You’re wrong! It’s the exact same issue, a civil rights issue! Civil Rights do not have to be based on color, IT IS ALSO BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. So it does not cheapen any past civil rights issue it is in fact discrimination based on sexual
I think me not being able to use womens changing rooms is a civil right issue. Am i being discriminated against? During a point in time blacks had to use different locker rooms and bathrooms!
You’re wrong! It’s the exact same issue, a civil rights issue! Civil Rights do not have to be based on color, IT IS ALSO BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. So it does not cheapen any past civil rights issue it is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The issue here is with your concept of discrimination. Discrimination, based upon relevant differences, happens all the time and is quite legal, right and reasonable.
If a dog and its owner came in looking for a job, the potential employer has a right to discriminate against the dog because of relevant differences between what the employer is looking for (job qualifications) and what the dog has to offer.
This is quite a right and reasonable position because we are only acting rationally when we treat different things differently based upon relevant differences.
If your five year old daughter came to you with the news that she wanted to marry her “boyfriend” next week, I suspect you would discriminate against her “right” to do so based upon the relevant facts of maturity, age, capacity to sustain the relationship, etc. You are not being unjustly discriminatory precisely because the differences are relevant to the issue - they make a huge difference in your treatment of her request.
To answer the question whether a same sex couple have a “right” to marry in the sense of taking part in a procreative union that is the means by which human beings create new life, what needs to be considered is whether “relevant” differences exist that preclude them from actually being married in the full sense of the word, i.e., can they create and sustain the well-being of the new life that arises from their biological union? Such a decision would only be discriminatory if they could, indeed, fulfill all the requirements for marriage but for irrelevant reasons were not allowed to. Being incapable of producing new life is not an irrelevant consideration, it is a crucial one. Therefore, a denial is not unjustifiably discriminatory, it is exhibiting proper judgement.
When skin colour or some other issue arises, discrimination comes down to whether the characteristic is irrelevant to the case at hand. Is skin colour a relevant reason for denying someone access to a washroom or eating establishment? Absolutely not. Therefore, such practices are discriminatory because skin colour is not a relevant reason for doing so.
That is not the same as asking whether a couple who cannot possibly carry out the role of creating new life would be discriminated against if they were not allowed to do so. The fact is, they couldn’t carry out the job description.
Changing the definition of marriage to include couples who are not equipped to fulfill its fundamental role is like requiring passengers in a motor vehicle to have a driver’s license when they are not actually carrying out the task of driving. Not only that, but it also means attempting to water down the definition of “driver” in order to accommodate passengers in the definition and then relaxing the requirements of the competencies a driver must demonstrate in order to obtain a license in the first place. Bad idea all around.
If someone incapable of driving because of sight impairment declared licensing regulations to be discriminatory because the regulations preclude them from driving, the fact is that sight is crucial to fulfilling the task of driving, so there is a relevant reason to “discriminate” against drivers who are sightless.
If a person follows their proclivity against fertile union with someone of the opposite sex, that becomes their issue and not a reason to change what is the essential nature of marriage merely because it doesn’t fit their inclination. Just as someone who admits honestly that they are clumsy and reckless ought not assume that traffic laws should be changed to accommodate their individual eccentricities regarding control of motor vehicles, even if those are genetic or physiological. A specious argument that would be, indeed.
:clapping:The issue here is with your concept of discrimination. Discrimination, based upon relevant differences, happens all the time and is quite legal, right and reasonable.
If a dog and its owner came in looking for a job, the potential employer has a right to discriminate against the dog because of relevant differences between what the employer is looking for (job qualifications) and what the dog has to offer.
This is quite a right and reasonable position because we are only acting rationally when we treat different things differently based upon relevant differences.
If your five year old daughter came to you with the news that she wanted to marry her “boyfriend” next week, I suspect you would discriminate against her “right” to do so based upon the relevant facts of maturity, age, capacity to sustain the relationship, etc. You are not being unjustly discriminatory precisely because the differences are relevant to the issue - they make a huge difference in your treatment of her request.
