According to Statistics Canada there are 45,345 same-sex couples in Canada and about 7,500 of them are married – 0.1% of all married couples. 37,900 are same-sex common-law couples.
Heretical ideas have been allowed to roam unchecked in the Anglican Church of Canada for decades, but it was the blessing of same-sex couples that was the last straw that finally drove many orthodox parishes to separate from their dioceses.
The Anglican Church of Canada likes to claim that this is a “justice” issue; but is it really – the church has torn itself apart for the sake of 0.1% of married couples?
I am convinced that the percentage of same-sex partnered priests in the ACoC is higher – far higher – than the national average. The real reason for the church’s obsession with blessing same-sex couples is self-interest on the part of homosexual Anglican priests: they refuse to mend their ways and they seek justification for not doing so.
Here is a graphic from the CBC:
I am confused. How can these numbers be so low????
45,345 same sex couples with presumably only 2 people per couple (I am guessing that none of these are poligamous) would make 90,690 individuals in these “committed relationships”. Then, if we guesstimate that for each one of these individuals there are another four who are not in a “committed relationship” that is only 453,450 people, in all of Canada with a general population of about 33,000,000 (which by the way includes babies). That works out to only 1.37% of the general population, which is a far cry from the 10% number that the homosexual lobby groups proclaim. Something must be wrong here!
But wait. According to The Office for Natinoal Statistics:
“Almost three-quarters of a million UK adults say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual – equivalent to 1.5% of the population, a survey suggests.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual.”
That would put my guesstimate close to correct. Seems that the homosexual lobby has been exagerating quite a bit.
And in case any of you are wondering where I got my information from, here is the source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629
Ever read the Michael S. Rose book, “Goodbye, Good Men”, about the same sort of problem in the Roman Catholic Church?
How about Alice Von Hildebrand’s work?
Be careful of what stats you believe. I once had reason to look into poverty figures in Canada, after a political speech by one of party leaders about such a large number of Canadian children going to bed hungry each night, and found his statement was a load of bunk; his so-called stats had been “estimated” by some assistant or other, and then he pumped them up a bit more to make the point he wanted to make.
This fudging of the real numbers, I would imagine, happens any and every time someone with the public ear wants to push their personal agenda, but is not too bothered about being honest.
Fully agree about the need for caution and care when listening to so called statistics. As the saying goes “statistics don’t, but the people who use them do”. Still, I would be willing trust official census results and always question and doubt the lobby and special interest groups numbers.
It’s the principle not the actual number that is the crux of the matter. And you’ve proven your oown point by the way. With so few people seemingly affected, why did so many Anglicans wrench themselves away from the ACoC to form a seperate sect?
Hello Eph,
In response to your question “why did so many…”
I think that it was because we saw our Church drifting away from God’s Holy Word in favour of aborhant sexual pleasures. That it is now becoming obvious that the number of people who engage is these sexually abnormal behaviours is so incredibly few only makes the desecration of our once Faithful Church all that much more painful to witness.
While I would dispute “sect”, you make an interesting point.
For my part, it would make me want to hasten my departure, since it shows that the archbishops, bishops and priests who made these decisions are not only toying with a new heresy to swell their growing collection, but are inept, acting from corrupt self-interest (since so many of them are homosexuals themselves), foolish – downright stupid, really – and thoroughly out of touch with the ordinary people who comprise the majority of their flock.
Ah, but it wasn’t the 0.1% who were the ones so badly effected, you see; it was everyone else — which is why they left. They represent the Anglican Church; those remaining are…..I’m not sure what. Still trying to work it out myself.
And the principle wasn’t too valid, either, come to think of it.
Did Jesus Christ spend his years of Ministry on earth going on and on with a political agenda about gay/trans-gendered/unusual sexuality rights? Is that what the point of the Christian Church that he established was to be? Could have fooled most of us. But today, according to ACofC, and the United Church too, you would think that this was the sole purpose of not only Christ’s coming to earth, but all the many, many years of preparation for it beforehand.
The “Catholic” type denominations in the Christian Church have always attracted many individuals who are gay, for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with wishing to serve God. The high Anglican crowd in the Church of England were known for this at one time, and I can recall any number of RC priests I have known whom I would take to have been gay. A few were even quite open about it. One pastor in particular would get up on the altar each Saturday night after Mass, demand that someone come forward to take his garbage from the glebe house down to the curb for him so he was not besmirched himself, and then off he would often go in high black leather fashion with our young male “liturgical” singer. I was never convinced they were off to practice hymns. So now, some people move from having gone into the Church for convenience of one sort or another, to taking over the ACofC Church, and twisting the religion behind it.
