T800, you said:

“BTE there has never been a scientific study done that proves that homosexuality is genetic, that’s a fact and you hold the misconception..”

One of the most common scientific ways of sorting out the nature/nurture dichotomy in questions of human variation is the twin study. You might not have been aware that a few such studies have, in fact, been conducted, and the results (which seem to be consistent from study to study) seem to show that genetics plays a significant, but not total, role in sexual orientation.

My guess is we’re unlikely to find any single “gay gene”: homosexuality is probably an outcome of many different genes acting in concert, in a particular individual in a particular environment. This seems to be the pattern with many of the different personality characteristics of humans.

See: http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html, or try googling “homosexuality and genetics” or “homosexuality and twin studies”.

Sad to see which way this has gone since posting last night. West sums it up, to me. Gay behaviour appears not to be a matter of capricious choice.
It is not "deviant", David Boaz. A gay person loves a person of the same sex, as a heterosexuals automatically "turn on" to the opposite sex. It's in the 'wiring".
And in cases where there is choice and "lifestyle" involved- well, that's ok, too, to start with. Who knows what's in the heart of another. I understand why some feel such behaviour "indicative". Just keep your eyes open if you instictively "react" against someone and preserve your own territorial integrity, so to speak. Like your Chinese persecuted minority, such people would probably just as likely just like to be left in peace and besides, the Gospels demonstrate that NO one probably fails to fall short in some way somewhere along the line. "Bad karma", as they say!
A less judgemental term than the loaded term "deviant" would be "unorthodox", therefore. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
You are entitled to your opinion, David. But it's in the the nature of an opinion or beleif that it remains ultimately unproven and perhaps unproveable. Only time will tell, especially as regards things metaphysical. None of us likely will know "the truth" this side of the grave, so you may be as unwise to claim God exists beyond doubt, as West is to claim (s)He, beyond any/all doubt; does not!
In the mean time what's good for you or me may not be necessarily good for others, although as people of good will we hope it is. "Do unto others", or you might find people knocking on your door late one night intent on imposing on you, like others do do to your Christian friends in China.
I am as prone to bigotry as the next person, by the way. Whatever else I do "do wrong", I always hope I will (finally) avoid the inevitable "contempt prior to investigation".

Snout you are right but only up to a point. Research using monozygotic twins does suggest that homosexuality may be genetic but is inconclusive. Further more other character traits such as anxiety, aggression, easy going nature are all genetic traits which are eroded by environment as a person ages. A person who is born with a genetic predisposition to be happy go lucky can end up a grumpy old cynic through environment.
Sexuality although genetically influenced also depends on hard wiring of the brain. When a heterosexual male sees a female with curvy hips, full bottom and large breasts his brain receives those attributes as signs to a potential healthy child bearing attributes and that translates to sexual arousal and it is the sexual arousal which the mind focuses on.
I have to say from all the homosexuals I have known, their brain is not wired the same as mine. I have no idea what homosexual males see in other men and I would probably be wrong if I guessed at what lesbian women see in other women. Additionally there are many people who are of both genders and many of them don’t know it and for others brains are pushing out all sorts and different levels of hormones.

But all this is not the point wether a person is born gay or chooses to be gay. The point is Boaz is not going to jump into bed with a man, so what business is it of his who is gay? At the other extreme of the spectrum people are not born Christian they are either brainwashed into it by other Christians or chose to be Christian out of some incompetent life management skills. What gay leader has ever tried to force the world to be gay? But we see Christian leaders (and Muslim) do it all the time. Boaz the lessons to be learned from the time of Babylon to October 22 2006 are that religion is nothing other than prejudice and bigotry justified by paranoid superstition. The only relevant point is what do Christians believe happen to non-Christians?

"There is much in Rudd’s essay that is admirable, particularly its arguments against poverty and economic inequality. However, the essay also reveals a troubling social conservatism at the heart of Rudd’s world-view."

But here we have the authors unsubstantiated bias... so what is wrong with conservatism.

Conservatisnm is after all just a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

"Rudd clearly wants to encourage social justice style Christianity and then win that vote for Labor. After all, Howard has benefitted electorally not only from the evangelical Right but also the conservative Catholic vote."

