Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[Lochias]

The notion that homosexual sex is wrong is a subjective opinion. There is no “proof” of “God’s Law.” Since homosexual sex does not negatively impact the rights of the uninvolved, there is no basis for public policy.

There are many secular reasons that homosexual sex is wrong. You’re just choosing to ignore them.

It was also a shame that the Catholic Church used to support the imprisonment, torture, and execution of gay people, but who’s keeping score?

Oh, please prove this. Please.

(I guess the scores are still changing since the Church still supports sodomy laws, which implies support for imprisonment)

So saying “no” to sodomy is “torture” on the part of the Church? Methinks you’ve got some really strange axes to grind coming into this debate.

That is a stupid, elitist, bigoted argument.

Yup, I can see that you’ll have a long, fruitful career here at CAF.

Belief systems conflict with each other; it is impossible for a neutral society to please everyone.

Since when has our goal as a society been “to be neutral”?

Coexisting with openly homosexual people does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples access to social security survivor benefits does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples hospital visitation rights does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples access to dependent employment benefits, power of attorney, and joint tax filing does not “oppress” you.

It encourages habits and actions that destroy the family unit, that spread disease and suffering, and that encourage the stifling of religious freedom.

And, since financial benefits have been available to couples of any stripe for years, those arguments do not apply at all.

We want those things. But apparently we can’t have them because that makes YOU uncomfortable. Tough luck.

No, you simply can’t have what you want when you want it “because reasons.” You cannot expect us to be okay with the government officially sanctioning “romantic love”, because that’s all it is.

You can’t have what you want in this instance because it is harmful to yourselves and to us. If you don’t like it? Tough luck. We love you, and we also love ourselves. We will not allow harm to come from poor judgement, and will fight you for your own sake right up to the bitter end.

That’s an argument (a poor, discriminatory argument) against hook up sex; not an argument against gay marriage.

We must return to being a nation that says “I see”, not a nation that says “I want.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Amen

I would like to clarify: The use of sperm donors and surrogacy by heterosexual couples is also an abuse of parental power, and the Church also condemns it when married couples use this means to obtain the blessing of children for themselves. The desire for the blessing of children is entirely understandable, the suffering of being without children that one wants is very real and cannot be discounted, but the wrong done to the children and to the truth is not better for a heterosexual couple because they can hope to pretend that they did not do it.

 

[josh987654321]

I would like to clarify: The use of sperm donors and surrogacy by heterosexual couples is also an abuse of parental power, and the Church also condemns it when married couples use this means to obtain the blessing of children for themselves. The desire for the blessing of children is entirely understandable, the suffering of being without children that one wants is very real and cannot be discounted, but the wrong done to the children and to the truth is not better for a heterosexual couple because they can hope to pretend that they did not do it.

Thank you.

I mainly dislike the idea that homosexual couples would intentionally bring a child into this world through the use of surrogacy or some other means, with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their biological mother or father when it’s done in no way to benefit the child.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EasterJoy]

Thank you.

I mainly dislike the idea that homosexual couples would intentionally bring a child into this world through the use of surrogacy or some other means, with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their biological mother or father when it’s done in no way to benefit the child.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Yes. It is the arrogant attitude “I can decide (or we can decide) to deprive you of a parent, that is our right.” No, it is not the right of a parent to do that. Even if a child is raised to believe he or she was not wronged, that does not make it right. People who want the blessing of children but reject the child’s right to expect the parents to have a loving relationship with each other are doing great harm, both to the child and to society. That is why the “what business is it of yours, the child is not harmed” argument is a red herring. My resilience to the wrong you have done me does not prove you have never wronged me, nor does my lack of appreciation for what you have done to me prove it. Banking law would read much differently, if that were true!!

 

[kolya111]

The notion that homosexual sex is wrong is a subjective opinion. There is no “proof” of “God’s Law.” Since homosexual sex does not negatively impact the rights of the uninvolved, there is no basis for public policy.

There are many secular reasons that homosexual sex is wrong. You’re just choosing to ignore them.

Religious whining about IVF, complaints about kids having two dads (as opposed to zero), and people’s voluntary choice not to maintain the “traditional family unit” (as if such a thing ever existed - Beaver Cleaver was an asterisk on the history of human organization; most people never had that and most future people will not either) does not constitute non-religious basis for public policy.

