The authors of the letter seem to be under the illusion that there are actually less people by orientation who are gay or lesbian in the so-called Global South.

I would suggest that this is unlikely given that orientation itself is not culturally determined - but clearly a gay identity and the opportunity to be openly identified as gay is something much more likely in the West.

Some of the misnomers - that ancient civilisations contained many 'bisexual' people suggests that the authors do not understand sexual orientation, and would probably prefer not to acknowledge its existence only the case for it is now so overwhelming that to do so would just make them appear foolish.

Canon Ben Enwuchola says that moral theology suggests that an "is" cannot be equated with an "ought". (So people should not act on their homosexual orientation) Actually the entire natural law tradition does make that equation. Natural law however has tended to think of "human nature" as a unitary and universal phenomenon. This debate is about destroying the unitary notion of human nature so that a range of people might be free to act according to their actual natures.

As for some people's psyches being distorted by the fall, Romans 1 would suggest that they are in fact distorted by idolatry.

I still think that the correct Pauline approach is that (for the Gentiles at least) 'nothing is unlawful but what is unnatural or unspiritual': this is freedom in Christ. If Paul thought that certain practices were unnatural or unspiritual, do we have to agree with him? No, because if we do not reason afresh according to this basic principle then our prohibitions will again become "the power of sin," simply impossible of fulfilment by some.

So, reasoning from first principles in Paul, a strong case is to be made for full homosexual inclusion and acceptance.

Chris tyack wrote: "This debate is about destroying the unitary notion of human nature so that a range of people might be free to act according to their actual natures."

Dear Chris, you hit the mail on the head, almost. The issue is where you start when defining "nature". If you start from human experiences / psyches (a la "I think therefore I am") then you will conclude that same-sex sex is ok and support the case for full homosexual inclusion and acceptance. If you start from other facts, such as the biological function of sex, how men's and women's bodies are constructed, the primary evolutionary imperative to procreate, and the propensity of some humans to develop sexual desires that no-one would support, then you might sometimes have reservations about "people being free to act according to their [perceived] actual natures."

However, in Christianity, what is spiritual and natural is defined starting from God's nature and His intentions. Starting from human nature[s] is called humanism !

The high-handed claims that fewer or no LGBTQ people exist in nations and cultures which vilify and condemn them is transparently self-serving. The survey data about sexual orientation variances is typically most trustworthy when a large population is adequately sampled. No single sample gives us the final word, but trends across adequate samples can be provisionally taken to suggest the ballpark of our large population numbers.

Further, we will still have confounding in the numbers to the extent that societies or cultures penalize LGBTQ citizens for speaking up honestly. So far, the trends are clear, even though we shall continue to apply them provisionally and open-endedly. In situations where punitive consequences are reduced or absent, a stable-seeming statistical minority of people end up saying they are somewhere else on the Kinsey Continuums, other than the classical zero rating, i.e., exclusively and only heterosexual. We have no reason not to provisionally conclude that this probably applies to other large human populations, even in countries or cultures which vigorously vilify and condemn LGBTQ folks. The fact that LGBTQ can hide, render themselves invisible and formally silent, and even adopt styles of heterosexual living which others credit proves little or nothing. These survival mechanisms have long been known among us, and nobody stopped existing just because they didn't get counted.

So far as reconstructing ancient patterns of human nature and sexuality, we have to further attend to the startling differences discussed by Gray Temple in his book, Gay Unions. The physiology of orgasms between ancient and current times probably has not changed all that much, because physical evolution is typically slow, proceeding by generations if at all. But you can bet your money on the psychology and sociology being very different. For example, almost nobody nowadays is much involved with the core beliefs and rituals through which so many ancient religions enacted fertility and/or ecstatic religious sexualities.

We hardly ever nowadays would think that having sex in a temple innately harmonizes us with a god or goddess, or even necessarily with nature. Nowadays, we probably tend more to think that sexual states are basically human, not necessarily sympathetic religious possession by either a god or goddess or by a demon.

It is easy to hear the fear and uneasiness beneath the ready orthodox denials: If we let them, our own LGBTQ people will suddenly speak up, on a scale that might embarrass all of us who have so long said we were the best, the only good human example.

drdanfee wrote "We hardly ever nowadays would think that having sex in a temple innately harmonizes us with a god or goddess, or even necessarily with nature. Nowadays, we probably tend more to think that sexual states are basically human, not necessarily sympathetic religious possession by either a god or goddess or by a demon. It is easy to hear the fear and uneasiness beneath the ready orthodox denials: If we let them, our own LGBTQ people will suddenly speak up, on a scale that might embarrass all of us who have so long said we were the best, the only good human example."

Dear drdanfee, that used to be true when Christianity was the dominant religion/philosophy, but I think the folk over at neopagan.net (for instance) would disagree about the current direction of sociological and psycological "development" (or "change" as I would prefer to call it). Sex is, I think, one of the post-modern trinity... along with Power and Wealth.

When people who are LGB "speak up" in different countries I hope they are listened to sympathetically. But that doesn't mean that I in any way believe that their "strong fixed desires" are holy, good or suddenly bless-able. There are a lot of people out there with other sexual desires, who I hope would be listened too.

I guess that even you and I could agree on one group that we both thought were "ok" and on another group that we both believed were "sinful". The question is how do you decide about LGB sex? On which grounds and on whose authority ?