Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[jomoco]

Facinating from a Christian perspective. Not sure how you see this Biblically? Could you elaborate?

No-one judges you, far from me as a wicked sinner. I agree that will definately be up to God.

Peace

Hi Gary, actually I prefer viewing homosexual/sodomite history from a more historical perspective that includes christian churches objectively. Kinda like the following.

The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one’s partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime.

For the next several centuries in Europe, the laws against homosexual sex were severe in their penalties. Enforcement, however, was episodic. In some regions, decades would pass without any prosecutions. Yet the Dutch, in the 1730’s, mounted a harsh anti-sodomy campaign (alongside an anti-Gypsy pogrom), even using torture to obtain confessions. As many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial (Greenberg, 1988, 313-4). Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the narrowest view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. In the 19th century there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon’s conquests that Code spread. Furthermore, in many countries where homosexual sex remained a crime, the general movement at this time away from the death penalty usually meant that sodomy was removed from the list of capital offenses.

Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

[End Quote]

jomoco

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jomoco,

If your honeyed words had any more poison, they would probably clog your keyboard.

Chirist was quite clear about His teachings, for example

1.) He came so that we may have life and live it to the full (john 10:10)

2.) He told us that God created marriage as between one man and one woman (Matt 19:5)

3.) He told us that if we looked at a woman with lust we already guilty of adultery (Matt 5:28)

4.) He gave His Apostles (snd thier Successors) the power to forgive sin (John 20:23)

The idea of hating the sin and loving the sinner is probably best explained by Christ’s parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11) but, probably a better name for it would be The Forgiving Father. What is important here is that for whatever reasons - the son renounced his disordered life style and came back to his father. He did not bring a bunch of pigs back with him and say, “Take me back with these friends of mine!”

Unless each of us is willing to renouce the ‘pigs’ (our favorite sins) in our life - we will be like the son who yearned to fill his belly with the husks these pigs ate…and go hungry. We really can not have it both ways. God has clearly condemned homosexuality throughout the Old Testament and Christ - the Son of God condemned sex outside of (what we now call ‘traditional’) marriage. Now, that is the challenge of Christianity to live a chaste life in following Christ. But you do not have to do it if you don’t want - honest! But, there are consequences for all of our actions, and for a clear explanation of those consequences, please go to Matthew 25 - the entire chapter is instructive.

Politicians who actively encourage, lobby and vote for disordered life-styles and the murder of the unborn are in direct violation of God’s Law. It really is time to decide just where it is you want to stand here … and when you arrive at the White Throne.

God bless

You know Don my friend, actually I do read your replies to me, but pay close attention to the details. I do this in order to detect the cold judgemental steel fist so lovingly encased within your soft velvety glove of rhetoric, and discriminatory conditional love.

When the homosexual sinner you describe studies his own afflicted people’s history in connection with almost every christian culture, it consists of discrimination, persecution often followed by execution. This recorded history is all too comparable to exactly how early christians were treated before and after Christ’s sacrifice to be ignored without dire consequence to those guilty of discrimination and persecution, rather than forgiveness acceptance and love, the worthy attributes taught by Christ himself.

You my friend are the one equating the actions of homosexual people living a fulfilling and natural lifestyle for them, with satan. Then counseling a hearty hatred of their sin, in the velvet glove of judgement, better left worn by the Divine.

jomoco

 

[donsnow]

Hi Gary, actually I prefer viewing homosexual/sodomite history from a more historical perspective that includes christian churches objectively. Kinda like the following.

The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one’s partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Jomoco,

If your honeyed words had any more poison, they would probably clog your keyboard.

Chirist was quite clear about His teachings, for example

1.) He came so that we may have life and live it to the full (john 10:10)

2.) He told us that God created marriage as between one man and one woman (Matt 19:5)

3.) He told us that if we looked at a woman with lust we already guilty of adultery (Matt 5:28)

4.) He gave His Apostles (snd thier Successors) the power to forgive sin (John 20:23)

The idea of hating the sin and loving the sinner is probably best explained by Christ’s parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11) but, probably a better name for it would be The Forgiving Father. What is important here is that for whatever reasons - the son renounced his disordered life style and came back to his father. He did not bring a bunch of pigs back with him and say, “Take me back with these friends of mine!”