It was also a shame that the Catholic Church used to support the imprisonment, torture, and execution of gay people, but who’s keeping score?

Oh, please prove this. Please.

Well imprisonment sure is easy; you didn’t hear about the Church’s howls of protest over Lawrence v. Texas or its sadness over the fall of Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature Act?

Torture and execution are a tad more difficult because I don’t have time to draft a scholarly essay on the history of homosexuality in Western Europe (tldr; don’t have time to educate you on the obvious stuff you should know if you presume to debate with me) but it was criminal in many areas, subject to castration (torture) or death upon repeat offense, beginning in the 13th Century. These policies, like all domestic policies, had the blessing of the Church authorities, which in many places were political authorities. Or we can go further back - Rome criminalized homosexuality after its conversion to Christendom.

Oh and the inquisition, forgot about that one too.

So saying “no” to sodomy is “torture” on the part of the Church? Methinks you’ve got some really strange axes to grind coming into this debate.

I said currently supports imprisonment (the penalty implicit in the endorsed anti-sodomy laws), not torture (please learn to read).

I’ll get to your other points later, I have to go (I have a life!)

 

[PRmerger]

Well imprisonment sure is easy; you didn’t hear about the Church’s howls of protest over Lawrence v. Texas or its sadness over the fall of Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature Act?

Citations, please?

Incidentally, we are talking about magisterial teachings. Not that which a priest or bishop may have said, regarding his own personal opinions regarding court cases.

 

[PRmerger]

Torture and execution are a tad more difficult because I don’t have time to draft a scholarly essay on the history of homosexuality in Western Europe (tldr; don’t have time to educate you on the obvious stuff you should know if you presume to debate with me)

If you are going to make an accusation against the Church, it is the fair thing to do to offer some sort of references to back up your condemnation of our Church.

You ought not come to our home and offer charges without any kind of proof.

but it was criminal in many areas, subject to castration (torture) or death upon repeat offense, beginning in the 13th Century. These policies, like all domestic policies, had the blessing of the Church authorities, which in many places were political authorities. Or we can go further back - Rome criminalized homosexuality after its conversion to Christendom.

Magisterial documents, please.

Oh and the inquisition, forgot about that one too

What, specifically, in the Inquisition addressed the Church’s teachings on homosexuals needing to be executed for their sexual behavior?

 

[EasterJoy]

Religious whining about IVF, complaints about kids having two dads (as opposed to zero), and people’s voluntary choice not to maintain the “traditional family unit” (as if such a thing ever existed - Beaver Cleaver was an asterisk on the history of human organization; most people never had that and most future people will not either) does not constitute non-religious basis for public policy.

Well imprisonment sure is easy; you didn’t hear about the Church’s howls of protest over Lawrence v. Texas or its sadness over the fall of Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature Act?

Torture and execution are a tad more difficult because I don’t have time to draft a scholarly essay on the history of homosexuality in Western Europe (tldr; don’t have time to educate you on the obvious stuff you should know if you presume to debate with me) but it was criminal in many areas, subject to castration (torture) or death upon repeat offense, beginning in the 13th Century. These policies, like all domestic policies, had the blessing of the Church authorities, which in many places were political authorities. Or we can go further back - Rome criminalized homosexuality after its conversion to Christendom.

Oh and the inquisition, forgot about that one too.

I said currently supports imprisonment (the penalty implicit in the endorsed anti-sodomy laws), not torture (please learn to read).

I’ll get to your other points later, I have to go (I have a life!)

Oh, for crying out loud. You aren’t really arguing that the “traditional family unit” of biological mother and father was invented by Hollywood? You also think you get to write off all opinions that don’t agree with yours as “religious” and “whining”? How very convenient for you!

Let’s see–you know, one of the things that is wrong with this world is the shocking mis-distribution of wealth. Do you know what else? Everybody knows that the rich only get that way by fraud, so who is really being fooled by penalizing the little guy for taking something from someone else? Who made up this “private property” concept, anyway? It is some sort of a fantasy made up by the rich to oppress the poor, it always has been, and everyone knows it. Take a few things from a big corporation that got fat off the work they stole from the poor, and off they go making laws and putting people in jail for things they do themselves! And did you know they used to cut off people’s hands for stealing? Well! That they ever used that kind of draconian penalty practically proves it was never wrong in the first place!!

