That California judge was a Reagan/Bush appointee. Don’t kid yourself, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the tyranny of progressivism is guaranteed. There is no recourse within the system, nor any viable chance of overthrowing the system. Our lot is to suffer until the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

“Now, many can agree or disagree with laws prohibiting sodomy or contraception or even abortion but the fact is that it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. Judges have declared all of these issues including life itself beyond your purview. Your opinion matters not even though you live in a republic.”

You miss the point - as usual: what you want is to push your particular set of morals (and disgusting they are too) onto the people via the legislature.  Progress means that we allow people to be who they are to the extent that society can function.  What this legislation recognises is that the USA is a country with a lot of very different peple in it, and no one group gets to inflict their (horrible) world view on the rest.

So you don’t have to engage in sodomy if you don’t want to (though history would suggest that most strident opponents usually do).  You don’t have to use contraception either.  Etc.

But really: if I want to, where do you get off telling me I can not do so?  Who are you to dictate this?  The arrogance is stunning.  But completely consistent with history.

As for the desire to push your particular flavour of religion into schools: could I propose you go and read your consistution understand both the letter and spirit of what your founding fathers wanted?  They clearly wanted no religion in state institutions.

If you want to change that - fine: but be honest about it.  Say you are aiming to change what they originally created.

Can you really not see that if you get your way, there will be a large population who would say exactly the same things in opposition. The lack of recourse to get their way etc.  Face it: this is how the world works.  The US invented the system just about.  And it is manifestly injust to inflict harsh moral codes on society via the courts or parliament.

Jimmy-boy,
This is going to be habit-forming if we keep it up.  There are some things you said that I agree with, but much more that I disagree with…surprise! :D

Point 1: Pushing morality on others.  This happens in society with or without legislation.  Something is socially acceptable or it isn’t, and social (not legislative) pressure changes from time to time.  Law, legislation, is simply a formalization of the rules of society.  As to the tyranny of the majority, that (unfortunately) is a very real result of a democracy.

But what “view” is being inflicted on others? The definition of marriage?  It’s got quite a few years under its belt.

And, keep in mind, this judicial action is equally guilty of forcing a view on people…more-so since the majority of the people clearly voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

Point 2: I agree with you that laws against sodomy or contraception are wrong-headed (assuming that’s your view), and I don’t have to use them.  I don’t really care (from a legal standpoint) what two people do together.  From a religious viewpoint I find such actions (contraception, sodomy) to be damaging to the people involved, but that’s a matter to be discussed with the individuals, not legislated and enforced by police.

Point 3. Religion in schools.  The letter and spirit of what the Founding Fathers wanted was to prevent the government from requiring membership in a particular religion (a la England, where the King/Queen must be Anglican)  Some FFs even envisioned individual religious States (Catholic Maryland, for example).  Furthermore, the Constitution limits the Federal Government, not the States (which have their own rules defined by their own Constitutions, under Amendment 10), nor the people (individuals).  There was never an intent to keep religion out of the government, merely a limit to prevent the federal government from forcing a particular religion on anyone (or making Church membership a requirement for serving in government above a certain level, or any other religion-based discriminatory practice that existed in European countries at the time).  So your assertion that the FFs wanted no religion in state institutions is completely wrong.

Point 4: Getting your way.  In any contention between two groups of people, there will be a winner and a loser.  The loser can always claim lack of recourse.  In a Democracy, the will of the majority wins.  Sure, we have additional protections (judicial review, we’re really a Representative Republic laced with Democracy, etc.) to protect the rights of the minority, but what rights are being protected in this case?  There is no right to have a state formally recognize your relationship status.  Declare whatever you want, the state doesn’t care except where it involved state legal areas.