Unless each of us is willing to renouce the ‘pigs’ (our favorite sins) in our life - we will like the son who yearned to fill his belly with the husks these pigs ate. We really can not have it both ways. God has condemned homosexuality throughout the Old Testament and Christ - the Son of God condemned sex outside of (what we now call ‘traditional’) marriage.

Politicians who actively encourage, lobby and vote for disordered life-styles and the murder of the unborn are in direct violation of God’s Law. It really is time to decide just where it is you want to stand here … and when you arrive at the White Throne.

God bless

Bless you.

God loves you,
Don

All of us who stand with the Lord’s house are sharing God’s blessings to jomoco, if he only knew it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mudgely,

When it comes to the ‘gay agenda’ don’t think it is only limited to so-called ‘gays’ There are others out there you will need to address - right now, intellectually …but, later on… it will be another story!

Check this out - looks like those who ‘love children’ need to express themselves, too: greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

God bless

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8489488:

Hi Gary, actually I prefer viewing homosexual/sodomite history from a more historical perspective that includes christian churches objectively. Kinda like the following.

Gee, jomoco,

Why didn’t you answer my request for historical documentation with this information? Then, Mr. Taylor would already have this information.

God loves you,
Don

Hi Don, I’ve got some more objective history for your reading pleasure on this subject.

Nevertheless, with the Renaissance this vice surfaced again. Homosexuality was a matter of grave concern to Saint Pius V. As well-known historian von Pastor narrates, “In the first year of his pontificate, the Pope had two preponderant concerns: zeal for the Inquisition and the struggle against ‘this horrendous sin whereby the justice of God caused the cities contaminated by it to be consumed in flames.’ On April 1, 1566, he ordered that sodomites be turned over to the secular arm. . . . The various imprisonments of sodomites . . . impressed Rome and frightened especially well-established people, for it was known that the Pope wanted his laws enforced even against the powerful. Indeed, to punish for vices against nature, the torment of the stake was applied throughout the pontificate of Saint Pius V. . . . An earlier papal Brief mandated that clerics who were guilty of that crime be stripped of all their posts, dignities, and income, and, after degradation, be handed over to the secular arm.” The Holy Inquisitor promulgated two Constitutions in which he castigates and punishes the sin against nature.

In the Constitution Cum Primum of April 1, 1566, Saint Pius V solemnly established: “Having set our minds to remove everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, We resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are most repugnant to God and elicit His wrath; that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For which faults peoples and nations are scourged by God, according to His just condemnation, with catastrophes, wars, famine and plagues. . . . Let the judges know that, if even after this, Our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at Divine Judgment and will also incur Our indignation. . . . If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to analogous punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].”

Saint Pius V is no less rigorous in the Constitution Horrendum Illud Scelus of August 30, 1568. He teaches: “That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were burned by virtue of divine condemnation, causes Us most bitter sorrow and shocks Our mind, impelling it to repress such a crime with the highest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] decrees: Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery (chap. 4, X, V, 31). “So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity, taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, We determine that they should be handed over to the secular authority, which enforces civil law. Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which We have decreed since the beginning of Our Pontificate, We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be executed as mandated by law, according to the appropriate punishment for laymen plunged in this abyss.”

Source. tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm

[end quote]

Time for all of us sinners to rise from the stone age, past medieval times, and into today’s 21st century Christianity of love and forgiveness, rather than persecution, judgement and execution of sinners by sinners,

jomoco

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jomoco,

Not quite … remember, “Death is only the beginning!”

By the way, have you finished with your cut 'n paste exercises?

God bless

donsnow;8489524:

Hi Don, I’ve got some more objective history for your reading pleasure on this subject.