To answer the question whether a same sex couple have a “right” to marry in the sense of taking part in a procreative union that is the means by which human beings create new life, what needs to be considered is whether “relevant” differences exist that preclude them from actually being married in the full sense of the word, i.e., can they create and sustain the well-being of the new life that arises from their biological union? Such a decision would only be discriminatory if they could, indeed, fulfill all the requirements for marriage but for irrelevant reasons were not allowed to. Being incapable of producing new life is not an irrelevant consideration, it is a crucial one. Therefore, a denial is not unjustifiably discriminatory, it is exhibiting proper judgement.
When skin colour or some other issue arises, discrimination comes down to whether the characteristic is irrelevant to the case at hand. Is skin colour a relevant reason for denying someone access to a washroom or eating establishment? Absolutely not. Therefore, such practices are discriminatory because skin colour is not a relevant reason for doing so.
That is not the same as asking whether a couple who cannot possibly carry out the role of creating new life would be discriminated against if they were not allowed to do so. The fact is, they couldn’t carry out the job description.
Changing the definition of marriage to include couples who are not equipped to fulfill its fundamental role is like requiring passengers in a motor vehicle to have a driver’s license when they are not actually carrying out the task of driving. Not only that, but it also means attempting to water down the definition of “driver” in order to accommodate passengers in the definition and then relaxing the requirements of the competencies a driver must demonstrate in order to obtain a license in the first place. Bad idea all around.
If someone incapable of driving because of sight impairment declared licensing regulations to be discriminatory because the regulations preclude them from driving, the fact is that sight is crucial to fulfilling the task of driving, so there is a relevant reason to “discriminate” against drivers who are sightless.
If someone declares their proclivity against fertile union with someone of the opposite sex, that becomes their issue and not a reason to change what is the essential nature of marriage merely because it doesn’t fit their inclination. Just as someone who admits honestly that they are clumsy and reckless ought not assume that traffic laws should be changed to accommodate their individual eccentricities regarding control of motor vehicles, even if those are genetic or physiological. A specious argument that would be, indeed.
Are you trolling or completely serious?Your argument here is an oxymoron. A sacrament is a religious belief, it is not a verifiable fact, it can only be seen and understood through the lens and the mind of faith. Most of the gay community does not have the same faith and therefore do not believe in sacraments, we have religious freedom and the state cannot show favor to any religious institution over another. It must respect the beliefs of all. If the gay community’s faith tells them gay marriage is good than that must be respected. The states are siding with me on this issue; gay marriage will eventually become the law in all 50 states. The only way to stop it is to change the constitution.
Be that as it may I believe the opponents of gay marriage strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. The institution of marriage has long ago been ship wrecked when we allowed no fault divorce and divorce so easily obtained. And then to add insult to injury we have no limit on the amount of times a person can be divorced and remarried. This is what destroys the family and not gay marriage.
Peace,
David
Women who have undergone hysterectomies are physiologically incapable of bearing children just as those who are visually impaired are incapable of driving. Under your argument women with no uterus should not be allowed to marry. Do you realize that? Should I believe that people physiologically incapable of fulfilling the fundamental role of marriage are lucky that they skirted by at that notional moment in time when marriage was defined for good? I know that such individuals are “ordered towards” reproduction, but how is it different for blind people whose eyes are “ordered toward” sight?Changing the definition of marriage to include couples who are not equipped to fulfill its fundamental role is like requiring passengers in a motor vehicle to have a driver’s license when they are not actually carrying out the task of driving. Not only that, but it also means attempting to water down the definition of “driver” in order to accommodate passengers in the definition and then relaxing the requirements of the competencies a driver must demonstrate in order to obtain a license in the first place. Bad idea all around.
If someone incapable of driving because of sight impairment declared licensing regulations to be discriminatory because the regulations preclude them from driving, the fact is that sight is crucial to fulfilling the task of driving, so there is a relevant reason to “discriminate” against drivers who are sightless.
If a person follows their proclivity against fertile union with someone of the opposite sex, that becomes their issue and not a reason to change what is the essential nature of marriage merely because it doesn’t fit their inclination. Just as someone who admits honestly that they are clumsy and reckless ought not assume that traffic laws should be changed to accommodate their individual eccentricities regarding control of motor vehicles, even if those are genetic or physiological. A specious argument that would be, indeed.
