If the Episcopal Church were honest (and they are not), they would climb on the roof, flip the cross upside down, then paint "Church of Satan" over the door. When the Episcopal Church began ordaining homosexuals and marrying homosexuals, they gave themselves over to the Devil without pretense. It is pointless to show them the Scriptures prohibiting homosexuality, because they literally don't care. There are no Christians left in the Episcopal Church.

The love between two women who are deeply dedicated to each other is something Christians should try to very hard to understand. I would give them deep insights into what their religion's founder was telling them about 2,000 years ago.

How embarrassing for all of us from Annapolis. If I were Episcopal, I would change religions. Shame on the Episcopal hierarchy for allowing a vocal minority push it around. All this does is accelerate the decline of Christianity.

Mary?

You call yourself a Christian, meaning a follower of Christ?

Can you point to any of Christ's words condemning homosexuality, or any comment at all on homosexuality? Not words from the Old Testament. Not words by any of the apostles. Christ's words only, please.

Mary, Some might argue that only Christians are remaining in the Episcopal Church, especially in light of the refuge some who left took in the Ugandan church.

Mista T,

"Vocal minority," huh? Sorta like that "vocal minority" who faced police dogs and fire hoses ... and changed America?

Tell us more about "vocal minorities" who "accelerate the decline of Christianity."

Change it, perhaps. Make you uncomfortable, perhaps. And maybe that's a good thing.

It never ceases to amaze how many try and rationalize why homosexual acts would not offend God. No one is saying that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to live however they wish. To try and rationalize it as ok pretty much confirms what Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We are animals, subject to all the influences that affect our lesser evolved fellow creatures. Carefully controlled scientific experiments that have been replicated with the same results, show that animal populations in a confined area, given enough food necessary to sustain them, will, once space becomes crowed with the numbers that usually result from normal heterosexual behavior, begin to exhibit homosexual tendencies in a percentage of the population. This seems to be a natural process that animals (including us it seems) use to relieve population pressure in-order to maintain a healthy balance. It seems to be built in, and is not species specific. Perhaps, if the curious and improbable god, that absolutists keep trying to ram down our throats, has created this mechanism so that the mandate to be "fruitful and multiply" doesn't get out of hand, or maybe it is an evolved survival technique we developed so as to not breed ourselves to the limits of our planet's ability to sustain us. Either way the case can be made for accepting homosexuality, no matter how much it offends the clenched butted Puritanical moral absolutists who, finding normal sex to be sinful, have gone full bore out in their effort to make anything that exists outside of their mindset anathema.

"We are animals, subject to all the influences that affect our lesser evolved fellow creatures" What you ignore is our intellect is more developed and we have the ability to control influences and not let them control us. That is what makes us different.

How come you didn't actually give any links or way to validate those controlled experiments?

As an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Los Angeles who voted for Mary Glasspool and looks foward with great joy to her consecration and the work we will do together here, I wanted to quickly comment and note that while we rejoice in our new bishop we recognize that there remains within our larger Christian family a broad diversity of perspectives on human sexuality in general and homosexuality in specific. If there are those who genuinely want to understand how the Episcopal Church has come to embrace the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in our life and work, I commend to them a document called "To Set Our Hope on Christ" - available online line or through our national church offices. Good people of deep faith my end up disagreeing with us about our conclusions, but I believe it is fair to ask for respect for our process ... as we rejoice in this step forward as a church that embraces all people equally as members of God's human family.

Here's an entire book, demonstrating exactly that

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398

Anonymous, how good are you at indefinitely denying your thirst, you hunger, your heterosexual urges? Probably about as good as I am at "controlling" my own "animal" influences.

We are all "animals." We each have animal needs. It's just that the human animal has evolved to the point where he seeks to deny his animal nature...and deny the nature of others, because it isnt our own.

I am an Episcopal priest who knows Mary Glasspool well and I am thrilled with her election. She is an earnest, sincere, Jesus-loving Christian leader with incredible gifts. If Jesus were to comment on the posts on this blog, I believe he would be saddened and disappointed only by the hate and narrow-minded intolerance expressed by those who disagree with this decision. Each side on this issue has a position that can be argued with biblical principles and scientific evidence, but one side tends to demonstrate Christian love more than the other.

Father Scott,

With all due respect, I would be cautious using the term "Christian love" in such a broad context. What exactly does "Christian love" mean as it applies to the presupposed empathetic ways of the "other side" in this debate? Who is the "other side"?

With equal respect, pattycakers,

I think Father Scott was merely observing that those speaking on this page in opposition to the consecration of Ms Glasspool have tended to be just a bit ... caustic ... in their tone than those seeing that event as a cause for celebration. As I read his comment, I don't think he was necessarily attrributing "Christian love" to the content of certain postings -- just to the relative tone.

I see, well I guess that could be assumed given if one side makes a positive case -- such as it is a good thing that this woman became a bishop -- that the people in favor are obviously going to be "nice" in their tone.

However, it does not excuse the "other side" from commented civilly and with Christian respect, this is true.

I was going to deep into that one... thanks BankStreet.

The studies I am referring to were done by John B. Calhoun "Population Density and Social Pathology" begun in 1947 and replicated many times since at several of our universities. His findings have stood the test of time, but as usual, when you search for more information, you are going to run up against partisan hacks who try to discredit it for reasons we all well understand by watching the how the Religious Right operates.

Being Human does not excuse us from also being animals also. We are just evolved a bit more cleverly than the lower animals, but not yet evolved enough to shed our archaic beliefs when they are soundly challenged.

Robert Littel - Thank you for disclosing a source. I've only done a bit of research into my article and from what I have obtained so far, I will acknowledge I have really only scratched the surface Calhoun describes what he calls a behavioral sink under conditions of overcrowding.

“The rats in the experiment exhibited a variety of abnormal, often destructive behaviors; his conclusion was that space itself is a necessity. Subsequent studies involving humans have shown it is not mere lack of space that causes the behavioral sink; it is the necessity for community members to interact with one another When forced interactions exceed some threshold, social norms break down Thus social density is considered more critical than geometric spatial density.

Notable conditions in the behavioral sink include hyperaggression, failure to breed and nurture young normally, infant cannibalism, increased mortality at all ages, and abnormal sexual patterns. Actual physical disease, mental illness, and psychosomatic disorders increase. “

I really wouldn’t consider this a valid argument to rationalize homosexuality as normal behavior. Your attacks against religion solely on the basis “be fruitful and multiply” is also not really valid. Those archaic beliefs are what separate us from the other lower animals and also allow us to control our urges and instincts rather than be controlled by them. One also runs against those who want to abuse science to forward their own views instead of using it as the tool God intended it to be.

Anonymous - Again, when you can produce this god creature of yours, I'll be happy to consider it a valid part of any discussion. Until such time, it must be assumed that it is a made-up entity and any attributes attached to is must be considered spurious.

Robert Littel - I have no control over God so there is no way for me to produce Him for you. God exists beyond the limits of the universe in order to have created it. The laws of physics tell us that we cannot make measurements beyond the limits of this universe. Therefore, scientists can conclusively determine that we cannot ever detect God using any of our instruments. Have you ever seen evolution actually occur? If one uses you line of though it must be assumed that it is a made-up idea. Relax I’m not arguing for creationism simply pointing out the flaw in your thought process. If God revealed himself in a manner you desire faith would be meaningless. We would all believe and worship him. God wants us to choose to worship Him and not be coerced into it. This probably won’t satisfy you and I am sorry that’s the best I can offer. We are all free to choose the path we walk.

Anonymous - Faith is the excuse for ignorance, it is not proof of anything. Faith is the refuge of the ignorant and those chauvinistic enough to believe they are entitled to answers that we as a species have not evolved enough to even comprehend the full questions, let alone what you claim to have as an ultimate answer. If you are so pathetic that you need a made-up rationale, that you unswervingly adhere to, in the face of the fact that you are too unevolved to admit you are incapable to say these simple words, "I DON'T KNOW YET!", then you truly represent a stage of Human development , and a branch of the evolutionary tree, that should be allowed to go extinct to insure the viability of the species. Intellectual Neanderthal-ism is not something you should be proud of, yet you are for some inexplicable reason, that defies both logic and reason.

