Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Putting all academic, scientific and philosophical arguments aside for the moment, let me set you a challenge.For me to win this challenge I'm relying on the probability of you being a heterosexual - and that you are male.Go to any gay porn site. Do it late at night, possibly after you've had a beer or two and see if you can get an erection "by choice".I've tried this and it doesn't work for me, but I'm a sample of one, so maybe it's not representative. (But I'm betting it is).Report back and give us the result. (This is one experiment that you CAN try at home.)

I agree. Faith's meaning was fairly obvious but she left herself with just enough blood in the water to attract the sharks. I think we'd make more progress by offering a sticking plaster now and then.

Yes, but it was fairly clear that Faith was trying to argue that because homosexuals can't reproduce (by having sex with other homosexuals) there's evolutionary pressure for the trait to be eliminated - which is a reasonable point to make.Now there's lots of explanations why that's wrong, but they can be argued without all the bigot accusations. (I am, of course, aware of Faith's previous offences in this regard.)

You're not helping.

Chicken. This is a personal challenge, we've put aside randomised samples and control groups. This is about YOU personally. A sample of 1. I'm asking you to put your hand in the wound, Thomas.Go look at a gay porn site and see if you can get an erection. Let us know how you get on. And this is total, absolute and revolting drivel, but we can discuss it later.

Ok, that's good enough - it seems that you couldn't choose to be gay. Now explain to me why you think other people *can* choose it.

No Faith, we hate the sin not the sinner.(What's good for the goose.......)

When you do, please explain how any of this involves choice.Also, have you now accepted that you personally couldn't actually choose to be gay?

A law to allow same sex marriage in England and Wales came into effect last night at midnight. The Church of England, which has 26 seats in our parliament, has accepted the new law but will not allow weddings in their churches or recognise the marriages. (Whatever that means).The church is going to get into a right pickle about it - just like they have with women bishops - as they won't allow gay vicars to marry. Some of them have already said that they will marry, despite that they might lose their jobs and homes - it should be quite comical watching the theological and legal cartwheeling that will result.

Once upon a time being a Christian meant being a nice person. Someone who followed gentle Jesus, meek and mild - someone who washed the feet of sinners, defended prostitutes and walked amongst lepers. He's exactly the kind of bloke that would have been on the side of the persecuted homosexual. When did those values change Faith? Why have made Jesus into someone that isn't nice?

Despite the strange US aversion to the term, all modern democracies are essentially liberal and attempt to balance conflicting freedoms through their laws. But laws are blunt instruments which have a requirement to create blacks and whites where grey is more usually the real colour. They're macro tools that are forced to work at the micro level and that's a tough ask.Generally laws push gross movements in general directions and only get into real trouble at the margins when differences between individuals force black and white decisions.My take on this is that we really need to educate people about how important the law is and explain it's real purpose - which is to keep its citizens safe and allow us to go through our lives knowing that the state will only interfere with us in predictable and fair ways. In return, we're asked to accept the rule of law without exceptionalism. This means that individuals have a responsibility to society as a whole to behave reasonably themselves and not create unnecessary conflict.In a fair and free society, people have choice - the gay couple needing a wedding cake who deliberately take their order to a company they know have religious reasons for refusing, is behaving as unreasonably as the business refusing to do the work. It's a deliberate act of provocation to make a political point. In effect they are abusing an important privilege.The balance is really difficult and from time to time someone will quite rightly make a political protest that actually matters and is not simply unnecessary provocation - like sitting in a forbidden place on a bus. Sadly, we probably won't know the difference until long after the fact. But it's all part of the ugly civilising process and we really shouldn't think that we can make simple rules of how to traverse human difference.

Correct - as an example.

Reference please

Yeh, well, huge in your Christian circle doesn't mean an awful lot, apparently. (And I really don't find that hard to believe.) Anyway, your link doesn't work - can you provide a link to a story from an objective source? ie not a Christian newspaper. I'd like to hear the facts.

Well that looks like a good news story to me. Liberal democracy in action - two violently opposing viewpoints and silly actions from both sides defused without bloodshed and civil war.That's how it works, when it works well - hopefully both sides will have learnt from it.