Gay Marriage Issue Solved?

[micatala]

I know this has probably been suggested before, but a recent column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Joe Soucheray brought this to my mind again.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 154831.htm

Joe's suggestion is simple.


Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.



If we would invent a new word for these unions, while allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples (tax deductions, etc.), would this solve the problem?


To break it down:

What specific objections would proponents of legalized gay marriage have?


What specific objections would opponents of gay marriage havae?

[micatala]

Homosexuals criminalize anyone that simply "disapproves" of their sexual choice behavior and here is an example of the lengths they go to to oppose Christians. It will be impossible for Christians to preach and teach Christian truth when Gay marriage gains power over the issue completely. It is happening in England.

Your request granted for proof:

I let this go in the Sodom thread because I was sick of trying to get you to see the difference between people expressing an opposing viewpoint and actual criminalization. Here, I am not going to accept it.

To suggest that the passage you quote is evidence that 'CHristianity is being criminalized' seems to me to be at the very least over the top hyperbole, at worst delusionary.

You even admitted in the other thread that criminalization 'wasn't happening yet in the U.S.'

Real criminalization of Christianity would imply that thousands or millions of Christians would be in jail, simply for being Christian and for no other reason.

The passage you quote shows that there is a group who views the actions of some Christians as discriminatory. They have every right to this opinion, as long as they do not use illegal means to enforce that opinion on others. Nothing you have shown indicates that they have done this.

This group is not a law-making body and has no power to unilaterally criminalize anything.

Only those that support homosexuals are "free" to live their lives unharrassed by Gay activists.

Sorry, gay activists expressing an opinion or making use of the legal system does not in and of itself constitute harassment. This claim is nothing more than an abuse of words.

How about citizens who would like to be free of the harassment of anti-gay Christian activists, like the ones who have actually have helped to make gay marriage illegal in many states, and who are trying to do so in others, like Minnesota.

Criminalization means actual laws passed against the thing being criminalized.

It means these laws being enforced on a systematic basis. It means people actually being arrested, or denied rights that others are allowed to exercise, or being subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Show me one person who has been arrested in the U.S. for simply being a Christian

Gay marriage is criminalized in many places. Christianity is not criminanlized in the U.S. or any country that includes religious freedom as one of its basic rights. This includes all western European countries as far as I am aware.

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
Homosexuals criminalize anyone that simply "disapproves" of their sexual choice behavior and here is an example of the lengths they go to to oppose Christians. It will be impossible for Christians to preach and teach Christian truth when Gay marriage gains power over the issue completely. It is happening in England.

Your request granted for proof:

Missing in this thread why?

Let's repost the truth shall we?

Homophobia in the Church
.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..
That such homophobia has a serious daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide..
That the Christian churches in the UK have had a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemption for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.
That in the methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in this country now amount to a "Christian Right" similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.
That some bishops and other church leaders act hypocritically in regard to the lesbian and gay members and clergy of their churches, knowing that they are licensing and ordaining gay clergy whilst publicly denying this.
That such hypocrisy rewards deceit and dishonesty and is deleterious to the health and well being of those who are forced into such a lifestyle.
That a significant number of clergy have been dismissed, made homeless and forced to rely on state benefits because of their sexuality.
That lesbian and gay church members are being expelled from congregations, lesbian and gay groups have been refused the use of church premises, church run welfare and housing organisations have specifically excluded gay men and lesbians
That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.
That there are sigificant numbers of counsellors, psychologists and other health professionals whose "Christian" beliefs lead them to attempt the "changing", "curing", or "exorcising" of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable professional associations.
That there are occasional instances of heroic and truly Christian people within the churches taking a stand to support the lesbian and gay community. There are many gay and lesbian Christians who are prepared to work for the redemption of the churches from the sin of homophobia, often at great personal cost.
The full report is availablefrom LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire St., London E2 6HG

More details are also available on their website www.lgcm.org.uk

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians:

I let this go in the Sodom thread because I was sick of trying to get you to see the difference between people expressing an opposing viewpoint and actual criminalization. Here, I am not going to accept it.

Not going to accept or admit that Christians have been classified as criminals. The fact is right here.

To suggest that the passage you quote is evidence that 'CHristianity is being criminalized' seems to me to be at the very least over the top hyperbole, at worst delusionary.

Click on the Gay website to see if it is a delusion?

You even admitted in the other thread that criminalization 'wasn't happening yet in the U.S.'