There is a very good answer for that, however, a definition revised to include same sex unions suffers exponentially larger logical problems.Let’s face it: the entire argument against homosexual marriage is a logical farce.
If marriage is for reproductive purposes, then s sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.
The entire logic if the anti-gay marriage side falls apart there. They claim over and over again that marriage is for reproductive purposes only, but then don’t support banning marriages for sterile couple.
Can you show a definitive method for proving fertility that doesn’t infringe on 4th amendment protections? Out of all heterosexual couples, only a tiny fraction of a percentage are infertile. Therefore, we give them the benefit of the doubt. Out of all homosexual couples, 100% are infertile. This isn’t rocket surgery.Let’s face it: the entire argument against homosexual marriage is a logical farce.
If marriage is for reproductive purposes, then s sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.
The entire logic if the anti-gay marriage side falls apart there. They claim over and over again that marriage is for reproductive purposes only, but then don’t support banning marriages for sterile couple.
The Bible is the book of the Church, compiled by the Church, for the good of the Church. If you see a discrepancy between what the Church teaches and what you read into Holy Scripture, then who is the fault with?People are claiming there is a huge difference between the fight for interracial marriage and the fight for same-sex marriage. If course, the details are different, but the underlying argument is the exact same, which is why the result will be the same.
“interracial marriage is against the will of God"
“Same-sex marriage is against the will of God”
It’s the exact same argument, and is wrong for the exact same reason: a flawed interpretation of the bible. All references to homosexuality in the new testament have been mud translated our mis interpreted.
That reasoning is a farce. Sterile heterosexual have nothing in common with homosexuals. Heterosexuals belong to a class that produces children. Homosexuals belong to a class that can never produce children. It is insulting to compare such groups as equal.Let’s face it: the entire argument against homosexual marriage is a logical farce.
If marriage is for reproductive purposes, then s sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.
Your argument makes no sense.The entire logic if the anti-gay marriage side falls apart there. They claim over and over again that marriage is for reproductive purposes only, but then don’t support banning marriages for sterile couple.
In what way is skin color morally equal to immoral behavior? Just wondering?People are claiming there is a huge difference between the fight for interracial marriage and the fight for same-sex marriage. If course, the details are different, but the underlying argument is the exact same, which is why the result will be the same.
Who says this?“interracial marriage is against the will of God"
“Same-sex marriage is against the will of God”
Uh huh. Those that claim this have more than an academic interest in manipulating the argument.It’s the exact same argument, and is wrong for the exact same reason: a flawed interpretation of the bible. All references to homosexuality in the new testament have been mud translated our mis interpreted.
Blacks had to use seperate changing rooms from whites“interracial marriage is against the will of God"
“Same-sex marriage is against the will of God”
It’s the exact same argument, and is wrong for the exact same reason: a flawed interpretation of the bible. All references to homosexuality in the new testament have been mud translated our mis interpreted.
True, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the heterosexual couple must be fertile for offspring to be produced.If marriage is truly about reproduction, then what class someone belongs to is irrelevant.So long as those two humans are male and female.
So long as those two humans are male and female.
True.
True
True, but that doesn’t negate the fact that a male and a female - that is, a heterosexual couple - are required for offspring to be produced.
Marriage: a commitment between two loving consensual adults.Answer my post#159 before you proclaim anything a farce. If you think the traditional definition is indefensible, propose one that doesn’t fall into a bottomless morass of illogic.
I see no one has ventured a defensible counter definition.Why don’t you take a shot at it, then?
The rule that marriage is a procreative union is supposedly a law of God. Therefore, it usurps all laws of man, including the 4th amendment. If God truly wants marriage to be about procreation, then “finding out is embarrassing” is a pretty weak argument.Can you show a definitive method for proving fertility that doesn’t infringe on 4th amendment protections?
Out of all human couples, only a small fraction are infertile. Therefore, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.Out of all heterosexual couples, only a tiny fraction of a percentage are infertile. Therefore, we give them the benefit of the doubt. Out of all homosexual couples, 100% are infertile. This isn’t rocket surgery.