My solution: Get rid of state recognition of any relationship, other than a filing of interdependence (or some other crazy name) that doesn’t pay attention to who is sleeping with whom, or gender, familial relationship, or anything else.  My wife had two aunts (sisters) who spent the last 30 years (or so) of their lives living together (both widows, both lived well past 90).  Why couldn’t they apply for something like this?  My sister-in-law currently lives with my family, and has for 9 months.  Why couldn’t she be included in our household for tax purposes or insurance reasons or anything else?  Best friends who have shared an apartment for 10 years could do likewise.  Let the state recognize the relationship as a mutually beneficial arrangement and agreement between the people involved, including trust and shared ownership of certain things, without trying to figure out who is romantically involved with whom.  What the individuals do together is their private concern, not the government’s.  But don’t force the redefinition of a word on the world.  Are we to become France, with a government agency responsible for the purity of the language?  Forcing language is Orwellian.

Siekierski,

SO well said.

I just want to add that the suggestion in “My solution” above is not ideal.  I would much prefer committed Catholic marriages (yes, everyone Catholic, and all husbands and wives faithful to their marriages), but I put forth the above solution as one that makes the most sense (to me) from a government standpoint.  Standard boilerplate language can be developed to account for different levels of interdependency, with one set equating to the current government understanding of “marriage”, another for long term roommates, another for codependent elderly.  Customization can be done if desired.

Jimmy-boy,

If I wish to beat my children with a belt, who are you to push your ideas of child-rearing on me?  If I decided to skin kittens alive in my front yard for pleasure, who are you to push your views on animal welfare on me?

Is this the world you wish to live in?

Where does Jesus say that he’s against human rights?  Your anti gay position, denying them civil rights and saying they are sick, sinful, or both, is anti-Christian.

You can basically get support or deny support to every position you cherry pick from the bible.  That’s why I chose “Love thy neighbour as thyself.

The neaderthal positions of much of the Catholic church will cause it’s demise.  And the way that the church has been behaving, I can’t say that would be a bad thing.

The new message that Jesus brought was one of love.  Not one of strict rules.  The contradictions of the positions in the Catholic Church are what drove me from religion and towards a rich spiritual life.  I once had a Catholic priest say to me (about 45 years ago).  You’re really a Christian - that could get you in trouble with the Catholic Church, you know.  Prophetic!

Sandra,
I do love my neighbor as myself that is why I try my best to teach them how to use their body in the way the Creator meant it to be.
Jesus message indeed was of love. But it is love with discipline – not a freedom to do what you want! See Matthew 5:17-20.
Just like you, I feel I live a rich spiritual life since I started deepening my understanding of my Catholic faith through Bible study and reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But there is still a lot to learn and discover and share – and wonders to find every step of the way.
God Bless.

The judge, being same sex attracted, should have recused himself from the proceedings. He did not. Nor will Elena Kagan, who will argue for this “right.”
Do I continue to vote only to see bad law enshrined and good law overturned by judges with an agenda? I voted for Proposition 8. Money was spent to support this proposition. The voters, in majority, voted for it. But, our votes are meaningless. Nullified by activist judges, our votes mean nothing.
Keep it up, and no one but evil people will bother to vote anymore. The good people, being frustrated, will realize that they have no say in this representative democracy. We are represented by fools.

Zen,

Teach away - just don’t force what you believe on other people.  I don’t believe in abortion and had five children in six years.  But I would never dream to believe that have moral superiority over someone who makes different choices.

How society is bettered by women being forced to have unwanted children is beyond me. 

And don’t talk to me about providing fostering for women who are unable to care for their children.  When I was a social worker, I requested to speak to the local “Pro Life” organization.  It was well advertised that I would be speaking to the need of foster homes.  One woman showed up, and only because she needed a break because she had more children of her own than she could cope with and this was the only way her husband would baby sit so she could go out. 

And men who are so concerned about abortion should cease having unprotected sex, unless they are prepared to take responsibility, financially, emotionally, and in every other way for every sex act they perform if it results in a child.  Until men are prepared to take equal responsibilty for children, they need to butt out of the debate!

Margie,
And by your logic, opposite sex attracted judges should excuse themselves from cases involving this issue also.

And we don’t know what Elena Kagan’s sexual preference is, so let’s not make prejudiced assumption.

Read the judgment!  It’s probably one of the best ever written.  It’s fair, constitutionally founded and dispels the prejudices of those who would impose their values on others. 