Anonymous, why is heterosexuality normal behavior? It too, like homosexuality, involves attraction, eroticism, a hole, a penis, and ejaculation. Under the current circumstances, when the world is swelling with folks, when resources are stretched to the max, when pollution is at a peak and there is destruction of various species across land and oceans, thanks to men overeating and overfishing their way to extinction, why is unbridled heterosexuality, and unchecked proliferation of the human species healthy for the planet or simply more natural than homosexuality? Don't invoke god Anonymous and some gobbledygook about the continuation of the species which seems to be continuing beyond a point of no return--say something sane for a change--why is heterosexuality more normal than homosexuality?

As for your reply to Littel about this ghostly phenom called god, it wouldn't matter one bit, Anonymous, what path you choose as long as you keep your counsel to yourself but when you expostulate based on the utterances of this god who can neither be measured nor be seen --when this creature you cannot produce called god is oft quoted as a proscriber of homosexuality, abortion and stem cell research, that's when your phantasmagoria begins to not only rankle, it positively grates Anonymous, on the nerves of those who would like to see this god produced and interrogated for verification of your moral codes and pronouncements--we, the non believers, want to check your primary source--your dear friendly phantasm called god. If you and your god creature have been having tete-a tete Anonymous and he has told you that homosexuality displeases him, there is no reason to thrust your vision as truth on the rest of us is there?
Ravensfan Anon

"Those archaic beliefs are what separate us from the other lower animals and also allow us to control our urges and instincts rather than be controlled by them."

Incorrect, anonymous! We can control our urges due to our highly developed brain! Religion only came on later, to poison it, much like alcohol and fast food, to poison our bodies.

Also, make a name so we can criticize you properly.

By the way... Can "god" create a rock he can't lift? If so, I suppose we could name it the Roman Catholic Church, as it is falling like a large stone..

Robert Littel - Faith is not about having all the answers. Quite the contrary faith is about trusting and believing without them. One of the biggest misconceptions of those who do not believe is the idea that somehow those of us who have faith think that we have all the answers. if it was that simple there wouldn't be the level of discord between Christians. You seem to be full of quite a bit of anger and animosity. Maybe you should reflect on the path you are on since it doesn’t appear to be bringing any peace of mind to you.

Anonymous - It appears as if you already know the answer to your question and are simply in denial because you don’t like the answer. I am sorry the message grates on your nerves. Truth usually does bother people when they are trying so hard to deny it and convince themselves what they want is the right choice. If you were that confident of your beliefs then mine or anyone else’s wouldn't bother you quite as much. Nonbelievers have been trying to silence the truth ever since good news was first spoken. So your comments really do not surprise me. Fortunately we have freedom of speech in this country so I have as much right to speak as you do to condemn what I say.

"We can control our urges due to our highly developed brain!" If that were true Monty we wouldn't have all the violence, corruption and other problems we face. Contrary to what you wish to believe more than a highly developed brain is required. Concepts like humility, charity, patience, modesty, and wisdom flow from God.

"...why is heterosexuality more normal than homosexuality?"

Have we actually devolved to the point that we have to ask such a clueless question?

(Fake) Anonymous - If faith is not your ultimate answer, why do religionists use it like it is when they get backed against a wall? Faith is the EXCUSE for ignorance.

Robert Littel - I can not explain the actions of others. What I can say is ignorance is the result of lack of faith.

(Fake) Anonymous - If your last post makes sense to you, then you are going to have to realize that the rest of us are not going to have any choice but to consider you senseless. It is the most ignorant thing you have ever said here, and breaks all the rules of logic. Blind delusional faith is not the well-spring of truth and understanding, it is the excuse to believe that which is absurd.

"Concepts like humility, charity, patience, modesty, and wisdom flow from God."

I present this link for your Christian education.

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php

But, growing up in Catholic and Christian schools, I am aware of the blindness inflicted by your "faith", and that your closed minds will not allow the majority of christians reading this thread to click this link.