I was wrong. It is illegal for Catholics to believe in Christianity in Massachusetts. They were forced to close their adoption agency or face charges. They call being a Christian as discrimination.

Real criminalization of Christianity would imply that thousands or millions of Christians would be in jail, simply for being Christian and for no other reason.

Crimes do not always land people in jail, but ruin their lives in other ways. Christainity is targeted for ruin. It is a leftist ploy used over and over again. Make a new law and sue your enemies out of existence. I know it is useless to attack Christ's Church but evil people do not folow Christ. Still the law is there attacking Christians. If it makes you mad maybe that is a good thing. Christians are too peaceful to fight the Gay Agenda.

The passage you quote shows that there is a group who views the actions of some Christians as discriminatory. They have every right to this opinion, as long as they do not use illegal means to enforce that opinion on others. Nothing you have shown indicates that they have done this.

No, they are using NEW laws to silence and destroy Christians and their Churches. Very Sodomlike I bet.

This group is not a law-making body and has no power to unilaterally criminalize anything.

Liberals are connected and politically powerful in Europe.

1John wrote:
Only those that support homosexuals are "free" to live their lives unharrassed by Gay activists.

Sorry, gay activists expressing an opinion or making use of the legal system does not in and of itself constitute harassment. This claim is nothing more than an abuse of words.

Like the invention of "homophobia" to criminalize morally sound people? Talk about abuse of words. The word "homosexual" isn't even two-hundred years old. But the actions date back thousands now don't they?

How about citizens who would like to be free of the harassment of anti-gay Christian activists, like the ones who have actually have helped to make gay marriage illegal in many states, and who are trying to do so in others, like Minnesota.

GAY MARRIAGE HAS NEVER BEEN LEGAL. I am not a college freshman easily tricked by sales pitches. The only thing morally sound people are doing is unfortunately fighting against the attack to invent a new marriage clasification!!!

Let's have a little honesty huh? Being pro-family is not homophobic or bigotry. Unfortunately it is a necessary fight against those that want to corrupt the family and marriage. Well, I take that back. being pro-family and pro-marriage is illegal now huh? It's "homphobia."

Criminalization means actual laws passed against the thing being criminalized.

And . . .? Christians are now "homophobes" preaching "hate crimes." Lot's neighbors are pounding on the Church doors even now.

It means these laws being enforced on a systematic basis. It means people actually being arrested, or denied rights that others are allowed to exercise, or being subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Ok here we go:

ISSUE AT STAKE IN GAY-ADOPTION FRACAS IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM By John Leo
Sun Mar 26, 8:30 PM ET

The controversy over gay adoptions in Massachusetts is an issue that can be framed two ways. In the conventional liberal narrative, this is a simple issue of bias: The Catholic Church must not be allowed to deny gay couples the right to adopt children. The other frame, generally absent from discussions so far, raises this question: Under what conditions can the state force churches and religious agencies to violate their own principles?

This question has come up again and again, as pressure on churches to accept dominant, secular norms has increased. This pressure includes laws requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive services and "morning after" pills to female employees, attempts to force religious hospitals to do abortions and provide abortion training, and the use of anti-racketeering laws to punish right-to-life demonstrators.

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, after 103 years of working for adoptions, will retire from those services this June rather than accept the state's mandate. Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has proposed a religious exemption for the church, pointing out that many other agencies approve adoptions by gay couples. The Boston Globe, as ardently anti-Catholic as ever, sternly reminded him that he is a "governor, not a bishop," which he probably already knew. The state legislature, believed to be three-quarters Catholic, has refused to grant an exemption, in large part out of fury over the church's nonchalant handling of the clerical sex scandals.

The Catholic Church is not of one mind on this issue. The Vatican and the state's four Catholic bishops are strongly opposed to Catholic approval of adoptions by gay couples. Many who work at Boston's Catholic Charities have been much more willing to grant them. Of the 42 members of the board, eight quit over the policy of opposing adoptions by gay couples.

Maybe the Catholic Church's position on adoptions will change. Maybe it won't. But why not consider a conscience exemption? No one is required to use a Catholic agency. Gay couples are not being denied a chance to adopt, merely a chance to adopt through a particular church.

