Louisiana Catholic Church says gay relationships are sinful, and those who do not think it a sin are like the devil who twists the truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nepperhan said:
Fornication outside of marriage is not against the law in most jurisdictions
Click to expand...
Things are not made criminal because they offend morality but because the majority believe they are damaging to others.

SSM can’t really be illegal per se - rather absent legal provision it is not enabled. The government can either enable it or not.

The majority don’t see fornication as deserving criminal sanction and do see SSM as deserving enablement.

We may disagree with those judgements. I imagine that had SSM not been enabled (due to society rejection) that same society would still not criminalize fornication. There is no inconsistency here because the judgements are not resting on catholic morality.
 
Stats on that, please. The more I hear, the more everything sounds like an episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight.
 
“if they persecuted me, they will persecute you” Jesus. Are we living in the beginning days when the secular laws will be such as to persecute us as our Father’s were in the past? Will we or our children be led to the slaughter as Martyrs and Saints? Or can we make a change today for a better tomorrow? I agree with your post. I will just add Let’s practice our faith.
Peace be with you
 
Rau said:
Why cannot the people amend their Constitution / Bill or Rights documents?
Click to expand...
We certainly can, but voting away our rights is the end of America as we know it and the beginning of a country like any other.
 
Always seems odd to me that health insurance is bound up with employment in the US.
 
Not every amendment takes away rights. Usually, they give them. Amending away parts of the Bill of Rights, though, that’s a different animal entirely. To do so would be a horrific mark of how far we’ve gone from where our nation should be. Benefits nobody except tyrants.
 
Last edited:
Then on that, we agree. Dangerous ideas do have a platform in government now, but I don’t think they’ll go anywhere.
 
In that structure the Little Sisters don’t really have much to object to. Though that may not be their situation.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Not every amendment takes away rights. Usually, they give them. Amending away parts of the Bill of Rights, though, that’s a different animal entirely. To do so would be a horrific mark of how far we’ve gone from where our nation should be. Benefits nobody except tyrants.
Click to expand...
Amendments to clarify gun rights and references to militia etc might be warranted given the context has changed over the centuries.

Regrettably I had it explained to me once that it is very hard to achieve constitutional change in the US system.
 
I did not want to leave this site without giving one stroke search for President Barrack Hussein Obama who tried to outlaw “Don’t tread on me”. So if you can handle the Truth type in president obama sues to outlaw don’t tread on me. There are too many sites to name for you here. I found the newspaper from San Antonio by the way. Type in the above if your brave enough.
Truth can hurt.
 
Rau said:
it is very hard to achieve constitutional change in the US system.
Click to expand...
It’s very hard to change when the country is against what you want to put in, hence why the Second Amendment is still able to be twisted by those who want a disarmed populous.
 
Seems crazy employers then take the “guilt“ upon themselves. Employees decide where they spend their income.
 
So it really isn’t clear!

Does the 2nd amendment identify the threat for which an armed populace is to be prepared?
 
Last edited:
You’re telling me you’ve never heard any garden-variety talking points that seem to grow on trees like: “2nd Amendment only protects muskets” or “it gives rights to police/military” or “well-regulated means established by law”?
Rau said:
Does the 2nd amendment identify the threat for which an armed populace is to be prepared?
Click to expand...
No, and that’s by design. All threats, foreign and domestic, must be met with whatever force is necessary.
 
Last edited:
I have heard the muskets one actually,

Sounds like it really does need clarification.
 
Which, translated out of 18th Century Virginian, means: “Since a well-trained civilian militia is necessary to maintain freedom, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
 
Last edited:
Whether employer pays salary or salary plus a contribution to a health care plan, what is the difference? Contraception is in the mix because the employee chose it or because the government made it part of every plan. Regardless, there is no guilt on the employer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top