People have been executed for the worst crimes and for being saints, and for everything in-between, including being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Dictators have done it and democracies have done it, including ours. Based on this very obvious history of humankind, both ancient and recent, the harshness of the penalty for homosexual acts has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not they are wrong, so let’s just drop that ridiculous line of argument right now.

 

[kolya111]

If you are going to make an accusation against the Church, it is the fair thing to do to offer some sort of references to back up your condemnation of our Church.

You ought not come to our home and offer charges without any kind of proof.

Magisterial documents, please.

What, specifically, in the Inquisition addressed the Church’s teachings on homosexuals needing to be executed for their sexual behavior?

The “magisterial documents” defense is nonsense - saying “we never endorsed killing the gays - we just killed them” is equivalent to me saying “I never endorsed homosexuality, I just slept with men.” But two minutes on google is all it took anyway - Pope Pius V, * Cum Primum*, April 1st 1566.

Well imprisonment sure is easy; you didn’t hear about the Church’s howls of protest over Lawrence v. Texas or its sadness over the fall of Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature Act?

Citations, please?

Incidentally, we are talking about magisterial teachings. Not that which a priest or bishop may have said, regarding his own personal opinions regarding court cases.

old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-134.shtml

The Holy See does not routinely comment U.S. court cases, so that will have to do, but if it isn’t enough to persuade you that the Church was sadfaced over the decision then you are being unreasonable. If the Bishops were out of line then Rome would (or should) have corrected them.

 

[kolya111]

Oh, for crying out loud. You aren’t really arguing that the “traditional family unit” of biological mother and father was invented by Hollywood? You also think you get to write off all opinions that don’t agree with yours as “religious” and “whining”? How very convenient for you!

…

People have been executed for the worst crimes and for being saints, and for everything in-between, including being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Dictators have done it and democracies have done it, including ours. Based on this very obvious history of humankind, both ancient and recent, the harshness of the penalty for homosexual acts has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not they are wrong, so let’s just drop that ridiculous line of argument right now.

I wasn’t saying that the harshness of history justifies homosexuality. I was responding to Lochias’s comment about gay activists impinging on religious liberty. He said that its bad form for homosexual activists to try to force their beliefs on religious people, and I agreed with him but noted that the Church has done far worse.

Does the past mistreatment of homosexuals mean anything for today’s policy? No, but it does mean that the complaints of the religious are more than a little rich from a historical perspective, and if he (Lochias) wants to paint all homosexual activists with the same brush then he will lose because mainstream homosexual activism does not involve imprisoning or killing political opponents but mainstream Catholic thought did (and in the case of imprisonment, still does).

On the traditional family - the “traditional family” has been redefined over and over and modern technology and economics have as much to do with its degradation as do changing social morals. Woman’s equality, political and economic, has more to do with the end of the “traditional family” than homosexuality does. Marriage used to be a property transaction in which the bride was sold off like cattle to her husband; in which a man might inherit a woman from his brother. Have we forgotten the old testament? This graphic might exaggerate, but you’ll get the point (tinyurl.com/lyfbb4l). How convenient of the Church to ignore all of that. God forbid they ignore Soddom and Gomorrah.

 

[Rau]

The following ideas are taken from earlier posts. What do others think?

MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX (CIVIL) UNIONS
Why do we need two types of “Marriage” as was proposed by **CaliLobo **earlier in this thread? Marriage is **the **logical framework through which the society builds. The legal rights came along in support of that purpose. Marriage is intrinsically sexual. It is clearly unique in its nature.

The institution which some seek for same sex partners is of a mostly different character. The society may find it appropriate to create such an institution, for the benefit & comfort of a subset of the society. If the society wishes to make that institution available to same sex couples (but apparently not to trios etc.?), in order to:

• agree certain legal rights can be conferred;
• to afford the participants a forum to promulgate their commitment;
• a means to define their relationship

so be it. Presumably this will deliver all the (so claimed) civil rights that (CaliLobo) says any pair of persons executing this contract ought to be able to access.