Much of the reporting on the issue has featured stories of children who might be denied a home if gay applicants are rejected. But that is focusing on a pebble and not noticing the boulder nearby. Boston's Catholic Charities accounts for 31 percent of the state's special-needs adoptions, those children abused, neglected, disturbed or handicapped. A conscience clause would allow the church to keep shouldering that burden, all but 3 percent of the cost at its own expense.

More important, the state is in effect using its licensing power to bring the church to heel -- no gay adoption, no license to conduct adoptions in Massachusetts. Acting on traditional Catholic social principles -- that one father and one mother are best for children -- is defined as bias.

John Garvey, dean of the Boston College Law School, argues that the issue isn't whether the church or the state has the better of the debate over gay families; the issue is religious freedom. "When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right," he writes, any more than freedom of the press requires publishers to guarantee that everything they print is true. "Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life the society views with skepticism or distaste," he writes.

Anti-discrimination laws and regulations are used more and more to restrict religious freedom. On some campuses, evangelical groups have been de-recognized or otherwise punished for refusing to allow sexually active gays into leadership positions. A Swedish pastor was put on trial for a sermon criticizing homosexuality. And British author Lynette Burrows was contacted by police about a possible "homophobic incident" -- she had said in a radio interview that she didn't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

Some fear more drastic attempts to curb the churches. These might one day include Title VII provisions against gender bias to force the ordination of women priests and imams, or even moving to deny tax exemptions for churches that reject favored secular norms. Certain law professors want more regulation of sectarian groups, all for the common good, of course. It's best for the churches to be on guard.

Show me one person who has been arrested in the U.S. for simply being a Christian

Arrested? C'mon we're big boys. Still a little politics left to play before the Church is extinguished. The entire Catholic Charities in Massachusetts fleeing criminal prosecution for "discriminating" for believing in their religion, aught to do but I bet it won't.

Gay marriage is criminalized in many places.

You cannot outlaw something that has never been legal. Try that one on a sixteen year old.

It is not a Christian's fault that someone is "born homosexual." A path that they can veer from let us not forget. A person "born" with a speech impediment, seeks a cure. But to the Gay Agenda, those offering help to homosexuals are commiting a crime.

Christianity is not criminanlized in the U.S. or any country that includes religious freedom as one of its basic rights. This includes all western European countries as far as I am aware.

And I have just shown how you are in error.

[micatala]

Quote:
Christianity is not criminanlized in the U.S. or any country that includes religious freedom as one of its basic rights. This includes all western European countries as far as I am aware.

And I have just shown how you are in error.

With all due respect, you have not. You have not shown Christians have been criminalized simply for being Christian. You have again ignored the distinction between opposition and legal sanctions. You have presented the opinion as factual evidence for criminanlization, again.


However, your discussion of the situation in Massachusetts deserves response, because this actually does seem to be based in fact, unlike the rest of your post. Here, I think you may have somewhat of a point. However, let's be clear. The issue the state is trying to deal with is discrimination against gays. There is no effort or intent to criminalize a religion, only the behavior of a religious institution.

No matter how much you scream, this is not criminalizing the religion.

Now, should Massachusetts insist that the Catholic Church allow gays to adopt against their principles? I would agree that we should allow a religious exemption for this. We could discuss this on the thread devoted to religious exemptions. However, let's be clear, the law we are allowing them exemption from is not a criminalization of Christianity, but was enacted in order to respond to actual and real persecution of gay people. The effect on Christianity is tangential, and in no way keeps people from practicing their religion. You may not like it, but that is the actual truth, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.




You say gay marriage has never been legal. If memory serves, I think this depends a bit on where you live. I also note that many states are passing laws to make it illegal or perhaps we could say keep it illegal.

I will note that the public seems to be less willing to go along with these efforts than even two years ago. Here is an article including some poll results. Support for a gay marriage amendment has gone down among people over 65 from 58% to 33%. Support even among evangelicals has decreased from 65% to 56% over the last two years.

[1John2_26]

Christianity is not criminanlized in the U.S. or any country that includes religious freedom as one of its basic rights. This includes all western European countries as far as I am aware.

1John wrote:
And I have just shown how you are in error.

With all due respect, you have not. You have not shown Christians have been criminalized simply for being Christian.

Christians follow their religious mandates and Gays call it discrimination. They have created new laws criminalizing Christian belief. I have presented the facts and yet you deny. I am confident that the Gay Agenda will get more brazen the more people like you are tricked.

You have again ignored the distinction between opposition and legal sanctions.