Nevertheless, with the Renaissance this vice surfaced again. Homosexuality was a matter of grave concern to Saint Pius V. As well-known historian von Pastor narrates, “In the first year of his pontificate, the Pope had two preponderant concerns: zeal for the Inquisition and the struggle against ‘this horrendous sin whereby the justice of God caused the cities contaminated by it to be consumed in flames.’ On April 1, 1566, he ordered that sodomites be turned over to the secular arm. . . . The various imprisonments of sodomites . . . impressed Rome and frightened especially well-established people, for it was known that the Pope wanted his laws enforced even against the powerful. Indeed, to punish for vices against nature, the torment of the stake was applied throughout the pontificate of Saint Pius V. . . . An earlier papal Brief mandated that clerics who were guilty of that crime be stripped of all their posts, dignities, and income, and, after degradation, be handed over to the secular arm.” The Holy Inquisitor promulgated two Constitutions in which he castigates and punishes the sin against nature.

[end quote]

Time for all of us sinners to rise from the stone age, past medieval times, and into today’s 21st century Christianity of love and forgiveness, rather than persecution, judgement and execution of sinners by sinners,

jomoco

 

[jomoco]

Hi, Jomoco,

Not quite … remember, “Death is only the beginning!”

By the way, have you finished with your cut 'n paste exercises?

One more very pertinent section Tqualey.

Modern psychology is divided into various currents with respect to this vice. One current believes that homosexuality results from the influence of various environmental factors—family troubles, emotional imbalance of the mother, bad example, etc. Others opine that it is due to innate factors—the simultaneous presence of masculine and feminine genes in the constitution of homosexuals, or a certain number of brain cells that determine homosexuality. For a considerable segment of modern psychologists, homosexuality does not result from a person’s concession to an unnatural tendency nor is it a moral vice; on the contrary, it is something according to nature, or at worst simply an illness, which should be accepted as normal.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;8489524:

Hi Don, I’ve got some more objective history for your reading pleasure on this subject.

Nevertheless, with the Renaissance this vice surfaced again. Homosexuality was a matter of grave concern to Saint Pius V. As well-known historian von Pastor narrates, “In the first year of his pontificate, the Pope had two preponderant concerns: zeal for the Inquisition and the struggle against ‘this horrendous sin whereby the justice of God caused the cities contaminated by it to be consumed in flames.’ On April 1, 1566, he ordered that sodomites be turned over to the secular arm. . . . The various imprisonments of sodomites . . . impressed Rome and frightened especially well-established people, for it was known that the Pope wanted his laws enforced even against the powerful. Indeed, to punish for vices against nature, the torment of the stake was applied throughout the pontificate of Saint Pius V. . . . An earlier papal Brief mandated that clerics who were guilty of that crime be stripped of all their posts, dignities, and income, and, after degradation, be handed over to the secular arm.” The Holy Inquisitor promulgated two Constitutions in which he castigates and punishes the sin against nature.

[end quote]

Time for all of us sinners to rise from the stone age, past medieval times, and into today’s 21st century Christianity of love and forgiveness, rather than persecution, judgement and execution of sinners by sinners,

jomoco

Good evening, jomoco,

Where do you forgive the 17th century Church?

When will you answer my question: Does my not holding Militant gays as special grate you?

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8489606:

donsnow;8489524:

Hi Don, I’ve got some more objective history for your reading pleasure on this subject.

Good evening, jomoco,

Where do you forgive the 17th century Church?

When will you answer my question: Does my not holding Militant gays as special grate you?

God loves you,
Don

Is your special branding of practicing homosexuals dependent on their militancy now Don? My friend?

Set your velvet goal post onto an agreed foundation please.

jomoco

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;8489867:

jomoco;8489606:

Is your special branding of practicing homosexuals dependent on their militancy now Don? My friend?

Set your velvet goal post onto an agreed foundation please.

jomoco

Hi, jomoco,

Your 17th century history did not change my view.

Will your address your silky tongue, please, on answering my other questions.: does my not holding militant gays as special grate you?
And, when will your forgive the Catholic church?

I submit that several hundred years of recurring multiple Bubonic Plague Pandemics per century prompted the Inquisition, which is what we’re talking about here. Please go to this link and scroll down to the Recurrence section, for my source.to this statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

Please note, the history you provided was after hundred of years of the Church desperately trying to turn God’s wrath through the Black Death upon Europe from Europe. Until the 17th century, when St. Pius V was Pope, the Inquisition handed Jews, Catholic heretics et al over to the secular authorities. That means, the Church didn’t do the dirty deeds, the secular authorities did the dirty deeds.
You have shown only the scourging of the clergy of homosexuality under Pope Pius V during his part of the 1600’s. His Constitution also directed that homosexual clergy be turned over to the secular authorities. All the Church did was strip them of their priestly duties, privileges and benefits. The above is the historical context of the little history you provided me.