Carol,
Jesus didn’t say much about slavery either (although he affirmed the presence of slavery and actually acknowledged that slaves should obey their masters). Thankfully we’ve abandoned that injustice as well.
I am still waiting for anyone to give me a sensible explanation of what slavery and homosexual behaviour have in common. Frankly Eph this is not the first time I have seen someone raise the topic of slavery in a discussion about homosexual behaviour. But no-one has ever been able to satisfactorily show that either topic has any relevance or bearing on the other.
Nope. That was Paul.
Then why consider yourself a follower of Christ, period, if he supposedly got it all wrong?
So modern folk, in our progressive ways, have abandoned all of the injustices of life? How about abortion? That’s a big one that keeps rearing its ugly head, and it has actually become far worse under the progressive types.
Eph, have you really convinced yourself that the left-wingers have all the wisdom of God and mankind together in their self-righteous, wagging pinkies, and that whatever they decide is the new “moral of the moment” in lefty-land actually trumps the earthly doings of Jesus Christ?
Carol,
I’m no pinko. I just firmly believe that we know more about homosexuality today – physiologically and psychologically – then they did 2000 years ago.
It you are going to hold me to a pinko litmus test then one of the first indicators should be how one votes. I’ve been shocked in the past how so many at AS support the NDP – Canada’s only officially pro killing pre-born baby party.
And you so under the guise of the fact that they are supporters of the disabled, or seniors or the working poor. Don’t kid yourselves, the NDP are a bunch of social darwinists who would sooner allow women unfettered access to abortion then defend the legitmiate rights of the marginalized.
The NDP would be the last party ever to get my vote. I am not sure how you thought that. The Conservatives however, are more fiscally than socially conservative, to my mind. Just being on the opposite end of the spectrum from the NDP does not make them perfect. As many of us have long known, that leaves no one at all in the corner of those taking the the anti-abortion stance. We are certainly not spoiled for choice.
And going back to your first comment here, I think that A Christian does have to assume that Jesus Christ, even 2000 years ago, did know a great deal, and did not uphold the morals and rules that he preached because of not knowing any better. Presumably, he embodied the wisdom of all ages, and did not have to wait for the progressives of the early 21st century to edit his speeches and tell him how human life really works. As part of our creator Trinity, would he not have had inherent knowledge of this already?
How many years of Conservative majority government have we had since the abortion laws were struck down? And what have they done about it? What has Harper said he is going to do about it? If your only issue is pro life, I don’t see how you can justify doing anything except spoiling your ballot (which I did, for a few years).
Carol,
Jesus never condemned slavery, does that mean he condoned it?
Four many centuries this was the case. It wasn’t until the time of William Wilberforce (an Anglican I might add) that the tide began to turn against slavery.
Eph, I really am not sure how you mean to connect the idea of slavery to what I have been saying, or even to the topic of this posting. There certainly is, and has been a great deal to be said on the subject of slavery, and I do know about Wilberforce — though he was certainly not the only individual ever to oppose this practice — but I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here. I suspect you might be attempting to say, in a poorly-supported way, that there could have been injustices that Jesus Christ did not touch on. Well, yes and no. The Ten Commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai covered a great deal to begin with in the way of general morals that were meant to applied to many situations, as a paving of the way, and then other prophets such as John the Baptist also added clarifications. Perhaps Jesus Christ then dealt himself with the concrete issues he found of most importance.
Don’t confuse socially popular issues of a given time with those that are necessarily most important. After all, as David notes above, perhaps it is just self-interest that has made a “moral” issue out of certain topics in the ACofC and like-minded groups. Or maybe it is just habit. I have experienced denominations outside of the Anglican Church, for instance, so I have some width in my Christian perspective, and I have always found it odd how much fervour and emphasis the Anglicans in Canada put on the Bales for the North initiative — as if their moral lives depended on it, when it is just a program that they all bought into once upon a time, and now it is considered the Anglican thing to do; it’s like a popular curriculum. Jesus didn’t specifically mention Bales for the North, though.
The flea that wags the tail that wags the dog.