"Laws" are what you call legal sanctions. As can be seen, the "laws" are in place to arrest Chrisians for teaching and preaching Biblical truth and practicing the same way they have since Christ ascended into heaven.

You have presented the opinion as factual evidence for criminanlization, again.

Like a lawyer presenting evidence. I am not alone in my "opinion." As can be seen from yet another article detailing the rise of Gay intolerance outlawing Christians.

However, your discussion of the situation in Massachusetts deserves response, because this actually does seem to be based in fact, unlike the rest of your post.

"Homophobia" a bizaare neologism to say the least, is now a crime in Europe. Certainly the Gays and Lesbians are acting like it.

Here, I think you may have somewhat of a point. However, let's be clear. The issue the state is trying to deal with is discrimination against gays.

Discrimination? Why does it always connote a bad thing? We discriminate against strangers when telling our child NOT to talk or interact with strangers. Is this too homophobia?

There is no effort or intent to criminalize a religion, only the behavior of a religious institution.

Spun like a liberal politician. It is illegal to believe homosexuality is wrong. Even though anatomy and physsiology backs that assertion up, Gays will not allow dissent from their Agenda of complete dominance. Christians have always preached and taught that homosexuality is deviant and evil behavior. No one can deny it is deviant behavior.

No matter how much you scream, this is not criminalizing the religion.

Your assertion does not counter the fact that Christians cannot live unobstructed lives anymore. Their behavior has been criminalized.

Now, should Massachusetts insist that the Catholic Church allow gays to adopt against their principles?

They did. The catholics did what a Christian should do. Shake the dust from their shoes. Too bad for the children sold into sexual debauchery. May God soon fix this. Yes, I know that is illegal to pray.

I would agree that we should allow a religious exemption for this. We could discuss this on the thread devoted to religious exemptions. However, let's be clear, the law we are allowing them exemption from is not a criminalization of Christianity, but was enacted in order to respond to actual and real persecution of gay people.

It was for the betterment of children. The peopel that think that is a crime against homosexuals are the ones that need to be watched. Children need mothers and fathers. It is a natural fact.

The effect on Christianity is tangential, and in no way keeps people from practicing their religion. You may not like it, but that is the actual truth, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

You have allowed good people to be vilified. I have no clue why.

You say gay marriage has never been legal. If memory serves, I think this depends a bit on where you live. I also note that many states are passing laws to make it illegal or perhaps we could say keep it illegal.

Protecting children and familes is not a crime against peopel that say they are not opposite sex attracted. Same-sex sex cannot produce children. Why the desire for them if not for political and ideological power? It is ominous to say the least.

I will note that the public seems to be less willing to go along with these efforts than even two years ago. Here is an article including some poll results. Support for a gay marriage amendment has gone down among people over 65 from 58% to 33%. Support even among evangelicals has decreased from 65% to 56% over the last two years.

"Poor pitiful me" works well with Americans until they find out they have been lied to. The Gay Agenda has a powerful force driving its success. People will see the real face sooner or later. Nero found that out.

Let's just watch the rise of Sodom as more and more Christians are further criminalized. If the bad is true in the Bible, then the good is true to. I will never follow King Bera's people, or give anything to evil causes.

[micatala]

It is illegal to believe homosexuality is wrong.

False. Show me one person who has suffered any kind of legal sanction only for believing homosexuality is wrong. You yourself are proof of the falsehood of this statement.

I have presented the facts and yet you deny.

False. I am only refusing to accept the opinions you present as fact. When you actually present facts, as you did with respect to the actions of the Massachusetts government, then we have something to discuss.

Gays will not allow dissent from their Agenda of complete dominance.

False. You yourself show that this is false. You have been dissenting against the gay agenda for some time and no one is stopping you.

Yes, I know that is illegal to pray.

False again. Do you really believe this? Have you ever been arrested for praying? Can you point to any person anywhere in the U.S. that has been arrested simply for praying?

Your assertion does not counter the fact that Christians cannot live unobstructed lives anymore. Their behavior has been criminalized.

False again. How are Christians lives any more obstructed than anyone else?

Show me the law that applies only to Christians and not to everyone.

If you can't do this, then you should really drop this ridiculous assertion that Christianity is being criminalized.

All of us have restrictions on how we can behave in a civilized society. We cannot murder. We are not allowed to commit violence on others. If we run a public business, we are not allowed to say 'whites can buy here but blacks are not allowed.'

