What I’m trying to suggest (without hopefully seeming too antagonistic) is that it is a bit rich for you to pronounce that people thoughtlessly unaccept an orientation when you are inconsistent in your attitude toward subcategories for no apparent reason consistent with the attitudes that you seem to express. To what do you attribute your disgust/or milder emotional reaction? Some might have recourse to ethics informed by religion or natural law or Philo’s arguments about what they consider natural based on farmyard observation or theories about an unnatural environment. You don’t seem to rely upon those things. Indeed when you were second guessing God I got the impression that you probably aren’t a fundy.

Which leads to your last post and thank you for the response. I accept the Runner thing. Thank you for explaining. It would avoid confusion if you had untangled that bit immediately. For example: “Runner I don’t believe in God but I would like to address the innuendo that homosexuality is unnatural.” rather than talking about God’s design. However I’m sure I don’t always express myself perfectly either.

Runner,

Sorry to single out something that I thought you could have handled better. I appreciate your objectivity in other discussions when you have nothing to gain personally from speaking up. Don’t take the criticism of your approach personally. Bear with me.

Dear mjpb,

I was merely trying to point out that there
are no biblical literalists, only selective
literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining
women, millions of Protestants have gone far
beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the
same for homophobia.

Homosexuality is not an ethical sin. No one is
being hurt, no one is being cheated, nobody's
rights are being infringed upon. The point being
that homosexuality is regarded as a religious sin,
analgous to other Biblical prohibitions, like not
eating the carcass of a dead animal or not sleeping
with a woman during her menstrual cycle.

The real tragedy is as Father James Kavanaugh
wrote so many years ago in his book,"A Modern
Priest looks at his Outdated Church," -

"The real tragedy is that Rome does not understand
our need. We need freedom from a legalistic Church
that has transformed the simplicity of a personal
and Christian love into a world of fear and guilt.
We do not know how to find God, we have never
learned. We have only been taught to keep laws,
to avoid sin, to fear hell, to carry a cross that
we built for ourselves."

mjpb

I can understand that my attitude to some may seem inconsistent. I find communication in the form of text somewhat challenging and I'm adjusting to the lack of fluidity that a verbal discussion can offer.
To respond to this, there is one simple attribute that warrants my disapproval toward sub categories, this is blatant promiscuity.

Perhaps "stereotypical queens" was a poor characterisation. They have been stereotyped as whorish men dressed as women, this is why the stereotype was used as an example, the key word being whorish.

What I meant was Gay men who try to sleep with anything male, lesbians who try to sleep with anything female. Straight men who try to sleep with anything female, straight women who try to sleep with anything male and bisexual men and women who don't care who they sleep with.

This is entirely their own choice, but as I mentioned I only disagree with their actions to the extent that I will not adopt their attitude, I do not condemn it.

*Are you saying that a gay male is okay if they appear straight?*
No I am not.

Thank you for the clarification.

Foxy,

I agree that millions of Protestants have gone far beyond Bible literalism whether or not they would own up to it. Abolishing slavery is something that I don't consider the best example for the reasons that I have given. Perhaps I could replace it with acceptance of contraception. It is hard to reconcile the Biblical call to the married to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with the use of contraception. Indeed I know someone who actually converted to Catholicism because he couldn't reconcile the lack of committment to rejecting contraception by the leadership in his former home in the Assembly of God group where he grew up. Since Anglicans changed their view on the topic in the 1930s and allowed for exceptions I believe every denomination other than Catholicism has also changed.

When reading the article at the following link which explains the relevant view of Cardinal Newman who the Pope is currently in the process of acknowledging as a Saint it reminded me of Fr Kavanaugh's comments that you quoted. The two obviously clash dramatically.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/oct2002p12_1149.html

"Religion is pleasant and easy; benevolence is the chief virtue; intolerance, bigotry, excess of zeal, are the first of sins ... it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth ... and therefore is neither hot nor cold, but (in Scripture language) lukewarm ... I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, that it would be a gain to this country, were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion, than at present it shows itself to be."