So allow me to reiterate the highlights.

"As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed."

"The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415."

"Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded."

"Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."

"Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings."

"In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged."

" 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action)."

"Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians.Number of Jews slain unknown. "

This is merely a fraction of the carnage inflicted by your "god". The list goes on and on.

Robert Littel - Faith is not delusional nor blind except to those have chosen to try and understand it using human knowledge and logic. Since God is beyond both it stands to reason He can not be understood using them. Having walked both paths in my life I am quite content with the path I'm on. If you are content on the path you are on I’m happy for you. Somehow considering the level of anger and need to try and insult from your posts I have to wonder just how content you are with your choices.

Monty – Thank you for the link. I was already aware of many of those instances. None of those were cause by God. They were caused by people who while claiming to be Christian were violating the commands of Christ. The bible says many would follow Christ claiming to be acting in His name but they would be true disciples and we would be able to tell by their acts. No true Christian could condone or do such acts as those. Did you ever research how many acts of charity, patience, modesty were done in the two centuries since Christ by Christians. In my experience most who attack Christians ignore that and focus on what you have. Much of what is on that link was the result of pagan ideas being absorbed into Christianity.

http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_charity.html

Anonymous- Either get a name or leave. You cannot stand up for your deity without a handle after all...

Furthermore, a number of casualties under the christian name... I do not see how that can be a pagan idea. And lets not even go into what we did to the native americans, to spread your hokey religion.

How can you say that "god" did not cause it. Don't you believe that everything that happens is (i/you/he/she/it/we/they/me/you/him/her/it/us/them...pick your favorite pronoun)'s will?? If not, then your faith is weak. Everything, from the success of christianity to the rapes in the Congo are his will...what kind of an asshole is that?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live-Exodus 22:18

And he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the LORD. So they made him ride in his chariot. And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the LORD, which he spake to Elijah. - 2 Kings 10:16-17

If your god exists, he is a blood hungry tyrant. Not a merciful father.

(Fake) Anonymous - I find it highly ILLOGICAL of you to dismiss the atrocities committed by people acting in the name of a god that has NEVER been shown to exist in ANY provable way. Monty makes the case for what people did, and are still doing to a lesser degree today, (thanks only to the rule of law in a secular society) that you say were not done by a god that you (or anyone else on Earth) can prove exists, or has ever existed. If you, or your fore-bearers are, or have acted in the name of this false god, then the entire institution and your part in it must be held to task for the crimes that were committed against Humanity. Religion kills, always, when given the excuse and the chance. It is time to make sure they NEVER get the chance again.

Monty - We are all given free will. It's up to us to decide the path we walk. That is why you are free to mock what you choose not to believe. Scripture has been misquoted and misused possibly more than any other source to justify un-Christian acts. None of Christ's teachings commanded or even hint at the concept of Christians killing or torturing in his name. I suggest friend you try reading all scripture New Testament as as well as old and not simply selected quotes if you want to understand what Christianity is supposed to be.

Robert Littel - If your brother commits a crime should you be held accountable for it? That is what you are suggesting. Whay you find it is really immaterial anyway. I concwern myself with how God finds things. Maybe if you tried that you wouldn't be quite as angry as you appear to be.