The church is misinterpreting verses to condemn homosexuality just like they once misinterpreted verses to say the earth was immovable in space.The Bible is the book of the Church, compiled by the Church, for the good of the Church. If you see a discrepancy between what the Church teaches and what you read into Holy Scripture, then who is the fault with?
Most of those same cultures, including or own, practiced slavery.Even leaving aside the reasons against it as explained by the Church, even cultures who celebrated and endorsed homosexual activity set marriage aside as something that only happens between a man and a woman.No “will of God” argument there.Can you explain this?
Sterile couples cannot produce childrenThat reasoning is a farce. Sterile heterosexual have nothing in common with homosexuals.
Who cares what class they belong to? Since when do we put people in classes? In America, we judge people on individual merit, not what class they belong to.Heterosexuals belong to a class that produces children. Homosexuals belong to a class that can never produce children. It is insulting to compare such groups as equal.
Of course it makes sense. If marriage is for reproductive purposes, sterile couples should not be allowed to get married. If marriage is not for reproductive purposes, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.Your argument makes no sense.
Because, if you studied history, you would know that 60 years ago, interracial relationships were considered immoral. The sole difference in the two arguments is time.In what way is skin color morally equal to immoral behavior? Just wondering?
How about a federal court judge? In 1959, judge Leon Bazille ruled:Who says this?
Really?Uh huh.Those that claim this have more than an academic interest in manipulating the argument.
Now explain why any state needs to be involved in making such a commitment legal?Marriage: a commitment between two loving consensual adults.
I have no problem with any of the couples you mentioned getting “married” by the government. Since civil marriage is a purely legal contract with no romantic obligations, any two, or three people who want to should be able to get married.Now explain why any state needs to be involved in making such a commitment legal?
A “commitment” could mean anything. What is the nature of this commitment that requires legal sanction? A friendship, a relationship between adult siblings, a father or mother to child (over 18), etc., all qualify as “loving” (in your unspecified sense), but that does not explain why a government has to supervise such a commitment under the law. Neither does it explain why a government would not be infringing on the civil rights of either party by expecting that such a commitment have legal sanction.
By the way, please don’t resort to the tax benefits argument because then adult siblings or parent and adult child relationships should likewise have rights to the same treatment under the law given that the physical dimension of procreative sex has been removed from the legal definition.
This is opening the law to an entirely greater scope of challenge from which it can only back down entirely.
The only legal means by which any marriage laws are defensible is when a marriage can produce vulnerable new citizens which must be protected by legal means because these individuals were not party to the original commitment. That is the only judicial “leg” marriage laws have left to stand on.
Treatment of sterile couples need not entail a collapse of the legal defense of the current definition but can be included as “exceptions” under the law for which support can be made for good reason.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Government sanctioned marriage is only a sham because “we the people” have allowed it to be. Abdicating our responsibilities for new life entirely will not serve to make marriage any less a sham. Holding to an ideal for martiage is the only way to save what marriage was intended to be from the beginning.I have no problem with any of the couples you mentioned getting “married” by the government. Since civil marriage is a purely legal contract with no romantic obligations, any two, or three people who want to should be able to get married.
Government marriage is a sham. It is not a sacrament, it is not holy. It is a waste it’s time for the Church to defend it. Let anyone and everyone who wants to get married by a justice of the peace. No one will be harmed, and no one will be fooled into thinking it is a sacrament.
A man and a tree cannot produce a child either why compare unlike things? There is nothing in common because you are not comparing like things. What we have is a natural thing (heterosexual) with a contrived (artificial) thing and then saying they are both similar because no children can be produced. It is unfair and unreasonable to compare two dissimilar items or classes.Sterile couples cannot produce children
Homosexual couples cannot produce children.
Your claim that they have NOTHING In common is pretty blatantly wrong.
The classification matters greater if we want to intelligently draw conclusions rather than arbitrarily grabbing at different classes to force a point.Who cares what class they belong to? Since when do we put people in classes? In America, we judge people on individual merit, not what class they belong to.
Social class is not the issue. Grouping of like items in the issue.Upper class people generally do not commit violent crimes. So should we excuse an upper class person who commits a violent crime, just because they belong to a class that generally doesn’t commit them?