Some of the most outspoken anti gay marriage proponents are closeted gays.  Because of the hatred of gays that this society supports, rather than come out and fight for their rights, some chose to go the anti gay route, just to make sure they can pass as straight.  Sad but true.  Remember the guy who went travelling with a rent boy and then claimed he was brought along to carry his luggage?  He has been raving against gay marriage.  Guess he’d rather pay for sexual services instead of having a loving relationship with another human being.

Sandra thinks that forcing one’s moralson others is wrong Agreed,but one has freedom to express his/her beliefs and their goodness to others.  The Catholic Church has its own sexualmoral teachings and it insists its members to adhere to them Is it force ? If freedom of sex is permitted in the scale the modern secularists want,then there will be chaos andincrease in the number of !@#$%,illness,infidelity etc Are we to encourage it which will kill the present civilization ?

Hi Matthew: good to see you here!

So we aren’t so far from each other on this one…however: the key difference between what us I think is that I want legislation to intervene where people might otherwise get hurt - and would therefore have a fairly strong view on where legislation should stop. 

The silly question above about why I have the right to stop someone skinning their kittens or beating their children with a belt makes the point beautifully:  I want, and will accept for me, legislation that stops me from hurting other people.  Of course you can get into arguments like: but me being gay harms society.  But surely we can insist that those arguments be evidence based?  And as they aren’t, we can throw them away?  (We’d ban TV for kids if we believed in arguments like that and we are in Iran if we get into that).  The comment above is a good example of this:

” If freedom of sex is permitted in the scale the modern secularists want,then there will be chaos andincrease in the number of !@#$%,illness,infidelity etc Are we to encourage it which will kill the present civilization ? “

Well…says who?  Sexual freedom with cause illness, infidelity and will kill the present civilisation?  Big statements to make with not a shred of evidence!

What we are getting into on this is a group with a very highly defined morality about all sorts of things that hurt no one at all (we can exclude the life issues here as clearly they fit into a different discussion), wanting to inflict those views on people who do not need to have these things inflicted on them, nor want them of course.  But then - clearly: you get that I think.

I believe a challenge to Catholics would be for them to pray for their neighbours to adopt the ‘correct’ morality and stop trying to force them through legislation.  The beauty of this is that it hurts no one (in fact it will have absolutely no impact at all!), and gives you a potential chance to demonstrate your god’s power.  How about that as a compromise?

We’ll just have to disagree on our interpretations of your constitution!

“But, our votes are meaningless. Nullified by activist judges, our votes mean nothing.
Keep it up, and no one but evil people will bother to vote anymore. The good people, being frustrated, will realize that they have no say in this representative democracy. We are represented by fools. “

So let me just understand: are the judges activist because they don’t do what the voters want?  Or because they don’t do what you want (I suspect).  You’ve missed the point of the judge’s job: it is to try to interpret the law and in this case, the constitution.  It has not a lot to do with voters wishes.  And fortunately not.  In the past, the voters have wanted some pretty horrible things, that even you with your ‘evil’ morality would find difficult to stomach perhaps.

On the ‘evil’ thing: are people evil if they disagree with you and your specific flavour of religion?  Or…?  It’s a big word evil.  There is though, quite a case to be made for its use to describe people (and institutions) that would oppress minorities without batting an eyelid.

Matthew:  just to be picky !

“But what “view” is being inflicted on others? The definition of marriage?  It’s got quite a few years under its belt.”

So did flat earthism… :)  So did the various inquisitions.  So does Islam.  It doesn’t mean they can’t change or be rejected.  Right?

There is validity to the request in 2010 for couples to be treated the same whatever their gender.  After all, no one is asking anyone else to be in a relationship they don’t like.  All they are asking is to share the name ‘marriage’.  There are lots of reasons for this of course - and it’s old ground.  Saying: you can’t have the name because we define it this way is one thing. 