Anonymous, you are the same as any religion standard bearer--all things good from God, all things bad from free will, the Devil, the perfidy and the greed of men and so on--never is the deity besmirched by the believers--above reproach this invented deity--you never answer any of the questions posed Anonymous--you skirt, circumlocute, use specious logic and every trick in the religion book to insist that the shining beacon on the hill-- God-- is all good, a palpable presence and is everlasting. By the way Anonymous, returning to the original theme, keeping your god out of it, why is heterosexuality so holy and homosexuality not? Also Anonymous don't throw the Old Testament under the bus to talk about the saving grace in the New Testament--it is all one continuum of a gigantic myth--to say to anyone who quotes from the Old Testament where the Father resides like a totalitarian monster, preaching eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth--the same Father Yahweh--who supposedly gave birth to his Son Jesus without any copulation or holy matrimony--are you saying the words of this despot God don't matter--that they have to be forgotten and only the words of the New Testament should be worshiped and revered--is it heretic then to read or believe or condemn the Old testament? For the non believers Anonymous the pages of these books meld as one large judgmental monstrosity, one big tract of lies and you, a believer, must take ownership of the whole damn shebang--not pick and choose what you will have and what you won't in order to give your arguments the lustrous sheen of spiritual compassion derived from the pious platitudes of the gentle Son Jesus as opposed to the stern admonitions of the unforgiving Old Testament Father--you are as archaic as the Taliban--a primitive soul who will stoutly defend his legend with more legends, abstractions and distractions--when you influence policy with your rants that's when you become positively dangerous Anonymous--stop falling back on your faith--as Littel has challenged you to do, produce this god--surely you can conjure up a speaking burning bush with one of your intense prayers--what's the matter with your faith man? Is it not solid enough for god to appear to you growling from a melting rock or a burning saguaro?
Ravensfan Anon

(blind) Anonymous- Isn't it biblical to punish the entire family for the sins of the father?

And I am very aware of what it means to be a christian and a catholic. My entire education was through parochial schools, with the exception of college.

I have spent years studying the bible, and I know very well the meaning of it. It is due to this experience that I can tell you that this book is no better than the Sunday comics, and the religion associated is hate-mongering bigotry behind a smiling face.

(Fake) Anonymous - I find it interesting that you want me to be concerned about the opinion of a god that you (or anyone else) has EVER shown to exist.

I think you will also find that the crimes committed by say, the German Nazis during and before WWII, were fairly well held to be of communal responsibility, even though many Nazis didn't personally machine-gun, poison, or rat out on neighbors who then ended up dead. Being a supportive practitioner of a group that is steeped in murder and intolerance, does not wipe the stain of history from your hands, anymore than my ancestor's genocide against Native Americans absolves me from the historical connections. We are the products of our past, and your silly religion has, and still does have its hands in some very dirty business.

Other Anonymous – I believe I said that the entire book needs to be read and looked at as a whole. Like most unbelievers you seem more interested in insulting and mocking then listening or even asking questions. Like most you also seem full of anger and animosity. Homosexuality is covered in both Old and New Testament. Since you refuse to believe anyway would it really do any good for me to quote them? As I’ve said on several occasions you are free to accept or reject God and the life He desires us to live as well as the Bible. It seems to me the ones with the problem are those like Robert Littel and you who appear to have no tolerance for others. Robert Littel’s demands for proof of God were addressed. He and you will see God one day. That day will be one of His choosing not yours or mine. I have no interest whatsoever in the influencing policies of the secular world so I m not sure you accuse me of it.

Monty - I am sorry your experiences left you so bitter. I can say education through parochial schools alone does not give one a complete education on Christianity. You are free to believe what you wish and if you are happy on the path you have chosen I wish you well

Robert Littel – You misunderstand I mean that I concern myself with God. While you should as well that is your choice. The Nazi’s were a secular human group so wouldn’t you also have the historical connection? Do not misunderstand me organized religion does have it’s hands dirty and in some cases like the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church it still does. That is the fault of us flawed human beings placing what we want above what God wants. Leaving aside your disbelief for a second do you honestly believe the Christ of the Bible, who asked God to forgive the very men who crucified him would have condoned those actions?

Human heterosexuality is the "best case" orientation because it correlates with the natural progression of the species. It is a stable norm compared to homosexuality. Homosexuality, while unique, is not the "best case" because it complicates and leaves much to be desired from societal, psychological and emotional perspectives.

These are just facts. Why is the world not completely or overwhelmingly homosexual? Humans have had thousand of years of evolution to work themselve out. Have not "Prejudices" and "anti-gay" ideologies been around since human existence? Why then has homosexuality continued to be taboo? Why can humanity not shake the notion of homosexuality being wrong in many regards? Even if societal acceptance was granted on a wide scale, studies have shown that intrinsic complications are inevitably associated with homosexuality. I would think most people today see it obvious that heterosexuality is the norm and most common orientation for a reason. What sane person would disagree? What then is left to deem homosexuality "holy"? Draw up a list of pros and cons if you really need to.