That some heterosexual couples are sterile does not negate the fact they belong to the right group of people that can be married as opposed to a group that can never be married.Of course it makes sense. If marriage is for reproductive purposes, sterile couples should not be allowed to get married. If marriage is not for reproductive purposes, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
Because, if you studied history, you would know that 60 years ago, interracial relationships were considered immoral. The sole difference in the two arguments is time.
How about a federal court judge? In 1959, judge Leon Bazille ruled:
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
You can find deviations from the norm but that does not make the norm invalid.60 years ago, many Americans thought interracial marriages were immoral. Today, most do not. It isn’t a far reach to say that in 60 years most Americans probably won’t find homosexual relationships immoral, either.
Really?
The word used by st Paul which is commonly translated to mean “homosexuals” is " arsenokoitēs “, even though the Greek teen for homosexuals was " Androkoitēs”.The word Paul used had never been used before, he made it up.
Why would he make up a word when there was already a word available?Since he made it up, how did the translators knew what he meant?
This is a novel and modern fantasy. History, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Church rejects these facile arguments.Our entire biblical justification against homosexuality hinges on a wild guess made by a translator.
For heterosexual couples, infertility is a rare exception. For homosexual couples, infertility is an absolute ruleTrue, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the heterosexual couple must be fertile for offspring to be produced.If marriage is truly about reproduction, then what class someone belongs to is irrelevant.
Leaving aside the promotion of immoral behavior, homosexual couples are always, 100%, no exception, sterile - it is the norm. For heterosexual couples, sterility is a rare exception to the norm that can often be treated or misdiagnosed. Personally, I know two couples who were told they were infertile. One of them just announced their second child is on the way, and the others are the parents of one of my godsons.Two humans can have children, unless they are homosexual.Two heterosexuals can have children, unless they are sterile.Why can your exception to the rule get married but not mine?
The government is in place to protect the people. It is not in place to promote behavior undertaken because of a mental illness. Every time something the Church considers immoral has been allowed by the government, disaster has followed.Marriage: a commitment between two loving consensual adults.
Also, your argument does not explain the church’s opposition to civil unions.Care to explain that one?
Sterility in heterosexual couples can easily be misdiagnosed. Sterility in homosexual couples is guaranteed.The rule that marriage is a procreative union is supposedly a law of God. Therefore, it usurps all laws of man, including the 4th amendment. If God truly wants marriage to be about procreation, then “finding out is embarrassing” is a pretty weak argument.
But when looking at the makeup of those couples, male/female couples are only infertile in a very few cases. Male/male or female/female couples are always infertile.Out of all human couples, only a small fraction are infertile. Therefore, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sarah laughed when she was told she would bear a son, because she was long past childbearing age. We give them the benefit of the doubt because God does so.I think it’s funny that you claim this is God’s law, but that it can be overruled by “giving them the benefit of the doubt”
Geocentrism was never taught as a tenet of the faith, nor was it ever taught that heliocentrism was a sin that cried out to heaven for vengeance. Apples and Volkswagens.The church is misinterpreting verses to condemn homosexuality just like they once misinterpreted verses to say the earth was immovable in space.
But you have no problem accepting something that even these immoral cultures never accepted?Most of those same cultures, including or own, practiced slavery.
Does that make it ok?
Considering how immoral previous societies were, I find it very bad practice to follow their example.
Sterile heterosexual couples are a rare exception to the rule. Sterile homosexual couples ARE the rule. Is this really so hard to grasp?Sterile couples cannot produce children
Homosexual couples cannot produce children.
Your claim that they have NOTHING In common is pretty blatantly wrong.
Put down the flag and stop confusing classification for the purpose of understanding an issue with Marxism. The law places people into “classes” constantly. Only the “class” of those over 18 can vote. The “class” of males over 18 are required to register for the draft. Only the “class” of licensed people are allowed to drive.Who cares what class they belong to? Since when do we put people in classes? In America, we judge people on individual merit, not what class they belong to.
Marxism is not biology. Stop being deliberately dense.Upper class people generally do not commit violent crimes. So should we excuse an upper class person who commits a violent crime, just because they belong to a class that generally doesn’t commit them?