As this generally goes along with ‘and you are sick, evil, immoral, going to hell’ etc we understand the real motivation.  It’s mostly not to do with the convention being redefined (and I agree that at some level it is - though I have no problems with it personally, and I am happily married with two kids): I think it’s more often to do with the fact that those in opposition don’t like homosexuality.

We have a friend staying with us right now.  She is just separating from a Catholic, who after 13 years and 3 kids, has finally cracked and admitted to himself he is gay.  If only he had been realistic with himself way back when this situation would never have happened - with all the trauma now being inflicted on so many.  But he couldn’t because he is a Catholic and thought he would go to hell if he was honest about his identity.  (Yes - I know that is not the catechism, but it is the reality of how the situation is interpreted very often by clergy and people: see the vitriol being thrown at homosexuals in the US right now, by some/many Catholics if you like).

You surely cannot really believe that your god would create people homosexual and then condemn them for being so or alternatively, demand that they remain celibate for life?  What kind of god do you believe in, if so?  Pretty old testament!

Affirming someone in their sin is sin also.

Jesus said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

There is no evidence that “homosexuality” is inherent. Defining oneself or others as a sexual object is demeaning. We are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. Only in a complementary relationship can two become one body, one spirit, in Love.

Jimmy-boy,
The difference between flat-earthism and marriage is that one is a belief about the physical world (scientifically testable) while the other is a social construct (I use that term for your benefit…my personal belief is that marriage was defined by God when he created…however he did it…man and woman).  As a social construct, marriage is defined by society, not science or legislation or an individual judge.

The Inquisitions were, at times, overzealously implemented by faulty humans, and (in part) have been blown out of proportion as to their extent.  Some of the events labeled as “Inquisition-related” were actually done by Protestants, for example, but the numbers are lumped together under the Inquisition (like “witches” burned at the stake).  That doesn’t excuse what was wrongly done in the name of the Church.  Nor does it really apply to this discussion.

Islam is a religion, and as such has it’s own set of societal rules.

Any two people can claim to be married, but the demand is that the government recognizes their relationship in an official way, and through that force society to recognize the relationship as normalized.  I don’t care what kind of relationship people are in (other than how it impacts their eternal souls, which I wouldn’t legislate).  Government is not society, although it frequently codifies societal mores.  Under our democratic system, that means that the society sets the codes, not the government…bottom-up, not top-down, societal codification.

You surely cannot really believe that your god would create people homosexual and then condemn them for being so or alternatively, demand that they remain celibate for life?
Not the way you’re thinking, no.  However, I also don’t believe that God created people to be alcoholic, or have serious genetic diseases.  Yet these things exist, like same sex attraction or a predisposition to infidelity or attraction to children or a lack of care about the lives of others (e.g., serial murderers) or masochism or sadism or any other abnormality (disorder).  I do believe that we are all called to chastity.  For a married couple that means fidelity, while for a single person (with any type of attraction) it means celibacy.  Will people be perfect in their attempts to live up to this standard?  Of course not, we’re human and make mistakes.

Metaphysically, I believe that God created us to be perfect but, through Original Sin, our human nature was corrupted.  This doesn’t really have much to do, though, with what we do now, it’s just the root cause.  We have to deal with how we, as imperfect humans, act now.

Currently there is no scientific basis for determining a “cause” for sexual attraction of any sort.  With something like psychology, there’s a limit to how much empirical evidence can be gathered in a scientific method.  Anecdotal evidence points to multiple causes (predisposition, environment).  My personal opinion is that same sex attraction (and others in what used to be in the “sexual deviancy” section of the DSM) is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain which may be influenced by genetics (therefore a genetic disorder, much like my daughters’ possible genetic disorders) and/or caused by environment (relationship with parents, other outside influences).  If genetic in nature, it should be treated like alcoholism or other addictive personality types.  If environmental in nature, it should be treated psychologically.  In neither case should it be normalized, any more than pedophilia or alcoholism should be normalized.

While I think it wrong to make it illegal to engage in homosexual practices, I think it equally wrong to force society to accept as moral something which a majority of the people in the society see as immoral.