Yet Howard hasn't been out chasing that vote at all. In fact many churches could be assumed to have a LW agenda as they have quite vocally oppoosed many things the coalition have done so far.

"Gay and lesbian rights advocates, concerned about the political implications of Rudd’s Christianity, will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief."

All ?? % of them?

"Yet, Rudd pointedly doesn’t go on to make the obvious argument that gays and lesbians are currently an oppressed and reviled “other” in Australian society."

Truly?

"So while he may not be a member of the extreme Religious Right, Rudd is conservative enough to side-step an obvious opportunity to use his Christianity to support same-sex rights."

Yet the extreme religious "right?" is surely just another minority.

"The essay contains an important call for checking rampant individual self-interest in the name of equity (and sustainability)."

yeh..

When you consider Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in the US, and their behaviour, you can see why Kevin Rudd's call for moderation is valid.

The Phelps sisters actually said that the 4 Amish girls in the US deserved to be murdered. They said that were going to hell anyway.

Old Pappi Fred Phelps Jr described those that died in 9/11 as deserving hell anyway because the Jews in the stock market were "smearing the faeces of faggots and dykes on the bible, and they deserved to burn". They said Amish were too friendly to fags so it was kinder to let them die as children rather die in a "full grown stint in rebellion, causing them to go to hell".

They also said the Catholic church is a whorehouse. The US is the enemy of God as it tolerates faggots...and so on.

Even the Fox network on You Tube was perplexed by such dreadful bigotry on the rise in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m_bIsXhE8Y&mode=related&search=

Then a documentary called "Jesus Camp" shows a very disturbing movement brainwashing impressionable minds of children into fundamentalism and hate. Their doctrine deliberately copies tactics used by the Taliban to raise fundamentalists. See the evidence for yourself on "Jesus Camp" on You Tube. The behaviour is disturbing.

This is interview on "Jesus Camp" is from Bill Maher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhUjNRY2L8k

Trailer to "Jesus Camp" says: "There is a new Church like this every 2 days in America".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

"I want the children to be as fundamentalist as Islam"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhT2PtaD0w

This kind of behaviour is a time bomb.

Do we want to be terrorised by Christians that say "Australia is the enemy of God because it tolerates fags?".

Take a good look at this stuff. This is hard to believe. How so you want to raise your children?

I feel so sorry for the families of the 4 Amish Children that were shot, and their funeral was crashed by Christian fundamentalists making a tragedy into a circus.

Now, who is behaving badly here? Can we reconsider Kevin Rudd's point considering these examples?

Light relief from Chaser thanks to ABC Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE

W,

Thank you for your reply and your response to T800 and West – even if the latter was a tactical thing it has a Christian effect.

Your theology aside and my ignorance of the intricacies of the sash aside, protestors are going into a place of worship and rebelling against the house rules beliefs of the people who run it. Pell would obviously feel compelled to deny them Eucharist. You must be aware of Pell indicating publically that he subscribes to mainstream theology on the topic. Obviously the protestors don’t think it is a sin but they know Pell does – hence my comment. If I went into a nightclub and consider it essential to have my feet on the table and refuse to put them down I would get thrown out but couldn't claim discrimination.

He doesn’t single them out. What other group comes in wearing sashes? They are just as much protestors as people holding up signs. I’m sure you would consider it in the public interest if Pell donned a sash himself but until he changes theology you should try to understand that he does what he thinks he has to.

” I’m afraid your defence of this situation discredits your statement that zero is a tolerable level for homophobic harassment.”

Only if you string an extremely long bow with your aligning with abusers claim.

” …denying them employment ….”

That reminds me of an accusation of Jesus whipping the battlers. I can’t become a priest yet a homosexual man who embraces Catholic beliefs and is willing to be celibate can. An equally creative approach could argue positive discrimination. If protestors accepted the beliefs there wouldn’t be a rainbow sash protest.

“… just because they hang out with an undesirable group.”

Again isn’t there just a little bit more to it than that? Do you honestly think that if someone tells a priest that they have a homosexual friend that they will be refused communion?

In fairness to Rudd I think he has a different perspective on social problems and probably is unaware of the abuse.