Dear Jon Leech
I wanted to thank you for your letter, there are a few issues that I wanted to raise, you pointed out that as a Methodist you say that it is important for your to uphold the rights of all people of all religions, I disagree as a Methodist it is your duty is to uphold the stance of the church regardless of your personal or political view.
I am deeply saddened that people in the government who once held to the traditions and by the authority witch it once stood on, are now disregarding for the stance of the church values, the fact that you are supposed to uphold to the beliefs of the church and yet the letter you had written, shows that you are taking a very liberal view point, the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is both proud and unrepentant according to the God of the bible, the homosexual lifestyle about living a lifestyle in pride, and the Homosexual individual involved is proud and unrepentant of his/her sinful lifestyle, it is my belief that people who are reasonable would question the fact that the government is in favour of the regulations, who would also be in favour of Gay rights supporters, that would love nothing more then to see those welfare organisations offering public services that disagree with the regulations on the bases of a persons lifestyle to be close down, it is not only on the bases of religious charities but this will effect the freedoms of nursings homes, Teen Challenge a Christian Drug rehabilitation program, guest houses, and possibly this will also make street evangelists like myself be turned into a criminal overnight, the Sexual Orientation Regulations would also discriminate against church groups and individual Christians.
You wrote that the SOR coursed anxiety amongst many Christians as individuals and especially in the catholic faith and that you feel that this should not course conflict between the rights of Christians to practice their religion and the rights of others to be free from discrimination on account of religious beliefs, and that you talk about the catholic adoption agency's being made to allow Gay couples to adopt children under their care.
Firstly I wanted to point out that the SOR would course conflict amongst many conservative Christians, as the Bible dose discriminate on the grounds of sexual sin, to be free from discrimination this would mean you would have to ban copies of the Bible that speaks out against the homosexual life style and would have a pro-homosexual copy of the bible for that agenda, though the practice of the homosexual life style has been going on a lot longer then the Bible was written, in the context of conflict you talk about on the grounds freedom of discrimination, it is my view that to make allowances for children to be brought up in a homosexual life style as a normal upbringing, you would have to discriminate against Christian liberties and the freedoms Christians have to practice there faith.
You talk about that Catholic Based adoption agencies have a first class reputation for the care and professionalism, which they bring to adoption agencies, involving very vulnerable children, the fact that this bill was passed by the house of lords would mean that these agencies would be forced to close down, these groups that carry a strict morel and ethical code according to the bases of their faith, that I have a the view that a homosexual family unit is unstable because it dose not qualify to meet the spiritual well-being of the child, nether dose any none-married family unites could ever bring a child up in a stable environment for children to have any spiritual upbringing based on morel values according to the principals of the Bible, for Children to have a stable upbringing they must be in a family unit that consists of married couples, a Child needs both male and female roles.
Though you speak on behalf of your political party it is my view that there is a conflict of interest concerning the 2002 Adoption Act, amongst people in parliament, as people do not seem to learn from the past, this stance is nothing new on the part of political parties, its common interest is to live up to the view of society rather then any Christian faith based group, or any Christian values, the fact that society would love to rid it self of any Christian influence it has, if any in the UK today.
By supporting this Legislation the Liberal democrats dose fully discriminate against the freedoms that Christians have to practice their faith publicly and openly, a Christian based faith group should have the right to refuse a homosexual couple on the grounds that they are obligated to obey the Bible, why should we be singled out if a homosexual couple wishes, that they want to adopt then they should go to secular organisations where they can adopt, it is their fore, that curtain people in the government has an biased view point against Christians.
The SOR is worrying to me as it fails to accept that a persons faith in the bible on the bases of Matthew 5:16 that apply to the whole life of a Christian, Christians should be able to practice their faith out side the confines of the church meetings, to freely practice in faith according to the bible and biblical principals is not just the freedoms to practice a faith silently but to act on them openly in public.
You talk about Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
My view is that the Equality act 2006 has laws outlawing discrimination on the bases of religion, and must protect religious practices of faith groups. If this is compromised and removed this would mean that every Church group in the UK would be illegal, it is my view because you make exceptions to sexual orientation in the liberal democrats and other political groups you are therefore indirectly discriminating against religious believers since the majority are most likely to believe that a homosexual practice is wrong.
The fact that this bill has been passed would mean that a large majority of religious groups would lose their rights to the SOR.
The fact that a majority of religious people disagree with the SOR amongst Jewish, Moslem and Christian groups etc. and believe that a homosexual practice and lifestyle is morally wrong, if you look for example at six of the Major world religions and they are opposed to the Homosexual life style and practice as being wrong, on the grounds of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Yet it makes no discrimination or object to the individual who faces homosexual temptation but resists it. A person who deals with their temptation is in the same boat as every one else, on the other hand if a person acts according to his temptation and acts on his/hers homosexual practice or reserves the right to do so then that person rejects the ethical teaching of the Bible.
I have heard many people say that Gay rights are needed because they are born Gay and Cant change, but this cannot be backed up as there is no evidence to support this claim homosexuality is not a fixed trait like race or sex.
For example, a 2003 study by a leading psychiatrist who supports gay rights found that homosexuals could become ‘predominantly’ heterosexual through psychotherapy.