We have a mixed society here in the US.  There is the generic US society, governed by laws, and contained within that society are a whole bunch of subsets that contain their own rules and regulations.  The overall generic society is a combination of all of the subsets, and should remain limited in how it impacts the subsets.

I have one question.  Where are my rights? I do not want my children to be told that homsexuality is in any way to be engaged in or encouraged.  Schools all over are wanting to start telling kindergartners that they can grow up and fall in love with a person of the same sex.  That is completely against my rights as a parent to raise my child with my beliefs.  With same-sex marriage being forced on us, my rights will be completely disregarded.  I am sickened by this.

I fear the loss of heaven and the fires of hell more than I fear anything the government will take from me here on earth if I do not comply with their forced normalization of a perverse use of the Holy Spirits temple, the human body.  Jesus, I trust you.

Nancy D. “There is no evidence that “homosexuality” is inherent”

There is actually.  Clear genetic evidence.  Go and look it up.  It is a complicated business - but there is a definite genetic link for some homosexuals.  That is called evidence.

But that is irrelevant.  If this is who people are - either acquired or born - it is who they are.  It is not the onyl thing about them, as you appear to be accusing me of suggesting: but sexual identity is quite important to most of us who have not spent our lives trying to supress it.  And these people have a right not to be judged by anti-science religious folks.  If they say that they are gay, who are you to say otherwise, or to say that they can be healed or…?

“Only in a complementary relationship can two become one body, one spirit, in Love. ” 

Says you.  But not me. And not most homosexuals. Do they have to just live under the tyrrany of your pre-historic views?

Ellen: “I have one question.  Where are my rights?”  They are very much intact, until you ewant your rights to extend to telling other people what they can do in the privacy of their homes, or dictate the name and state of the relationship which they, consenting adults, might choose to have.  Then you have no rights.

I would also point out that if you choose to use your rights to teach your child that a load of bronze age mythology is actually true, that is child abuse, pure and simple. If you choose to teach your child bigotry, that is child abuse.  But then…Catholics and child abuse… So I’d not go as far as some and say you have no right to abuse your children.  Clearly I don’t want the likes of you folks getting anywhere near my children (and I got some lengths to make sure you don’t), and I therefore I respect your “rights” in the same manner (sick though I think the exercise of them is).  But what I teach my kids is that they should believe that for which there is evidence – and make their minds up on the other stuff, freely as adults.

The way we bring up our kids is in no way equivalent therefore.  So you want to talk about rights?  I believe you are stamping all over the rights of your kids to grow up without being exposed to bigotry and prejudice.

And I am sickened by this also.  But differently from you.  Which sickness is more valid?

“With same-sex marriage being forced on us”

No one is forcing you into a same sex marriage. No one is forcing you to associate with gay people.  No one is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do. They are giving some long needed recognition to a group of people that you and your like have oppressed for centuries.  You – on the other hand – are forcing, via the ballot box, your disgusting views on minorities.  And these are minorities who do you absolutely no harm whatsoever.

Matthew bear with me again…I’ll read your post in a second…but mnaybe respond later: there is a tide to be caught along with a few sea bass!

Jimmy-boy (name says it all)
By allowing homosexual “marriage”, you are forcing me to accept what I do not accept.  They are not a group of people, like blacks or hispanics, they are a group of people who have CHOSEN to act in a perverted, unnatural way.  Do you really believe that someone who is black can change their race just by acting white?  Homosexuals are only homosexuals when they CHOOSE to engage in homosexual activity.  You have been brainwashed by the homosexual community and you don’t even know it.  I feel very sorry for you.

Ellen - you are a bit embarrassing in your ranting but anyway…

“By allowing homosexual “marriage”, you are forcing me to accept what I do not accept.”

Really – you could not have got it more wrong if you tried.  No one is forcing you to accept anything at all.  You can continue to ‘not accept it’.  Yiu can continue to spout your hate speech on the internet (with the terrible hurt it would do to many were they to encounter it: I have several gay friends who have been desperately hurt by the bigotry spouted at them by Catholics).