Are you saying that expecting Christians to follow the law amounts to criminalizing Christianity? Are you suggesting that Christians should be exempt from the law? some laws? all laws?


I would humbly suggest that making numerous statements that people can clearly see are ridiculous or false is neither being an effective proponent for a point of view, nor protecting Christianity and Christians as you have claimed to be doing, nor furthering the reputation or goals of Christianity.

[micatala]

It was for the betterment of children. The peopel that think that is a crime against homosexuals are the ones that need to be watched. Children need mothers and fathers. It is a natural fact.

So are you proposing we make single parenting illegal?

Would it be better for a child to have no parents than a gay parent?

Is it OK for a person to be a single gay parent but not as part of a gay couple?

Can you actually prove with any valid statistical data, and not simply opinion asserted as fact, that children in the care of same-sex couples are worse off than single parents or parents of heterosexual couples?

I am all for supporting children and parents, and doing what we can as a society to see that children who do not have any parents get the care they need.

Same-sex sex cannot produce children. Why the desire for them if not for political and ideological power?

Perhaps same-sex people have the same desire for offspring that heterosexuals do? Who are you to say otherwise?

Perhaps they wish to help young people in need? Why do people decide to become foster parents? Why wouldn't a gay person have the same desire for the same reasons?

Perhaps they have a desire to nurture? Who are we who are not gay to say that gay people do or do not have such a desire?

You must understand that gay people, and many many people who are not gay, see the implied assumptions in your statements as extremely insulting. You seem to think that gay people are only interested in 'subverting society' or 'subverting Christianity' and that we should be inherently suspicous of them and assume all their motives are bad, self-serving, evil, and harmful.

Why would gay people or people in general not see this attitude as hateful, ignorant, and unfair? If a person made such statements about any other group of people, would others not observe that the person was being prejudiced and unfair in his or her judgments?

[McCulloch]

Christians follow their religious mandates and Gays call it discrimination. They have created new laws criminalizing Christian belief. I have presented the facts and yet you deny. I am confident that the Gay Agenda will get more brazen the more people like you are tricked.

Sorry I missed the evidence. Which statutes have been passed in which juristiction that criminalizes Christianity?

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Christians follow their religious mandates and Gays call it discrimination. They have created new laws criminalizing Christian belief. I have presented the facts and yet you deny. I am confident that the Gay Agenda will get more brazen the more people like you are tricked.

Sorry I missed the evidence. Which statutes have been passed in which juristiction that criminalizes Christianity?

Why did Catholic Charities in Massachusetts have to close up shop? Because they could not be Christians and keep the Gay laws from criminalizing there "behavior" of not placing children in the homes of homosexuals.

They were threatened with the law. The invented word for the crime is called "homophobia" and used in its place is "discrimination." 2000-years of noramlity and morality flushed away by the Gay Agenda.

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
It was for the betterment of children. The peopel that think that is a crime against homosexuals are the ones that need to be watched. Children need mothers and fathers. It is a natural fact.

So are you proposing we make single parenting illegal?

I wish I could preach to people about fathers taking care of their own children. That would be a hate crime to the Gay community.

Would it be better for a child to have no parents than a gay parent?

That is an oxymoron of incredible proportions. "Gay parent" is biologically impossible.

Is it OK for a person to be a single gay parent but not as part of a gay couple?

The Gay Agenda calls out that homosexuality is a pre-birth condition now termed "sexual orientation." Homosexuality does not result in offspring. The desire for offspring defines a person's sexual orientation as normal or, heterosexual. Sorry but those are just the scientific facts.

Can you actually prove with any valid statistical data, and not simply opinion asserted as fact, that children in the care of same-sex couples are worse off than single parents or parents of heterosexual couples?

Human nature is male-female parents. It is a "fact of nature." I believe that qualifies as not just an opinion as I know many medical doctors and scientists that would agree with my use of facts.

I am all for supporting children and parents, and doing what we can as a society to see that children who do not have any parents get the care they need.

Uhh, yeah. OK.

Quote:
Same-sex sex cannot produce children. Why the desire for them if not for political and ideological power?

Perhaps same-sex people have the same desire for offspring that heterosexuals do? Who are you to say otherwise?

A person that can read and understand English. The words in my science books. The Gays make the assertion that they "are born gay." I am just believing what they say. I guess I shouldn't. If they want children, then their sexual orientation is normal. Their "behavior" is deviant.