I’m going to bed, now. Mana~na.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8489889:

donsnow;8489867:

Hi, jomoco,

Your 17th century history did not change my view.

Will your address your silky tongue, please, on answering my other questions.: does my not holding militant gays as special grate you?
And, when will your forgive the Catholic church?

God loves you,
Don

Hi Don,

At the risk of repeating myself…

Civil marriage, and societal acceptance of their equal rights under the law.

jomoco

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jomoco,

I really do not want to confuse the animosity you are displaying for DonSnow with the actual purpose of this thread - but, really, now… ‘special branding’ ? As i see it, there really is nothing ‘special’ with it at all.

As I told you, God, through the Old Testament, clearly condemned homosexual behavior. Chirst condemned all that are sexually active outside of traditonal marriage. And, guess what … the Catholic Church has consistently condemned homosexual behavior. There is neither anything ‘new’ or ‘special’ as far as I can see it. This is simply addressing objectively disordered behavior and letting all who care to know that it is wrong.

After reading DonSnow’s posts - and your evasion of the same - I would urge you to simply respond to the question. As it stands, no one can defend sin - because all sin is an offense against God. Those who sodomize another because they think this feels good or is private or is politically correct are simpl out of step with reality. Continuing to sin and complaining when called upon to repent (which mamy posters on CAF are focused on) is not in your eternal long-term interest.

On another post, someone asked if all there would be political support for practicing alcoholics who would band together, have a ‘Drunk Pride’ parade, stagger around as a group, vomit in public and pass out along the parade route? I guess the 1% who were so engaged would think they were accomplishing by denying sobriety while the 99% who were sober would be really concerned.

God bless

donsnow;8489867:

jomoco;8489606:

Is your special branding of practicing homosexuals dependent on their militancy now Don? My friend?

Set your velvet goal post onto an agreed foundation please.

jomoco

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;8489904:

jomoco;8489889:

Hi Don,

At the risk of repeating myself…

Civil marriage, and societal acceptance of their equal rights under the law.

jomoco

Well, jomoco,

I came back online to post, but I’ll answer your post.

Gays have always had the same and equal civil and criminal rights as other people.
Marriage of any kind is between a man and woman. It’s benefits are for that marriage only, no others. No other sexuality has the right to other than man/woman marriage.

Now, to my post. I’m not going to let you derail this thread. It’s not about gays, their rights nor their travails. It’s about the State encroaching on Church activities.

With that in mind, Pres. Barak Hussien Obama II and his cronies could not have hurt the Church by denying tax credits, had the Church been paying her taxes like Our Savior told His disciples to do, when he took the gold coin from that fish’s mouth.

Now, I’m going to bed.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[vz71]

At the risk of repeating myself…

Civil marriage, and societal acceptance of their equal rights under the law.

jomoco

And at the risk of repeating myself…
What right is being denied?
Any man is free to marry whatever woman will have him.
The law does not discriminate against anyone based upon their sex.
It does however place conditions upon the exercise of this right.
I am not free to marry more then one woman at a time, for instance.

All men in this country share this, I do not see where it is denied anyone.
Please explain further.

Also, you need to explain this right of ‘societal acceptance’ that you keep speaking of.
As far as I know, no one has that right.
What exactly is this particular right? Where is it located within the laws of this country that provide this right to one group of people but not to homosexuals?

I look forward to your answers on these, but suspect you have none.
Thanks very much.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No one…NO ONE…was calling for a special legal category for unions separate from sexual activity of any kind, until after the idea of civil unions for homosexual couples was shot down by the Church.

Very true, but why is that problematic? Gay civil unions have been determined to be a bad thing, so - for faithful Catholics at least - they’re out of the question.

That means back to the drawing board to attempt to find another way to handle the problems Contarini identified.

There is no point in creating a non-sex, civil union.

