Doesn't anybody else see the overall irony here? The Pope comes down all heavy handed on homosexuality in public, yet the Catholic Church has spent many many decades (centuries) covering up homosexuality (and pedophila) within it's own ranks. Methinks the Pope (and quite a few of the most conservative of the other denominations) doeth protest too much. UNDERNEATH THAT CUBE IS A BERG, CL

errrm ... dont know what to say, thanks for the replys

>If this is the case, it is really hard to justify homosexuality being a sin on ethical grounds, since moral "right" and "wrong" require intent and volition. One would have to question the judgement of a God who creates people who are willing to serve and yet unworthy of being his priests on account of a condition beyond their control, so I would guess that the official church position is that it is not born, it is a conscious choice.< Exactly - sin requires intent and choice. I think that churches have always made the assumption that it's a matter of choice, and are either unaware of or impervious to the scientific evidence. Or they would tell you it's not relevant - gays could choose never to have sex. And in a very narrow sense an element of choice is present - humans are complex beings with highly plastic behavior. Even though I was born right handed, I could force myself to use my left hand for most tasks. I'd never be happy or comfortable doing it, but I could probably do it. Overall, I'd agree with you completely. The overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is set in utero makes talking about homosexuality as a sin pretty silly. For anyone who wants to see some of the science, here are some journal abstracts. To see more, follow one of these links and enter "homosexual etiogenesis" for more. Or click on the "Related Articles" link in the top right of any of the first three linked web pages. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1778227&dopt=Abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9549243&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3282489&dopt=Abstract http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v404/n6777/abs/404455a0_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1060070854 Chris - sorry if I hijacked this thread, but to tell you the truth, I don't think anyone is too worried about gay terrorists.

Those who are hard-core conservative, and would love to follow leviticus to the letter concerning them. The types of people who have been bombing abortion clinics and attacking gays will be a great danger to the church if they become more accepting. In some cases it may clash with their values, but with all terrorists, indoctrination and nutty ideals beat reason.

>If this is the case, it is really hard to justify homosexuality being a sin on ethical grounds, since moral "right" and "wrong" require intent and volition. One would have to question the judgement of a God who creates people who are willing to serve and yet unworthy of being his priests on account of a condition beyond their control, so I would guess that the official church position is that it is not born, it is a conscious choice.< Exactly - sin requires intent and choice. I think that churches have always made the assumption that it's a matter of choice, and are either unaware of or impervious to the scientific evidence. Or they would tell you it's not relevant - gays could choose never to have sex. And in a very narrow sense an element of choice is present - humans are complex beings with highly plastic behavior. Even though I was born right handed, I could force myself to use my left hand for most tasks. I'd never be happy or comfortable doing it, but I could probably do it. Overall, I'd agree with you completely. The overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is set in utero makes talking about homosexuality as a sin pretty silly. ------------------------------------------------- No offense, but all that suggests is perhaps a predisposition to the acttivity, but it still requires a choice to follow through. Let us say, for instance, that alcoholism were proven to be genetic. If you never drink alcohol, are you ever going to be alcoholic? There is choice involved, but that would mean that there is accountability involved, and we must not have that. And what of the thousands of people who once were, but are no longer in the gay lifestyle, were they, in muslim fashion,not 'real' gays? The science is less than conclusive, at best.

the church is old and outdated. Bunch of power hungry bastards who still live in the middle ages. Good riddance

"The science is less than conclusive, at best." I'm with you on this one. If the hormonal makeup of the womb determines whether or not someone is gay, is it a birth defect? Should we find a way to treat it medically so that no gay children are born? There's many cans of worms in the science aisle.