Who says that God exists anyway?

As I am an atheist, I believe that humans evolved, and were not ‘created’.
There was no design.

Humans evolved as they have turned out to be- different skin colours, different IQ’s, different personalities, different preferences including sexual preferences. We are all equal in the eyes of evolution

Perfection is never expected, fletch, least of all in the weird bi-polar world of OLO. This environment actually encourages us to be adversarial, when most of us only learn from others when they show that they have some understanding of how we see the world.

I’m certain that the Vatican’s use of the term violence was calculated to enrage every kind of unconventional parent, while appealing to those who hold more conservative values.

Fortunately, the catholic church, following its name, is home to a very broad range of views, and I know many practising catholics who were as appalled by the Vatican’s position as we are.

It’s worth noting that Australian catholics are the least intolerant towards homosexuality of any religious group in this country, as found by an Australia Institute study last year: http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

If for no other reason, comparisons with extremist groups in other countries are thus quite unfair.

Interestingly (and we are seeing this here on OLO as well), the study found that men are hugely more intolerant of homosexuality than women.

Anyway, for all its weirdness OLO is still a good place to share and calibrate our views. Thanks for yours.

bosk,

I don't think that Jesus, coming from the Jewish tradition, would have needed to say anything about sexual impropriety or homosexuality as the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah leaves little room for doubt as to how those behaviours were considered. (and perhaps give a dietry warning about salt!)

But, seeing Jesus is just another evolved group of chemicals, why would it matter what any of us say or think...

Back to the Bonobos of Seneca again...

I thought this subject was a challenge to the Church to accept as God ordained the gay and lesbian lifestyle. From the above posts we have atheists and perverted behaviour that is expected to be accepted as normal evolution and God ordained. Can you imagine what is the witness of such a Church if these are accepted. Just look at Churches that have Gay clergy they are intellectually dead to the God of Creation with distorted views of family life. Families are leaving them in droves as it places their young males under threat from such influence. Homosexuals are naturally obsessed with attention to young males - recognise the abuse of Church leaders upon boys in their care.

The Church now comes under constant criticism for abnormal sexual acts that by Christian truth must be eradicated. To merely accept them now as normal behaviour, then where are the moral standards that preserve society.

We can see from atheists that they do not believe design exists that we have male and female is all an accident of evolution and so any sexual expression as long as desire is there is natural evolution. As such they have no right to condemn pedophiles because to them it is natural. They have no moral compass no boundaries of behaviour as all behaviour is natural evolution.

My position:
Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.
Principle 2. This is the God ordained design for the procreation of all living forms.

Merely experiencing personal pleasure is not a criterion for acceptable action. Sex itself is not evil, but with whom one engages with can be. Pleasure itself is not the boundary God places on action. Some aboriginal societies use infants to satisfy their pleasure. In our society influenced by the boundaries of Christian morality such action is outlawed as evil and criminal. Islam sanctions the marriage of infants and sexual acts upon them. Perhaps Gays try ministry in their congreations.

Philo

How do you ever manage to walk around when you repeatedly keep sticking both feet in your mouth?

You stated: Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.

WRONG. Single celled life forms simply divide - no duality pf sexes required, many invertebrates such as slugs, snails and worms carry dual sex organs, a species of mole is all female and reproduce themselves, in a species of fish a female turns into a male. Also what about human babies born with both sets of genitalia?

These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Which completely negates Philo's "Principle 2 :This is the God ordained design for the procreation of all living forms."

Seems to me Philo that god has done a few things s/he hasn't told you about. Oh that's right its not in the bible and therefore can't be true.

Why do the religious say anything (even if it makes them look like complete idiots) in order to bolster their own beliefs and prejudices? The seriously religious are so scared of anything that doesn't fit their tiny little world view.

Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom - it has not and will not result in the extinction of a species.

Fortunately many christians and other religious are not as narrow minded, humourless and sexually challenged as the likes of Philo et al.

RC
Actually the story of Sodom & Gomorrah says NOTHING about homosexuality. If you understood the culture of the middle east you'd know that the great crime of those two cities was supposed to be the violation of the rite of hospitality.

Allow me to explain. In the middle east anyone accepted as a guest was sacrosanct. The host had to protect them with his life if need be [hence Lot offering his daughters to keep his guests safe]. By attempting to rape the "angels" the citizens of those cities violated what was considered the MOST sacred law. This is what they were punished for. Or are you so deluded as to believe that if the angels had appeared as females & the guys still wanted to rape them God's attitude would have been "oh well boys will be boys?"

2nd point. If it had been a group of heteroseuxuals trying to rape some girls that caused the cities to be destroyed we wouldn't interpret the meaning of the story as condemning all heterosexual activity would we? Perhaps the reason why we interpret the story as condemning all homosexual activity is because we are biased.
Next time try doing some homework before trying to interpret the bible through your prejudices RC.

Philo your reply is sick. I will not lower myself arguing against it.