There is no 100% guaranteed method of diagnosing infertility except one: Is the couple in question of the same sex?Of course it makes sense. If marriage is for reproductive purposes, sterile couples should not be allowed to get married. If marriage is not for reproductive purposes, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
Interracial marriages being illegal was a novelty introduced by law, just like homosexual “marriage”. The Church never taught against them, and most countries have always accepted them.Because, if you studied history, you would know that 60 years ago, interracial relationships were considered immoral. The sole difference in the two arguments is time.
How about a federal court judge? In 1959, judge Leon Bazille ruled:
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Since when is morality determined by majority vote?60 years ago, many Americans thought interracial marriages were immoral. Today, most do not. It isn’t a far reach to say that in 60 years most Americans probably won’t find homosexual relationships immoral, either.
This tired argument again?Really?
The word used by st Paul which is commonly translated to mean “homosexuals” is " arsenokoitēs “, even though the Greek teen for homosexuals was " Androkoitēs”.The word Paul used had never been used before, he made it up.
Why would he make up a word when there was already a word available?Since he made it up, how did the translators knew what he meant?
Our entire biblical justification against homosexuality hinges on a wild guess made by a translator.
Kevin, I agree with the premise of your argument. Federal Laws cannot be made based on one religious belief over another and that is what the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this issue. Marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman is a religious belief which has been adopted by human society for several thousand years. However, cultures change and the US Constitution is a living document that is in part interpreted based on the civil rights of any given community of a time period. Gay marriage has become a civil rights issue. Denying gays unions that have the same benefits as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. Whether or not it is called a “marriage” is in my opinion semantics. If gays want to call their unions a marriage it harms no one. Catholics need to be far more concerned with no fault divorce and multiple remarriages. This is what destroys families and not gay marriage.Let’s face it: the entire argument against homosexual marriage is a logical farce.
If marriage is for reproductive purposes, then s sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.
The entire logic if the anti-gay marriage side falls apart there. They claim over and over again that marriage is for reproductive purposes only, but then don’t support banning marriages for sterile couple.
People are claiming there is a huge difference between the fight for interracial marriage and the fight for same-sex marriage. If course, the details are different, but the underlying argument is the exact same, which is why the result will be the same.
“interracial marriage is against the will of God"
“Same-sex marriage is against the will of God”
It’s the exact same argument, and is wrong for the exact same reason: a flawed interpretation of the bible. All references to homosexuality in the new testament have been mud translated our mis interpreted.
Your so called argument falls apart because you want to advocate for the importance of a union or commitment between couples by doing things such as requiring mandatory counseling and a five year waiting period but, at the same time, undermining the only legal basis for doing so by redefining marriage to be only a union between two “loving” individuals. So what, ultimately, is the reason for legally tightening up the conditions of a union that is merely and entirely based upon the feelings of the two individuals involved?Kevin, I agree with the premise of your argument. Federal Laws cannot be made based on one religious belief over another and that is what the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this issue. Marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman is a religious belief which has been adopted by human society for several thousand years. However, cultures change and the US Constitution is a living document that is in part interpreted based on the civil rights of any given community of a time period. Gay marriage has become a civil rights issue. Denying gays unions that have the same benefits as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. Whether or not it is called a “marriage” is in my opinion semantics. If gays want to call their unions a marriage it harms no one. Catholics need to be far more concerned with no fault divorce and multiple remarriages. This is what destroys families and not gay marriage.
As a Catholic I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. But this belief is based on my faith. As a social justice issue I am concerned with matters that actually harm society and conservatives largely ignore these issues in favor of issues that cause little or no harm to society. As I pointed out before, divorce is too easy to obtain and Catholics should be pro active in securing marriage as a life time union by requiring mandatory marriage counseling, and perhaps as much as a 5 year waiting period before the divorce is granted. Catholics should be pro-active in making adultery and fornication illegal in every state. The whole problem with conservative Catholics is summed up in Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:24, “YOU BLIND GUIDES! YOU strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. Read Matthew 23 because this chapter is Jesus explicitly rebuking conservatives of his time.
Peace,
David