However it is obviously unreasonable for you to foist your views on other people which is what you want.  But you can continue to assert that marriage is whatever it is you want to assert it to be.  You can believe it, say it, even teach it to your own children if you must: it’s just unreasonable that you inflict your horrible views on the people who it actually affects – namely the gay people who want equal recognition and status in their relationships.  I really cannot understand why you care?  It does not affect you in any way at all – other than in your Catholic role as moral arbiter for the world.  That is a role which is really not welcome outside your fairly narrow circle.

What you are asking for, is not just that you be allowed to hold and express these views (and they are truly repugnant in their medieval ignorance – and cause real damage to hurt people by the way) but be allowed to force others to have to live by them, as codified into law!  Now that is way out of line.

“they are a group of people who have CHOSEN to act in a perverted, unnatural way”

Do you actually know any homosexuals, Ellen?  There is clear scientific evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality.  Which means that these people have chosen to be homosexual just as much as you have chosen to be a woman.  And quite unlike the way you have chosen to be religious, in contrast.

I have a friend right now who is, after 13 years of marriage and 3 children, going through a horrendous separation and divorce, because finally his wife has made him admit he is gay.  It is the very last thing he wants.  But it is true.  Were he not a Catholic, it’s probable that he would never have got married in the first place (he knew he was gay as a teen) – because he would have been able to be honest about what he is way back when.  Right now he is faced with the impossible: he is gay, desperately does not want to be – and has his life collapsing around him while the realities of that now crystalise.  And you think he has chosen to be gay?  He has never wanted to be gay.

So yes – I think that your attempt to trap me is in fact a reasonable comparison: being gay is, in the sense you suggested (and that sense alone), just like being black.  You cannot change either just by willing it. 

Ranting about it, and using language like “perverted”, and “unnatural” (whatever that might mean) does not change reality.  You may not like it.  But unfortunately if holding these views is important to you – this is how it is.

“You have been brainwashed by the homosexual community and you don’t even know it. “

The accusation of brain washing from a Catholic (and especially one producing your sick and bigoted arguments) is truly ironic. And you may indeed feel sorry for me.  But it doesn’t change what is scientifically true and what isn’t.

Here’s a proposition: social progress occurs against the wishes of the RCC.  Eventually they catch up and realise that in fact, they look outdated and evil in their repressive views. And then they change their minds.  I predict that this will happen with homosexuality in the RCC (if it survives for long enough for that to happen of course).  It’s possible…

Could you spell out what is wrong with my name by the way?  That particular dig really was beyond me!

Hi Matthew – I’m there now: it’s much quicker to answer the likes of Ellen than you (who causes me almost no need for reflection whatsoever: how can anyone get to being so angry about a group who offer no threat whatsoever!?!).  Anyway…your arguments are well constructed – but I still disagree (perhaps predictably?).

“The difference between flat-earthism and marriage is that one is a belief about the physical world (scientifically testable) while the other is a social construct (I use that term for your benefit…my personal belief is that marriage was defined by God when he created…however he did it…man and woman).  As a social construct, marriage is defined by society, not science or legislation or an individual judge.”

I agree with you:  this is true in a fairly narrow sense – but the point I was trying to make is about the potential for ideas to change – and also to note that long history means nothing (as I think you knew really!).  I could have used any piece of morality or social codification that has changed – and it might have been less open to criticism?  Of course the idea of marriage is a social construct.  Unfortunately it has come to hold some fairly important social and even monetary advantages (I recognise the relatively liberal views you espoused on that subject previously: I can absolutely live with that.  You believe what you want to. I believe what I want to. We do not codify things that hurt people.  So I’d definitely got with removing state recognition of marriage. Seems eminently sensible to me!).

“The Inquisitions were, at times, overzealously implemented by faulty humans, and (in part) have been blown out of proportion as to their extent.  Some of the events labeled as “Inquisition-related” were actually done by Protestants, for example, but the numbers are lumped together under the Inquisition (like “witches” burned at the stake).  That doesn’t excuse what was wrongly done in the name of the Church.  Nor does it really apply to this discussion.”

I love this line…the fact that others did some horrible things too, which have perhaps on occasion been wrongly ascribed to inquisitors, really should not give Catholics any moment for comfort or defence.  We can find weasely words to exclude the bits of inaccuracy if you like: but fundamentally, let’s face the reality that numbers of people were tortured and killed in several countries after being accused of not believing the right thing, following farcical trials, on the direct orders of the RCC hierarchy.  This was not some faulty humans, any more than the current scandals can all be put to down to some faulty humans.  The RCC, as an institution, was absolutely at the heart of both the inquisition and your more recent troubles – as a matter of policy.

The argument I usually get is about the inquisition is: you have to understand the context. I don’t believe that there is any context in which that is OK – or ever was.  If there were only one person this happened to, it would still have been appalling.  Given that undeniably it occurred to lots of people, over a fair amount of time, in lots of places, organised by an official body of the church is clearly true as well.  Getting into arguments about scale smacks of avoidance (and historic revisionism too in fact).

“Islam is a religion, and as such has it’s own set of societal rules.”

Well OK – true. And?  My point was – it has long history, but presumably you reject it?

“Government is not society, although it frequently codifies societal mores.  Under our democratic system, that means that the society sets the codes, not the government…bottom-up, not top-down, societal codification. “

Well right!  And I am suggesting that the historic inequality on this subject has caused real suffering.  And that the people perpetrating this hurt do not recognise it – or do not care (because they thing that it is just collateral damage to a different set of values).

Well – I am with you then.  Either we have marriage available for all people attempting permanent relationships.  Or we have it for none.  Perhaps we need new terms: ‘Christian marriage’?  Or ’Hetero-sexual marriage’.  Or?  All that is being argued is that the reasons presented for differentiating between straight and gay marriage are a bit medieval (and have real world impact on gay people, and next to none on the antis) and really…we could just move on?

There is no arguing with your points about original sin: obviously those arguments are I believe a priori, in that they take some pretty big assumptions before they start.  Like: original sin exists.  Like – god exists.  Of course, once taken, you could make these constructs.  I would also note though that many who do take these assumption do not come to the same hurtful conclusions (you compare being homosexual to a disease).  I would note a very big, even fundamental difference, between your examples and homosexuality.  Paedophilia and alcoholism have proper real world damaging implications for other people.  I don’t need to expand.  Homosexuality has none.

So: while I cannot attack a priori arguments, I think it is reasonable to insist that those who then develop them into deeply hurtful theology, understand the hurt that they inflict on people of good will. I think you must be ever mindful that this is the collateral damage, if you like, in a very real world sense, of those views.  Good people will be hurt by the expression of, and potentially legislative implementation of these views.  Are you ready for that?  Can you see it?  As a Christian, I never did…I was deeply ashamed of myself (and will remain so) when I eventually realised how hurtful my views were to people I had no intention of hurting.

It was easy to spout theology.  It is much harder to face up to how that was offensive and hurtful.

Jimmy-boy,
Anyway…your arguments are well constructed – but I still disagree (perhaps predictably?).
Color me shocked ;)
?…the point I was trying to make is about the potential for ideas to change – and also to note that long history means nothing (as I think you knew really!).
Yes, ideas frequently change over time.  Social constructs change over time, much like anything else, but that change comes most frequently, and with less conflict, through natural evolution of thought and not from judicial (or legislative) forced redefinition.  Look at the damage done to marriage from no-fault divorce.  Since that went was implemented, society (meaning people in general) no longer looks down on those who are divorced.  This happened not through legislation to change people’s beliefs about marriage, but through a natural change in general acceptance by average people.  (I don’t think this is a god thing, and I’m certain this has done more damage to the institution of marriage than state-recognized homosexual unions would, by the way.)  Many people enter marriage with the thought of “oh well, if it doesn’t work we can just get a divorce”, with the knowledge that it’s no big deal (e.g., no social ostracizing).  It’s sometimes called a starter marriage.

