If the Bible is going to be used as the some sort of moral guide then it explicitly states that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death - no excuses.

So what's it going to be - instructions that are meant to be followed or a convenient excuse to justify prejudices?

Many seem to conveniently ignore other instructions about wearing mixed cloth, eating shellfish, killing witches, beating slaves, cutting the hair on the sides of their heads and so on, but zero in on specific topics - convenience permitting.

Morality changes over time and almost all those things are sensibly put aside but some seem to hang around.

An irony is that many quote from the King James Bible translation. King James was almost certainly bisexual if not homosexual.

My objections to the whole queer debacle is now well known to all on OLO.
I do not back away from a worthy and worthwhile debate/discussion, BUT, on evidence there is no pragmatic foundation for the promotion of queers.
They exist, therefore we must acknowledge that.
Their acceptance however is not a given.
This whole disgusting SSM was more a show of hands as to how many gutless people we have in Australia.
The SSM thing was ALL about virtue signalling and very little to do with the truth and our approval of queers.
It was more about submission and nothing at all to do with acceptance.
It was an emotional campaign by the queers, in that they threatened and frightened people in to voting YES, and not a true and conscious decision but more a tacit approval.
These books of faith such as the Bible the Koran, are merely interpretations from previous scriptures, re-written and have changed their original meaning from whence they were first written.
One cannot/must not take note of these holy books anymore, as there are too many things which are not believable in today's educated environment.
As for moral teachings these will stand the test of time.
The acceptance or rejection of morals is a human choice.
The messages of morality are not open to interpretation, they do not change, only the will of the people can change for unsavoury reasons.
Queers are born the way they are, we are told we must accept them.
Fine we accepted them, (reluctantly) but where does it say, anywhere, we must give sway to them, to the point of discriminating against the greater population, in their favour.
Take emotion and fear out of the equation and you will find that the NO vote would have prevailed, and we would not have to be continually defending the rights of good people, who's good reputation are brought into dis-repute by bad, selfish, churlish and petulant people with a mental age and attitude of spoilt entitled children.

//Remember that it is the THEORY of evolution!//

What, like relativity theory? And atomic theory? How about Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

Scientists and laypeople don't use the term theory in the same way. In science, a theory isn't just some random conjecture or guess, which has yet to be tested. A better term for that is hypothesis.

A theory is an explanation - or system of explanations - of natural phenomena that has been subjected to repeated testing (quite exhaustive testing, in the case of evolutionary theory) and not found wanting.

Laws are just theories with a fancy name.

And none of them have been proven, because...

//It has not yet been proven.//

If you accept Popper's reasoning on the scientific method - which I do for the most part - no scientific theory can ever be proven to be correct... and that's fine. The reason that they can't be proven is basically boils down to Hume's argument against induction, which I assume you're already familiar with.

They can, however, be falsified - in the sense of being proven to be false, not in the sense of falsifying data which is pretty much THE cardinal sin in science.

Nothing you accept as an irrefutable concrete scientific fact - and I'm sure there must be some - is certain knowledge. All scientific knowledge is tenuous... and that's fine.

But not having been proven (because that's impossible) is not the same as not having been tested. Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859; obviously there have been developments since then, notably the discovery of DNA. But his central thesis - evolution by means of natural selection - hasn't been falsified over 150 years, which is why it gets the honour of being awarded the title of 'theory' alongside other such luminaries germ theory the widely-feared quantum theory.

Frankly I wish we could just hurry up and get around to declaring it a 'Law' so we can get past all this ridiculous 'but it's just a theory' nonsense. After all, thermodynamics has Laws and it's about the same age and just as well tested as the Laws of Evolution.

//I am waiting to see droves of transition forms uncovered of chimpanzees to human beings.//

You'll be waiting a mighty long time then, friend. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

You don't even understand the theory you're disparaging... :(

yep the constant frauds used by evolutionist, the complete lack of transitional fossils, the disagreement among scientist does not stop the desparate from hanging on to the hopelessly failed theory of evolution. You would think they would come up with something a bit more rational in denying Creation, Design and laws. But no pigheaded they continue brainwashing the masses with such rot. Romans 1 could not be clearer that the deniers of Creation have been handed over to delusion hence the massive gaps in the faith based theories.