**But why on earth would you call such an institution, which is marked by such notable differences from Marriage, by the same name? **

The description of “civil marriage” provided earlier in this thread is not of an intrinsically sexual institution. Is sex in such an institution to be a ‘natural’ occurrence, as a consequence of the love the pair share, or no more relevant in that context than between any random pair (group?) of persons?

HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS

Does it not seem odd that (male) homosexual sex involves the emission of a fluid whose **ONLY **purpose is to join with an egg in the body of a female, yet in every single instance of emission (in a same sex context), regardless of intent, despite the perfect health of all the participants, nothing can come of it?

Scientists can offer explanation of why a person may be attracted to others of the same sex, and of other gender-related issues. No argument about this. But a **sexual **relationship of this kind is evidently misconstructed, by reason of fundamental incompatibility of the participants.

 

[josh987654321]

I wasn’t saying that the harshness of history justifies homosexuality. I was responding to Lochias’s comment about gay activists impinging on religious liberty. He said that its bad form for homosexual activists to try to force their beliefs on religious people, and I agreed with him but noted that the Church has done far worse.

Okay, I understand, but replying likewise I don’t think will help, theres an old saying “when you throw mud back at others, you not only get your hands dirty, but you also lose alot of gound.”

Does the past mistreatment of homosexuals mean anything for today’s policy? No, but it does mean that the complaints of the religious are more than a little rich from a historical perspective, and if he (Lochias) wants to paint all homosexual activists with the same brush then he will lose because mainstream homosexual activism does not involve imprisoning or killing political opponents but mainstream Catholic thought did (and in the case of imprisonment, still does).

You can continue to go down that tract if you like, but i think you will lose alot of ground. The CCC is quite clear on it if you are wondering where the Church stands on treatment toward our homosexual brothers and sisters.
"CCC:

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” - Pope Francis

On the traditional family - the “traditional family” has been redefined over and over and modern technology and economics have as much to do with its degradation as do changing social morals. Woman’s equality, political and economic, has more to do with the end of the “traditional family” than homosexuality does.

I find two things interesting with this, first of all, do you see a family unit at all? and if there is none, than how can you even acknowledge that other(s) are degrading at all?

Marriage used to be a property transaction in which the bride was sold off like cattle to her husband; in which a man might inherit a woman from his brother. Have we forgotten the old testament? This graphic might exaggerate, but you’ll get the point (tinyurl.com/lyfbb4l). How convenient of the Church to ignore all of that. God forbid they ignore Soddom and Gomorrah.

Many people bring up the old testament like this, may I ask have you read my previous posts #168, #169?

Id also like to ask, do you think we could find common ground on this issue of same sex marriage Kolya111? If you could have it your way, what would it be?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EasterJoy]

I wasn’t saying that the harshness of history justifies homosexuality. I was responding to Lochias’s comment about gay activists impinging on religious liberty. He said that its bad form for homosexual activists to try to force their beliefs on religious people, and I agreed with him but noted that the Church has done far worse.

Does the past mistreatment of homosexuals mean anything for today’s policy? No, but it does mean that the complaints of the religious are more than a little rich from a historical perspective, and if he (Lochias) wants to paint all homosexual activists with the same brush then he will lose because mainstream homosexual activism does not involve imprisoning or killing political opponents but mainstream Catholic thought did (and in the case of imprisonment, still does).

On the traditional family - the “traditional family” has been redefined over and over and modern technology and economics have as much to do with its degradation as do changing social morals. Woman’s equality, political and economic, has more to do with the end of the “traditional family” than homosexuality does. Marriage used to be a property transaction in which the bride was sold off like cattle to her husband; in which a man might inherit a woman from his brother. Have we forgotten the old testament? This graphic might exaggerate, but you’ll get the point (tinyurl.com/lyfbb4l). How convenient of the Church to ignore all of that. God forbid they ignore Soddom and Gomorrah.

Your point seems to be that gay sexual relationships are somehow something the state ought to not only concern itself with but also a thing to which the state ought to grant the benefits of marriage because there was a time when heterosexual marriages were arranged. (Huh? ) You also seem to be implying, moreover, that marriage as an institution that supports the biological family is so close to going gunwale under that it really can’t harm it more if the homosexuals jump onto the boat to rob it of whatever connection to physical parenthood it might still be ever-so-tenuously clinging to. Physical parents? Who cares? Kids shouldn’t! They should take whatever parents the adults choose for them and be HAPPY THEY GOT ANYBODY!! Oh, but gays shouldn’t be expected to have children WITHIN their marriages. Oh, no! They have to be able to have kids outside of marriage. What would marriage be, after all, if you couldn’'t conceive your children outside of it?