Perhaps they wish to help young people in need? Why do people decide to become foster parents? Why wouldn't a gay person have the same desire for the same reasons?

Wanting children is exclusively normality/heterosexual. Wanting to "influence" children . . . well that is on a lot of people's agenda. Now isn't it?

Perhaps they have a desire to nurture? Who are we who are not gay to say that gay people do or do not have such a desire?

Those children are the children of "other people." They have the right to have their children in the same kind of relationship that produced those children. That would be normal sexuality. Children are the product of normal sexuality. They deserve to be raised in it too.

You must understand that gay people, and many many people who are not gay, see the implied assumptions in your statements as extremely insulting. You seem to think that gay people are only interested in 'subverting society' or 'subverting Christianity' and that we should be inherently suspicous of them and assume all their motives are bad, self-serving, evil, and harmful.

I am very clear that not trusting sexual deviants is a good place to find your support for children. I see what the Gay Agenda has done so far and no, I do not trust it at all. They are not asking for tolerance, they are asking to be the sole voice of morality. That is wrong. Until they make overtures that people can "disapporove" of their deviant lifestyle and not be attacked as bigots and Nazi's, then no they should not be trusted. I believe the Supreme Court weighed in the same way in the Boy Scouts case.

Why would gay people or people in general not see this attitude as hateful, ignorant, and unfair?

They are the ones proclaiming deviant behavior be demanded to be accepted by every single person on earth. I cannot understand how they got so powerful. But then again, morality is no where to be seen except in a few Christian ministries for the most part.

If a person made such statements about any other group of people, would others not observe that the person was being prejudiced and unfair in his or her judgments?

You have to be joking????? This website does nothing but denigrate and insult Christians from one thread to another. If that was done to homosexuals that live a lifestyle of sexual promiscuity and perversion, this site would be shut down!!!! But how many live of life of sexual debauchery and perversion? My guess? Many. The sin of Sodom? Haughtiness. It is not possible that Sodom was a myth. This thread proves it was as real as the sun coming up tomorrow.

Gays are celebrated victims for reasons that cannot be justified. It has been forty-plus years scince gay life was seedy and unseemly. Gay Pride parades are sickening sex fests including children walking alongside ten-foot phalluses . . . and some people think that is cool. I'm sorry I will oppose the sexualization of children even if I am imprisoned by breaking gay laws.

It has happened before to Christians.

Homosexuals could have what they want without the word "marriage" which is and always has been immuntbly man-woman. BUT, they will not tolerate morality and decency, unless they have sole power to define it. That leaves 99% of society without a voice. Extremely interesting for us Biblical literalists to watch happening. The Bible of course being no myth.

[micatala]

Why did Catholic Charities in Massachusetts have to close up shop? Because they could not be Christians and keep the Gay laws from criminalizing there "behavior" of not placing children in the homes of homosexuals.

I think they were called the Berrigan brothers. They were Catholic and were arrested several times for things like pouring blood on military installations, breaking into missile areas and trying to 'beat the swords into plowshares.' Their Christian beliefs led them to believe that war was wrong, that our military build-up was wrong, and they responded by breaking the law. They were arrested.

Were they arrested for being Christian? Did they stop being Christian when they were arrested? Was this a criminalization of Christianity? Yes or no?


Many other people have been conscientious objectors to war because of their Christian beliefs. Some of these people were arrested, simply for refusing to register for the draft, or for refusing to report when drafted.

Does this represent a criminalization of Christianity? Yes or no?



For a time, I refused to pay my phone tax because it was mainly used for the Defense Department. Were my belief systems being criminalized because I had to pay taxes for a government activity I did not want to support, yes or no?

In the thread on Religious Exemptions, the bizarre example of a group in Canada who practiced nudity and arson as part of their religions was described. THese people were often rounded up for both of these activities. Was their religion being criminalized, yes or no?


The Catholic Charities were in no way prevented from being Christian. They disagreed with the law, and they made decision on a course of action. I would agree that it is unfortunate that they were put in this position, and I would prefer that they not have to comply with the law in Massachusetts. I would allow a 'religious exemption.'

But, the fact that MA was not willing to grant this exemption does not mean this is a criminalization of Christianity. IT does not meet the definition. They are still free to practice their religion, promote their beliefs, express their opinions.

Simply because a person or group refuses to comply with a law because of their religious beliefs does not mean the law constitutes a criminalization of the belief system, unless the law was enacted specifically against the belief system or only applies to people of that belief system.