Anonymous,

Obviously, heterosexuality is required for the continuation of the species. That is a given.

But it is a fallacy to extrapolate from that reality a characterization of homosexuality as "abnormal." Does the species require each individual person to reproduce itself in order to survive? Do we, in fact, not have an over-population problem? Perhaps (I am not necessarily saying this is true.) homosexuality is a natural means of reducing population. All within a larger specturm of "normal." Although not a perfect parallel, I do liken homosexuality to left-handedness -- hardly the "norm," but hardly "abnormal."

As to why anti-gay prejudices persist, I have long maintained that these are, for the most part, fear of the "different," fueled by religion.

As to those "intrnisic complications" you associate with homosexuality -- how many of those would diminish or evaporate if Gay folk were not vilified and made paraiahs by larger society?

"Larger society" would never kid themselves that homosexuality is the way forward. Why would anyone need to be religious to figure out a man belongs with a woman? Are you kidding me? As far as homosexuality being a population control mechanism, maybe you are right; makes sense that the governments could realize this and are aching to give the "gay revolution" a try... everything these days focuses on keeping numbers down... that and with all the natural disasters and killings around the world. Shouldn't have any trouble there.

I pose the question: in a perfect world, what would be a healthier way of life and why? Hetero or Homosexuality?

Please don't say "whatever works for you"

Both Anonymous--both are equally healthy--equally acceptable--only you are in a race to prove heterosexuality superior to or holier than homosexuality. To most of us tolerant folks both can coexist nicely and the species will continue, thank you, to the detriment of the Earth.
Ravensfan Anon

Equally healthy? What makes you suggest that? What evidence can you produce to confirm that the male-male sexual act is biologically and psychologically the same as the male-female act? What evidence can you produce to confirm that there is substantially less sexual risk involved when two men get together?

I don't think anyone suggested that man/man sex holds out anything like "substantially less sexual risk," but ... if you factor in the risks associated with child bearing...you might be on to something!

Look...if man/man sex was so very hazardous, don't you think homosexuals would have gone extinct long ago....that is, unless you maintain Gay folk choose to be Gay, like picking out a tie in the morning, or something....

And...as to "figuring out" that a man needs to be with a woman ... this is one man who figured out quite the opposite ... which seems to bring us back perilously close to "whatever works for you!"

Anonymous,

Yes, I'm back again.

I keep going back to read your orginal posting (assuming tht I am dealing with only one "anonymous") and finding more instances of you either misunderstanding my words or contorting them to meet your own needs.

For example, when I posited that Gay folk might expereince and/or exhibit fewer problems if they "...were not vilified and made paraiahs by larger society," I was not suggesting that larger society endorse homosexuality as "the way forward," just that it be recognized as a viable ("normal") varient within human sexuality (and thereby lessen the pain Gay people encounter from "larger society").

Similarly, I did not mean to suggest that homosexuality is actively being used by goverments to curtail population growth (that notion is just too weird for serious consideration). Rather, I was musing (as I said, I'm not even sure I believe this) about the possibility that nature has "created" homosexuality as some sort of "safety valve" to help reduce otherwise uncontrolled growth.

Needed to clear those up.

There re more than one Anonymous here Bankstreet. My last post here was to Robert Littel. I am not the one attempting to argue with you Bankstreet. While I believe homosexuality is wrong from a spirtitual sense I have no desire to force my view on anyone. I believe it is morally wrong, but I respect everyone's right to make the choice for themselves. I am no one's judge I leave that to God. As a sinner in need of forgiveness for my own failings I am not qualified to make judgements on anyone else.

All people using "Anonymous", ball up and pick a damn name. This is getting ridiculous. It doesn't even have to be a real name, just one that will clear up which one of you we are dealing with. Have a little consideration, will ya?

I have no choice but to direct my responses to "anonymous," and hope that the appropriate one realizes he/she is being addressed.

I do agree with Mr Littel -- this conversation would be a lot more sane if all you "anonymice" would each use a unique name.