IOW, you are arguing that marriage and the nuclear family are, in the end, institutions that has gone through so many changes throughout history that neither has any intrinsic meaning. Each is a lump of clay, a thing that can be shoved into any shape that the majority of voters want to shove it in–oh, wait, no, that would be the majority of those voters who have utterly abandoned all religious sensibility, because of course anyone who thinks that moral law is a real thing is a backward whiner who just needs to shut up because nobody who has read about the Enlightenment believes in moral law any more.

Marriage is nothing, but only what we decide to make it, and blood ties are nothing. Does that about cover it?

 

[PRmerger]

The “magisterial documents” defense is nonsense - saying “we never endorsed killing the gays - we just killed them” is equivalent to me saying “I never endorsed homosexuality, I just slept with men.”

Kolya, you seem to be quite confused about the difference between bad Catholic men doing bad things and “This is what the Church teaches.”

It is no differerent than looking at what Judas did and discerning, “He did a bad thing in betraying Jesus” and saying, “Jesus endorsed betraying one’s friends”.

I think any person with his wits can identify what is a Church sanctioned teaching and what is Bad People Doing Bad Things.

But two minutes on google is all it took anyway - Pope Pius V, * Cum Primum*, April 1st 1566.

Could you be more specific about what and where and how?

The google search I did shows this, in 2 different sites:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/index.htm

catholicdoors.com/links/papal.htm

[SIGN1]There is no encyclical written by Pope Pius called “Cum Primum”.[/SIGN1]

So either it wasn’t Pope Pius V,

or

the document you are referring to isn’t correctly identified as “Cum Primum”

or

it wasn’t written on April 1, 1566.

So could you please correct which error(s) you have made so that your objection can be identified and addressed?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Religious whining about IVF, complaints about kids having two dads (as opposed to zero), and people’s voluntary choice not to maintain the “traditional family unit” (as if such a thing ever existed - Beaver Cleaver was an asterisk on the history of human organization; most people never had that and most future people will not either) does not constitute non-religious basis for public policy.

Prior to 1950, you are right, nuclear families were not the norm. It was normal for people to live in extended family households – so that they would not only have a mom and a dad, but live-in grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and so on. That is the norm, historically.

But now, what are we proposing? Household situations with one parent, or maybe two parents (not necessarily of opposite sexes), and those are the only people that the child grows up with – aside from peer groups at school, which are often harmful. Gee, does this sound like a recipe for healthy kids? No way.

Kids need adults that they are close to, of both sexes – so close that they see them every single day. The nuclear family arrangement is bad for children, compared to the older model. But single-parent households, or gay-parent households, are worse. (Mind you, single parents and gay parents can be wonderful parents, but the household arrangement is not optimal for the child’s development).

So you’re right that nuclear families weren’t the norm, historically. But I don’t think that point supports your argument.

 

[Lochias]

I said currently supports imprisonment (the penalty implicit in the endorsed anti-sodomy laws), not torture (please learn to read).

I’ll get to your other points later, I have to go (I have a life!)

…I was going to write a lot of mean little things, but I have to remember that you’re a guest here in our house, however abysmally-behaved you may be.

Your points have been addressed and refuted, but you are free to hold on to your pointless anger as long as you may; just remember that, like a hot coal, it’s burning you just as badly as it burns others.

Good day.

 

[stewstew03]

…

old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-134.shtml

The Holy See does not routinely comment U.S. court cases, so that will have to do, but if it isn’t enough to persuade you that the Church was sadfaced over the decision then you are being unreasonable. If the Bishops were out of line then Rome would (or should) have corrected them.

Sadfaced? Out of line? The USCCB simply affirmed Catholic teaching:

• Sexual activity has profound social consequences/public implications;
• States have a legitimate interest in regulating sexual activity;
• Sexual activity belongs to the marital relationship – one man/one woman, which is the basic unit of society.