Perhaps you’re right. But Contarini made good points, too. The matter does merit further consideration.

How would this work??

Because that category of civil unions would not be based on sexual activity of any kind, in any way - it would be neutral in that regard. Furthermore, unlike gay “marriage” or gay civil unions, it would not ape any other attributes of traditional marriage: exclusivity, monogamy, a lifelong commitment. So the danger of moral equivocation would be removed, since the superficial similarities between marriage and homosexual unions would not even be present.

Such an open-ended category of civil unions would therefore not in any way intrinsically suggest any ramifications regarding sexual activity, marriage, what have you.

 

[JimG]

Very true, but why is that problematic? Gay civil unions have been determined to be a bad thing, so - for faithful Catholics at least - they’re out of the question.

That means back to the drawing board to attempt to find another way to handle the problems Contarini identified.

Perhaps you’re right. But Contarini made good points, too. The matter does merit further consideration.

Because that category of civil unions would not be based on sexual activity of any kind, in any way - it would be neutral in that regard. Furthermore, unlike gay “marriage” or gay civil unions, it would not ape any other attributes of traditional marriage: exclusivity, monogamy, a lifelong commitment. So the danger of moral equivocation would be removed, since the superficial similarities between marriage and homosexual unions would not even be present.

Such an open-ended category of civil unions would therefore not in any way intrinsically suggest any ramifications regarding sexual activity, marriage, what have you.

If it has nothing to do with sex, marital consummation, exclusivity, monogamy, etc., then what’s the point? It’s just another legal contract. Lawyers are perfectly capable of handling such matters already.

And there’s no benefit to society in singling out anything other than traditional marriage for particular benefits, since traditional marriage is a benefit to society and civilization in a way that other types of unions are not.

 

[Mudgely]

jomoco;8489933:

donsnow;8489904:

Well, jomoco,

I came back online to post, but I’ll answer your post.

Gays have always had the same and equal civil and criminal rights as other people.

Hi Don - that statement is false. Gays have been discriminated against for centuries. They are now a protected class under the law for that reason. The CC has contributed whole heartedly in the discriminatory practices, as we all know.

Marriage of any kind is between a man and woman. It’s benefits are for that marriage only, no others. No other sexuality has the right to other than man/woman marriage.

This is an arbitrary statement which is not grounded in anything but theology. It is not relevant to civil law.

Now, to my post. I’m not going to let you derail this thread. It’s not about gays, their rights nor their travails. It’s about the State encroaching on Church activities.

False. This thread started as an explication of the CC trying to interfere with government, and the friction which may result. You have this backwards.

With that in mind, Pres. Barak Hussien Obama II and his cronies could not have hurt the Church by denying tax credits, had the Church been paying her taxes like Our Savior told His disciples to do, when he took the gold coin from that fish’s mouth.

The CC does not get tax credits. It makes plenty of money, and pays no taxes. With tax reform, it makes sense to tax the CC. Certainly property taxes should be paid by every property owner. But this is a whole can of worms which is not relevant here.

Now, I’m going to bed.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;8489965:
Good afternoon, Mudgely,

Friend, what’s your point? I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Would you try again? Thank you.

I don’t understand why your post was not quoted in full by this forum’s computer ‘post quoter’, either, in my reply to you, just now. If those are your responses between my quotes, let me know. I don’t know if they’re yours or if you’re quoting jomoco’s response to me. Thanks

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8489933:

donsnow;8489904:

Well, jomoco,

I came back online to post, but I’ll answer your post.

Gays have always had the same and equal civil and criminal rights as other people.
Marriage of any kind is between a man and woman. It’s benefits are for that marriage only, no others. No other sexuality has the right to other than man/woman marriage.

Don

Please define always old friend? Were 17th century gays treated equally by any measure?

To go from judgement, punishment and execution, to judgement, denouncement and discrimination against practicing homosexuals, is admittedly an improvement. But continuing this unjust discrimination and referring to them or atleast their actions as evil, can no longer be justified because gay people are born with their sexual polarity reversed. They are no more responsible for their state than a person with an inherited disease, and not one bit more or less evil because of it.

Come out of the stone age and stop persecuting the innocent children of God please.

jomoco