I could have used any piece of morality or social codification that has changed – and it might have been less open to criticism?
Probably, depending on how the change occurred.  If it was a natural progression in the changing of society, it would be a poor analogy.

Unfortunately it has come to hold some fairly important social and even monetary advantages
I’m not sure what social advantages are there, but the marriage benefits are a mixed bag.
?
I love this line…the fact that others did some horrible things too, which have perhaps on occasion been wrongly ascribed to inquisitors, really should not give Catholics any moment for comfort or defense.
It’s not a defense.

We can find weasely words to exclude the bits of inaccuracy if you like: but fundamentally, let’s face the reality that numbers of people were tortured and killed in several countries after being accused of not believing the right thing, following farcical trials, on the direct orders of the RCC hierarchy.
That is a common failing of any governing authority.

This was not some faulty humans, any more than the current scandals can all be put to down to some faulty humans.  The RCC, as an institution, was absolutely at the heart of both the inquisition and your more recent troubles – as a matter of policy.
But it was faulty humans, making bad decisions that weren’t in keeping with the teachings of the Church.
?The argument I usually get is about the inquisition is: you have to understand the context. I don’t believe that there is any context in which that is OK – or ever was. 
I agree with you. 

If there were only one person this happened to, it would still have been appalling.  Given that undeniably it occurred to lots of people, over a fair amount of time, in lots of places, organised by an official body of the church is clearly true as well.  Getting into arguments about scale smacks of avoidance (and historic revisionism too in fact).
I would argue that continuing to flog the Church today for events that happened 200-700 years ago is equivalent to holding current Mongolians accountable for the atrocities of Genghis Kahn.  Sins of the great-great grandfather…
?Well OK – true. And?  My point was – it has long history, but presumably you reject it?
I do reject Islam. And I don’t want a judge to rule that it is illegal for people to hold the opinion that Islam is false, nor to say that I must accept that Islam is the same as Catholicism.
?There is no arguing with your points about original sin: obviously those arguments are I believe a priori, in that they take some pretty big assumptions before they start.  Like: original sin exists.  Like – god exists.  Of course, once taken, you could make these constructs.
Which is why I noted that it was not important to the discussion, other than to answer why God would allow such things as genetic defects.

I would also note though that many who do take these assumption do not come to the same hurtful conclusions (you compare being homosexual to a disease).
I’m not comparing being homosexual to a disease.  I’m comparing having same sex attraction to having an addictive personality, and engaging in homosexual acts to using recreational drugs.

I would note a very big, even fundamental difference, between your examples and homosexuality.  Paedophilia and alcoholism have proper real world damaging implications for other people.  I don’t need to expand.  Homosexuality has none.
I disagree with the assessment that acting on same sex attraction harms nobody, but regardless, I’m not concerned only about the impact on other people, but on the person with the disorder.  A bachelor alcoholic orphan with no car is still harming himself, and I would not affirm his choice to be a drunkard.
?I think it is reasonable to insist that those who then develop them into deeply hurtful theology, understand the hurt that they inflict on people of good will.
Like those who think that Catholics having a moral standard that prohibits their personal proclivities somehow makes the Catholic Church an institution of bigotry?

Good people will be hurt by the expression of, and potentially legislative implementation of these views.
We have freedom of expression here in the US.  If I say that people who get drunk and sleep around (that covers a lot of people, doesn’t it?) are moral cesspools, it’s my right to say.  If that hurts the feelings of someone else, then tough.  Why should my opinion matter?  Either they think I might be right, or they care too much about being liked by everyone.
Legislatively, should a judge force me to accept that a drugged-up hooker is morally equivalent to Mother Teresa?
?It was easy to spout theology.  It is much harder to face up to how that was offensive and hurtful.
People who are hurt by theological evaluations of the morality of their behavior need to grow up.  They’re being children who demand that everyone like them and accept them how they are.  Sorry, but Jesus didn’t exactly do that (no matter how much people want to claim that he did).  Instead he rebuked sinners and told them to stop it.  As a parent, I tell my children to stop doing things that are bad for them, physically or spiritually, even if it makes them sad.