Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Unam Sanctam
There is a difference between homosexual activity, which is volitional chosen action, and homosexual inclination. The former is sinful, the latter is merely a disorder and not sinful.

This is not about sin, it's about law.

You're in favor of laws banning homosexual activity? What about adultery? Fornication? Being drunk in one's own home?

8 posted on 03/18/2004 6:57:25 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
"You're in favor of laws banning homosexual activity? What about adultery? Fornication? Being drunk in one's own home?"

Yes (most states used to have felony laws against such behavior, the UCMJ still makes it illegal), yes (most states used to have felony laws against such behavior, the UCMJ still makes it illegal), yes (most states used to have felony laws against such behavior, the UCMJ still makes it illegal)and no. You?
10 posted on 03/18/2004 7:00:48 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
I said I was not defending the law, although I do think it should be left to the democratic process rather than through judicial fiat of "Lawrence" based on vague Constitutional notions. I was merely saying that Associated Press is inaccurate to say that the law "banned homosexuals". Rather it banned the activity. There is a huge difference, and it is essential to use words accurately rather than obfuscate as the gay activists and their fellow travelers.
29 posted on 03/18/2004 7:44:38 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
I said I was not defending the law, although I do think it should be left to the democratic process rather than through judicial fiat of "Lawrence" based on vague Constitutional notions. I was merely saying that Associated Press is inaccurate to say that the law "banned homosexuals". Rather it banned the activity. There is a huge difference, and it is essential to use words accurately rather than obfuscate as the gay activists and their fellow travelers.
30 posted on 03/18/2004 7:44:55 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
You're in favor of laws banning homosexual activity?

You bet I am. It's unnatural, it's more detrimental to society than many other actions that are criminalized, and it propagates one of the deadliest diseases we've ever seen. And there's nothing unusual about laws banning homosexual activity; they're common throughout the land and have been for a long time. The SCOTUS decision that struck down the Texas version was a sad day.

It's amazing how much of the cultural ground homosexuals have already taken. Even right here on FR, in this thread, one can sense a reluctance to speak out in favor of such laws. Twenty years ago, there would've been no such reluctance. Probably not ten years ago. Now, they've managed to spread their message of depravity so successfully, so deeply, that they've stifled the natural tendency of many to even speak out against it.

MM

52 posted on 03/18/2004 8:14:35 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
As usual, you've managed to take the wrong side.

Immoral activity should be criminal activity. Period.
197 posted on 03/19/2004 4:43:31 AM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson