Rhian:

“As you say, modern science now understands homosexuality as intrinsic to a person’s being, not an aberration or lifestyle choice. We can be pretty certain that homosexual attraction has existed in all human cultures and periods of history. We also know that homosexual activity occurs in the animal kingdom.”

If the only thing that is required for a sexuality to be legitimate is an attraction then why are things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc not acknowledged as legitimate sexualities with all the rights that homosexual and heterosexuals enjoy?

Just because homosexual attraction has always existed does not tell us anything except that it has always existed. Leprosy has always existed too.

What conclusion can we logically conclude from the fact that it occurs in animals? What is the point of telling us that unless you are trying to say that because it exists it must be a good thing? Just because something exists it does not automatically mean that it is good. Is every behaviour good behaviour? If you are not trying to present an argument in favour of homosexuality then why are you telling us that it happens in the animal kingdom? All you are saying is that this behaviour is good simply because it exists and that is not an argument at all.

Rhian and Phanto,

" .... lifestyle choice. We can be pretty certain that homosexual attraction has existed in all human cultures and periods of history."

Even then, it may not be either/or: What "has existed in all human cultures and periods of history" can still be a "lifestyle choice." Not one or the other.

I wish people would make up their minds over what we are all supposed to believe, without question, and to avoid the disapproval of right-thinking people: is homosexuality 'natural', in-born, genetic, and therefore good ? Or is it just another lifestyle choice, and therefore good ? Or is it learnt behaviour, from the influence of teachers, the internet, bullies, etc., and therefore good ? Is anal intercourse natural, or a chosen behaviour, or learnt, and therefore good ?

It's such hard work trying to keep up with how one is supposed to think, and to agree with the in-crowd these days :(

Joe

Hi Phanto and Joe

I was merely pointing out that, even within the logic of natural law, it is possible to construct an argument that does not condemn homosexuality. “Natural law” holds basically that the “laws” and norms of nature reflect divine intent. Hence, some theologians argue that homosexuality violates God’s divine plan because the purpose of sexual activity is to procreate. Aquinas argued that masturbation is a greater sin than rape, because it denies the possibility of the sexual act leading to conception.

This is also the basis of the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception. By this logic homosexual sex is a sin, but equally so is heterosexual sex using contraception.

I’m not as vehement as Peter in rejecting theologies that see God’s handiwork in nature, but I don’t accept the “natural law” argument regarding sexual morality. Like Peter, think it has done a lot of damage.

Meanwhile, away from philosophying about some dead astronomer 100s of years ago there is Today's News about GAYS of the Church in action and young boys.

"Cardinal George Pell admits the offences of Australia's worst pedophile priest were sad, but not of much interest to him."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/30976323/pell-back-in-rome-witness-box/

I forgot the OLO chatterati have no comments because it'll take days to sink in...

“God blessed them and said to them, `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'”

This was supposed to be a blessing, not an order, certainly not a curse - and by now it is wholly fulfilled, all long done - enough is enough!

It is man who first wanted to procreate and dominate, then according to Genesis, God went along, accepted his desire and blessed him to have what he wished for.

The question was raised by Big Nana and Phanto: "why are things like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc not acknowledged as legitimate sexualities", but perhaps the question should instead be, why heterosexual behaviour is still acknowledged as legitimate despite the fact that it floods this planet with excessive human bodies.

The reason paedophilia and bestiality are not accepted is the claim that they hurt children and animals. The reason that necrophilia is not accepted could be that historically one could have picked the germs from the corpse and caused a plague. Sexual attraction is always a legitimate private matter, but all forms of sexual behaviours, including heterosexuality, should be reviewed from time to time to check whether they still/now hurt others - which is the only legitimate reason to disqualify a behaviour, sexual or otherwise.

Plantagenet, you seem confused about the difference between 'gays' and paedophiles?
Paedophiles like to have illegal sex with children under 16, either one gender, or BOTH boys and girls.

Gay adults like to have legal sex with people of the same gender as themselves. It is illegal for ANYBODY, gay or not, to have sex with children under 16 of either sex...or they are quite simply paedophiles.
Gay people are no more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals are. We all know of the many convicted Paedophiles who were previously Christian, married heterosexuals who messed with both their own kids, and others. What will we call them?

If you had bothered to check out the stories of the people who were abused as children by the disgusting priests and brothers of the Catholic Church in the Eastern States that are under investigation at present, you would know that girls were abused by some clergy who also abused boys.

In your strange mind, that would label them as what.....a heterosexual paedophile?
Any paedophile is disgusting and will badly affect their prey both physically and mentally. Paedophile clergy are the lowest of the low in paedophile circles because they secure their kiddies from their 'flock', of whom they are supposed to be showing 'moral guidance' through their supposed religious activities.