84% of the homosexuals and lesbians in the study became heterosexual by the end of the study.
Spitzer, R L, ‘Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?
200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation’,
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 32(5), 2003, page 411 No amount of psychotherapy can ever change a person’s race. It is clear that the Bible teaches that Christians are to be a servant to others in every aspect of their lives, Christians are to love their neighbour and do good to even those who disagree with them or oppose them, Luke 6:27. But no-one has shown that there is a real problem that demands legislative investigation, why then are the regulations being enforced.
The Face that the agenda is clear for people who back the SOR the aim is to promote the homosexual lifestyle and that the regulations according to Biblical principals is allowing Immorality on that bases.
According to Census 2001: National Report for England and Wales Part 2, ONS, 2004, Table UV93, page 70 The 2001 census found that fewer than 0.2% of all households in England and Wales are headed by a same-sex couple.
Why are sweeping new laws being created for such a small number of people?
To me its not promoting family Values but quite the opposite it is destroying marital values and that it wants to remove any place for marriage in society. When promoting and celebrating a homosexual lifestyle when it comes to sexual relationships there is not right or wrong anymore.
Here are a few examples of where the freedoms of Christians in the UK are being removed and how the SOR will effectively go against Christian practices in public and I believe it will remove protection for Christian groups.
Bishop of Chester
Bishop Peter Forster was investigated by Cheshire Constabulary after an interview in which he mentioned research showing that some homosexuals ‘re-orientate’ through
therapy. A gay rights activist had made a complaint and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement supported it. The police eventually concluded no crime had been committed. The Chief Constable made an astonishing public attack on the Bishop, even suggesting his remarks could lead to violence.
The Chester Chronicle, 7 November 2003; The Daily Telegraph, 10 and 11 November 2003; The Independent, 10 November 2003; The Times, 11 November 2003; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3257623.stm as at 6 April 2006
A Swedish pastor was charged with inciting hatred against homosexuals after a sermon urging Christians to show homosexuals “deep respect” and offer them the “grace of Jesus
Christ”. He called sexual immorality, including homosexuality, a “cancerous growth” in society. He was convicted and sentenced to one month in jail. The Swedish Supreme Court acquitted him on appeal.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040907aa.asp as at 6 April 2006; http:
//www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=1163 as at 6 April 2006; Offi ce of the Prosecutor-General v. Green, Case No. B 1050-05, Supreme Court of Sweden, 29 November 2005
Violence at Parliament
In 1998 when the Lords voted against reducing the homosexual age of consent, gay rights activists outside Parliament became violent. Protesters scuffl ed with police and jumped
barricades in a bid to get inside and confront Peers. Some, including former Archbishop Donald Coggan, were insulted, jostled and threatened.
Christian campaigner, Baroness
Young, had to be protected by police. Outrage!, Press release, House of Lords Besieged by Gay Rights Protesters, 26 July 1998 and Daily Mail, 23 July 1998Lynette Burrows
Mrs Burrows, author and family values campaigner, took part in a radio phone-in where she disagreed with placing children for adoption with homosexuals. An offended gay rights
activist complained to the police. The following day a police officer telephoned Mrs Burrows to take issue with her ‘homophobic’ views. The Daily Telegraph, 10 December 2005; The Sunday Times, 18 December 2005; Daily Mail, 12 December 2006Western Isles Council
Christian registrars in the Western Isles of Scotland refused to carry out marriage-style ceremonies alongside the registration of homosexual ‘civil partnerships’.
The Council backed their decision and, as a result, received hate-mail from around the world,
including a call for councillors to be “hanged from the nearest tree”. The Scotsman, 20 and 21 December 2005; The Daily Telegraph (Scottish edition), 21 December 2005Desecration of a church
Gay rights group Stonewall held a meeting in Newcastle upon Tyne at which an audience-member called for volunteers to take action against Jesmond Parish Church. A few nights
later the 19th Century church was daubed with gay rights slogans, obscenities, pornographic drawings and personal attacks on the vicar. The Journal, 23 October 1999; Evening Chronicle, 23 October 1999; The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 1999
Joe & Helen Roberts
A retired Christian couple were subjected to an 80 -minute interrogation by police after they complained to their local council about its gay rights policies. No criminal offence was committed and yet the police and the council refuse to apologise for their actions. The
Roberts are taking legal action. Daily Mail, 23 December 2005
An elderly street preacher was assaulted by gay rights activists and then arrested for holding a placard saying, “Stop Immorality. Stop homosexuality. Jesus is Lord”. At
his trial he was convicted and fined £300 plus £395 costs. He died shortly
afterwards. A posthumous appeal was unsuccessful. The Mail on Sunday, 28 April 2002; The Mail on Sunday, 5 May 2002; Hammond v DPP  EWHC 69
In April as the bill will be enforced this could lead Christians to go to prison, this will cost the tax payer more money for a bill that only protects a small minority of people and ultimately would not solve the overcrowding of the prison population but make it worse.
The fact that this this bill has not been looked at, properly but seemed to be a quite obvious that it promotes more of a anti-Christian agenda..