Certainly you agree with at least two of these three points.

 

[EasterJoy]

I wasn’t saying that the harshness of history justifies homosexuality. I was responding to Lochias’s comment about gay activists impinging on religious liberty. He said that its bad form for homosexual activists to try to force their beliefs on religious people, and I agreed with him but noted that the Church has done far worse.

Does the past mistreatment of homosexuals mean anything for today’s policy? No, but it does mean that the complaints of the religious are more than a little rich from a historical perspective, and if he (Lochias) wants to paint all homosexual activists with the same brush then he will lose because mainstream homosexual activism does not involve imprisoning or killing political opponents but mainstream Catholic thought did (and in the case of imprisonment, still does).

On the traditional family - the “traditional family” has been redefined over and over and modern technology and economics have as much to do with its degradation as do changing social morals. Woman’s equality, political and economic, has more to do with the end of the “traditional family” than homosexuality does. Marriage used to be a property transaction in which the bride was sold off like cattle to her husband; in which a man might inherit a woman from his brother. Have we forgotten the old testament? This graphic might exaggerate, but you’ll get the point (tinyurl.com/lyfbb4l). How convenient of the Church to ignore all of that. God forbid they ignore Soddom and Gomorrah.

I ask you again: What would marriage be, after all, if you couldn’t conceive your children outside of it?

Do you think the state has any interest in encouraging family units in which biological parents raise their own children, in encouraging intact extended families? Do you see any difference at all between a family purposefully composed of blood relatives or children deprived of their parents by accidental fate and a living arrangement where parents purposefully beget their children outside wedlock?

 

[kolya111]

old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-134.shtml

The Holy See does not routinely comment U.S. court cases, so that will have to do, but if it isn’t enough to persuade you that the Church was sadfaced over the decision then you are being unreasonable. If the Bishops were out of line then Rome would (or should) have corrected them.

Sadfaced? Out of line? The USCCB simply affirmed Catholic teaching:

• Sexual activity has profound social consequences/public implications;
• States have a legitimate interest in regulating sexual activity;
• Sexual activity belongs to the marital relationship – one man/one woman, which is the basic unit of society.

Certainly you agree with at least two of these three points.

I agree with the first point, maybe, and not the others.

You are missing the point. Lawrence v Texas decriminalized homosexual conduct in the USA. The Church, by opposing that outcome, is implicitly saying that homosexual conduct should remain criminal. And what do we do with criminals? We send them to prison. That’s why I say that the Church supports imprisonment of practicing homosexuals. *De facto? * Maybe, but it still is.

You can continue to go down that tract if you like, but i think you will lose alot of ground. The CCC is quite clear on it if you are wondering where the Church stands on treatment toward our homosexual brothers and sisters.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” - Pope Francis

See above. Actions speak louder than words. The Church is always talking about being “compassionate” - in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense (given that the Church claims to know Truth, the irony here is incredible). When it comes time to repeal laws that send gay people to jail, the Church is either last to enter the cocktail party or protesting in the lobby.

…I was going to write a lot of mean little things, but I have to remember that you’re a guest here in our house, however abysmally-behaved you may be.

Your points have been addressed and refuted, but you are free to hold on to your pointless anger as long as you may; just remember that, like a hot coal, it’s burning you just as badly as it burns others.

Good day.

Oh ho ho, anger burns like a hot coal huh? I’m not mad, but it must be warm where you are.

EasterJoy I read your post and mean to get back to you, but I’m short on time.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree with the first point, maybe, and not the others.

You are missing the point. Lawrence v Texas decriminalized homosexual conduct in the USA. The Church, by opposing that outcome, is implicitly saying that homosexual conduct should remain criminal. And what do we do with criminals? We send them to prison. That’s why I say that the Church supports imprisonment of practicing homosexuals. *De facto? * Maybe, but it still is.

If you read the dissenting opinions, you know that it is not so cut-and-dried as “If you oppose the action of the Supreme Court in striking this law down, then that means you want gays in jail.” It is not that simple, and I really don’t believe you are incapable of understanding that.

From lawnix.com/cases/lawrence-texas.html

Dissent (Scalia)

Nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “D would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as an exercise of their liberty and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case.

Dissent (Thomas)

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.