saintfletcher,
From my observation and Court documentation there are more abuse of young males in the Church than young females by adults; much of this also done by bisexual adults. They have a sexually obsessive mind. The sexual act of anal intercourse is condemned whether the male adult is homosexual or bisexual. Their actions spring from lust and power over the weak, two attitudes condemned by Christ and the NT. If the Church is to get its act together it must condemn sinful practises, accept sinners and protect the weak from exploitation.

Quote, "Try dealing with your paedophiles and you will find the dominant problem. Otherwise most of the paedophiles in the church that remain are heterosexual, and the girls are at danger."

Fdixit: “Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is condemned or at best avoided. Unless and until the Church changes its attitude no amount of sweet talk to gays and lesbians will achieve anything. The ultimate question to be asked is where did this teaching come from and is it tenable.”
Good question. No, it is not tenable. Australian families have an average of 2.1 children. In many families one of the partners have been sterilized when they have finished their families; others are using contraception; some couples are infertile; some have gone through menopause; some decide not to have children at all; some are homosexual couples. Sexual activity for all these people is condemned?
People ought to stop having sex as soon as their families are complete?

Coach: “The opportunity for homosexuals to be accepted by God is wide open BUT they prefer not to accept it. Instead they expect the Church and God himself to come to their level and accept them in their sinful status. This will never happen of course.”
Never say never. Churches have widely accepted that people use contraception, whereas not such a ling time ago, they were condemning it. If they would still not accept this today, churches would be almost non-existant.
Churches need people more than people need churches. People can be perfectly happy without going to church. The church will, albeit slowly, accept this sinful status;)

Philo, I'm glad someone pointed out to you the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile :)
To be continued

Rancitas: “Go to a punk gig, they accept everyone and are far more moral than the Church will ever be.”
LOL!
Indeed- why should the church have the monopoly on (the evolution) of morals? People, as individuals as well as members of a group/community/the world, only will want to live within the morals/guidelines of the church if they fully understand them and agree with those guidelines. People can live within their own morals or that of a group they connect with. They don’t need to be a slave to any church’s morals- morals that they do not understand or agree with.
I think that the church is facing a dilemma- it needs people to be able to exist while they also resist certain morals.
Now what happens if the ‘immoral’ group gets to big for the church to resist, e.g. the contraception-users? They won’t resist this group anymore. So I reckon the more gay/lesbian couples express themselves to the church, the better chance they have to be accepted without being afraid that the church is going to try to change their sexual orientation.

Edit Comment

@Philo: I am alarmed about the information you give regarding slack Church procedures in following protocols. Especially when it comes to child protection. If you have a problem, then you need to take responsibility.

Look, you have every right to insist that every member of your Church undergo a "safe person" check and a "criminal record" check. You should have the forms at your church for people to sign as they become members of your congregation. The authorities will let you know if members of the congregation pass the check or not.

If you don't follow the regulations, you will never find out who is safe and who is not safe. If there are any indications of paedophilia in your Church, you have a legal obligations to notify the Department of Community Services or the Police. You do not have the right to keep confidentiality on this matter.

Relying on prejudice rather than criminal records of "safe persons" records that are kept by DOCs, is negligent on the part of your Church. You could even be regarded an accessory to a crime if you fail to follow the protocols correctly and get your facts wrong.

No wonder so many predators hide in the Church when Churches refuse to follow the law and notify all abuse. I am amazed that you admit that the Church has a serious problem.

No more secrets! No more exclusions from legal protocols. Support the system that supports you and I can tell you now, once those forms are passed around your group, those paedophiles will run a mile and you will probably never see them again. They don't want you to know their reputation.

This is what I am talking about. We can all be safer if we open up, talk, tell the truth, use the system to confirm the information and stop scapegoating other minority groups like gays and lesbians for problems that you have within your own institution. Your church needs to get its act together and protect children properly.

Coach thanks for the compliment re: "superior intellect" and "impeccable ethics". All that and I am pretty too. Mind you that is a little over the top. Intellect wasn't mentioned in my post and if you think my ethics are impeccable I’ll add that to my CV. Thanks.

You say: "I am sure that science could find a way to reverse this irregularity in the brain or in the genetic mesh itself. God and even the pope will agree to this."

Where is your evidence that it is indeed an irregularity? That is like saying Rancitas' jovial disposition is "irregular" because it doesn't fit your schema - your cloistered world view.

Why would the pope agree with altering peoples' natural brain make up when the pope thinks vasectomy and , for popes and preists, having a good root, is wrong and unnatural? Next you will be telling me the pope wants angry gays to undergo a lobotomy (it would be immoral in your eye to violate a "normal" hetro).

A large corpus colossum is also developed in folk who tend to think in degrees and dissect things rather than lumping things into categories, black and white. Hitler was a black and white thinker, Bush is an either for or against us thinker. So, for instance, a heterosexual with a big one (cc that is) will see that a gay person is above all a valued human and that a gay's sexuality is only a part of their make up.
Maybe God created some folk with a big corpus colossum to test all you people who think that love between two hetrosexual's is superior to love between two homosexuals. Those who bellow out oxymorons like "sub-human love" are exposed for what really is in their heart -hatred of difference.

Coach you say that this natural condition needs to be corrected. The evidence that this is "natural" is inconclusive. I didn't offer an opinion on the "paper". Use your brain Coach and ask if the Aids had affected the size of the hypothalamus instead of carrying on like zealous fanatic.

Coach asks: "Would that be acceptable to you or would society wipe away a whole cultural colour with their superior intellect, subhuman love, and impeccable ethics?". You're being unreasonable and silly. I don't want gay culture wiped out or homophobic genetic tampering. Homophobic people who want to deny couples their choices in relation to their expression of their sexuality are unreasonable.
Keep in mind here that Catholics regard nature to be an expression of God's divine wisdom. Thus Catholics idea of nature is a capital N, reason is a capital R. So if you are not natural or reasonable in their eyes you are evil or in need of help.
In my mind, the anus is not designed for sex. Scientific fact. In Brazil the Catholics are supposedly buggering their wives so as not to break the church's contraception rule and because, in the prevailing Catholic culture, condoms are scarce. Most porn sites have anal sex between heterosexual male and female. All these, to me, are unnatural but they are less damaging (and more fun) than some of the other things that the pope and the do-gooders accept. Catholicism is a business. If Rome accept gays, they will lose customers. Economic rationalism -simple as that.

It is unnatural to smoke cigarettes; drink alcohol, drive cars; wear make up or a condom; cook food; wear shoes; watch TV; use computers; money, medicines; nuclear weapons, electricity; pollute our rivers and atmosphere,; medicines; etc. These are all products of civilisation. It could be argued that certain barbaric behaviours are natural. Raping girls or killing gays would have been natural to cave man. So one has to ask why the focus on consenting gays? Religion has played a positive part in civilising our behaviours in some aspects, in others it returns zealots to violence and irrational thinking and behaviour.
If people choose to engage in homosexual acts then it is not helpful for supposed heterosexual moralisers to carry on with homophobic nonsense or use religion and God to give authority to what in the end is nothing more than an individuals' opinion