suffer major depression (four times more likely), nicotine dependence (five times more), and to commit suicide (six times more).
I would counsel Mr Janadas to wait till his lesbian friend’s children become adults before evaluating their emotional and social adjustment.
Mr Janadas failed to offer any evidence demonstrating the positive consequences of a homosexual family environment applied across the board. He offered no statistics in suggesting that prevalent divorce rates for heterosexual marriages would pale compared to the homosexual unions of ‘model citizens’. What about the break-up rate of homosexual relationships? Even if his friend’s case is exceptional and the children involved grow up totally normal, one swallow does not make a summer. What about the children of other ‘not-so-stable’ homosexual families?
Intelligence has nothing to do with morality. If it did, then Hitler’s actions would have been right. Neither does social acceptance of a family with two lesbian ‘parents’ mean that lesbianism is right or healthy. Indeed, widespread mainstreaming of this aspect of the homosexual agenda will promote sexual permissiveness and unsound, harmful social morality.
As a Christian, Mr Janadas’ misquote of the words of Jesus, ‘Judge not and ye shall not be judged’, applied across all major religions, is almost unforgivable. This saying does not apply to express inhibitions in the Bible on homosexuality. That being the case, the homosexual lifestyle ought to be examined from the premise of ‘why did God say that?’ and not taken out of context.
If Christians are condemned by Mr Janadas as holding ‘deep-seated’ prejudices against homosexuals (which they do not) simply because they agree with clear Biblical injunctions that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ (and not just wrong), how tolerant then, is Mr Janadas of these religious views and their holders?
Even if a ‘homosexual’ gene was discovered, this does not change the Christian perspective on the issue. Christian theology considers death, sicknesses, cancers, genetic mutation and even an eventual finding of a ‘homosexual’ gene (or genetic defect) as the results of sin and flouting of God’s moral order.
I understand from the 2003 Spitzer Report from the ‘Archives of Sexual Behaviour’ journal, that 64 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women considered themselves heterosexual after leaving the homosexual lifestyle for five years. The necessary implication is that people ‘born’ homosexual can change and stay changed. The existence of former homosexuals is a fact for ‘clever’ people to consider, too.
Ultimately, careful consideration should be given to show why homosexual marriages and homosexual parenthood, for example, requiring state-sponsored artificial insemination, should be allowed.
Let’s hear the facts and figures on this issue and, indeed, the social and medical consequences of mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle. Stop the bashing and cheap name-calling of the majority for their views.
Mr Janadas has failed to dissuade me of my ‘homophobic’ views but has only demonstrated his ‘hetero-phobic’ views and intolerance of those holding views contrary to his. Not very clever, I think.
Claire Nazar (Mrs)
Was there a falling out between Cornerstone and the Church of our Saviour on tactics? Claire who had been with AWARE for less than a year was elected President only to resign 11 days later. Cornerstone incidently was the lead agency to object when Govt first announced that it will begin to accept gays in the civil service in 2003.
So was there a falling out between personalities from these 2 churches.
ps. read the content in bold portion of the article below. Scary.
Stop bashing the majority for their views on homosexuality
SECTION: ST FORUM - ONLINE STORY
July 13, 2007 Friday
I REFER to the article, ‘Can mum, mum and kids make a family?’ by Janadas Devan (ST, July 7).
Speaking as a mother of two and one who fully appreciates the father’s role in the home, I am appalled at Mr Janadas’ simplistic arguments for his case that homosexuals who are ‘model citizens’ are qualified to raise children as a ‘family’ of sorts.
He assumed that homosexuality was normal and/or desirable, that two same-sex persons could raise children as well or better than a man and wife. His article read as one which berates Christians and also insults the intelligence of most Singaporeans for not being ‘clever’ in failing to support the homosexual lifestyle.
To use the lone example of a lesbian friend cohabiting with her lesbian lover to raise two biological children of hers (artificially inseminated), and declare that her ‘family’ is ’stable’ because they regularly attend church, hold many university degrees, et cetera, does not lend itself to the larger picture of whether such ‘homosexual families’ have any positive social consequences.
All children have a right to a mother and father. Medical evidence indicates that children from same-sex homes run a greater risk of suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, other psychological problems and tendencies to form adolescent same-sex attractions.
While Mr Janadas’ lesbian friends may be happy to remain as homosexuals, to raise children who may grow up as homosexuals, it would be irresponsible to ignore the psychological risks these children are exposed to.
The October 1999 issue of the American Medical Association’s ‘Archives of General Psychiatry’ confirmed a long link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems. Youths engaging in homosexuality and/or bisexuality are more prone to suffer major depression (four times more likely), nicotine dependence (five times more), and to commit suicide (six times more).
I would counsel Mr Janadas to wait till his lesbian friend’s children become adults before evaluating their emotional and social adjustment.
Mr Janadas failed to offer any evidence demonstrating the positive consequences of a homosexual family environment applied across the board. He offered no statistics in suggesting that prevalent divorce rates for heterosexual marriages would pale compared to the homosexual unions of ‘model citizens’. What about the break-up rate of homosexual relationships? Even if his friend’s case is exceptional and the children involved grow up totally normal, one swallow does not make a summer. What about the children of other ‘not-so-stable’ homosexual families?
Intelligence has nothing to do with morality. If it did, then Hitler’s actions would have been right. Neither does social acceptance of a family with two lesbian ‘parents’ mean that lesbianism is right or healthy. Indeed, widespread mainstreaming of this aspect of the homosexual agenda will promote sexual permissiveness and unsound, harmful social morality.
As a Christian, Mr Janadas’ misquote of the words of Jesus, ‘Judge not and ye shall not be judged’, applied across all major religions, is almost unforgivable. This saying does not apply to express inhibitions in the Bible on homosexuality. That being the case, the homosexual lifestyle ought to be examined from the premise of ‘why did God say that?’ and not taken out of context.
If Christians are condemned by Mr Janadas as holding ‘deep-seated’ prejudices against homosexuals (which they do not) simply because they agree with clear Biblical injunctions that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ (and not just wrong), how tolerant then, is Mr Janadas of these religious views and their holders?
Even if a ‘homosexual’ gene was discovered, this does not change the Christian perspective on the issue. Christian theology considers death, sicknesses, cancers, genetic mutation and even an eventual finding of a ‘homosexual’ gene (or genetic defect) as the results of sin and flouting of God’s moral order.
I understand from the 2003 Spitzer Report from the ‘Archives of Sexual Behaviour’ journal, that 64 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women considered themselves heterosexual after leaving the homosexual lifestyle for five years. The necessary implication is that people ‘born’ homosexual can change and stay changed. The existence of former homosexuals is a fact for ‘clever’ people to consider, too.
Ultimately, careful consideration should be given to show why homosexual marriages and homosexual parenthood, for example, requiring state-sponsored artificial insemination, should be allowed.
Let’s hear the facts and figures on this issue and, indeed, the social and medical consequences of mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle. Stop the bashing and cheap name-calling of the majority for their views.
Mr Janadas has failed to dissuade me of my ‘homophobic’ views but has only demonstrated his ‘hetero-phobic’ views and intolerance of those holding views contrary to his. Not very clever, I think.
Claire Nazar (Mrs)
