Reply #71: We had some of this discussion on our [View All]

[Snow]

Friends' Meeting (quaker church) well over 10 years ago - the Meeting had a large number of gay/lesbians, some of whom were looking into marriage within the Society of Friends (quaker trivia: first same sex marriage in quakerdom was in 1981 in the Seattle University Friends' Meeting, & i was there! Margaret Sorrel & Dorsey Greene). Anyway, this whole bit about biologic determination vs choice was a big deal back then, and the reasoning was, that if it was biologically determined then for the conservative churches it could no longer be considered a sin! Well, the response of the g/l Friends in our Meeting could be summed up as "Big Whoop!" The idea that being homosexual was offensive but since it was hard-wired by biology it was no longer sinful was to all of them highly offensive. It said "your behavior is still bad, but since you can't help it you won't go to hell for it." And this guy whom you're quoting in your original post seems to want to go back to being allowed to call it sinful. Well, being a Quaker, I don't give a flying rat's fart what this bird thinks, but he's in no way coming at this with any kind of science - he's just trying to prop up what he thinks of as religion.