Cheers,
T.

That said I’m an atheist, but I have the most intellectual respect for the literalists. At least their consistent.

Catholicism is just the right version of Christianity to make people atheists, I keep observing this all the time. It’s a shame.

Oh, I am a heterosexual Christian woman with lots of gay friends. What’s the big deal about homosexuality? I don’t recognize Leviticus as an authorityl.

Cheers,
T.

Leviticus 20:10, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”

Leviticus 20:27, “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.”

Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.”

or again

Leviticus 3:17, “This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.”

and

Deuteronomy 23:17, “If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you for six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free.”

When the catholic hierarchy will not object to death penalty for adultery, wizardry or blasphemy, will forbid to eat fat or blood and accept legalization of slavery (provided the slave is freed after six years), I will acknowledge them as coherent fools rather than incoherent ones.

almidda, you said it right, the laws and the spirit of the Bible. Of course it is impossible to respect literally all Bible’s prescriptions, since many are conflicting. No existing Christian confession is advocating that. They all rely on some degree of interpretation. And many are indeed possible. My personal impression is that the spirit of the New Testament, to which I was referring, is definitely in contradiction with death penalty for homosexuals. But I may be wrong. As I said, I’m not a believer.

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone.

Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Deuteronomy 23:17, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Unfortunately, the Vatican’s comment is more than realistic. We live in a world of reverse Inquisition and upside-down witch hunts. Whoever is not excited by fags having fun paid by the government is placed in a pillory and subjected to pressure.

He could have maintained that homosexuals have a personal right not to be penally prosecuted because of their sexual behaviour (b), while the right to homosexual marriage would fall in case a), or even, it should not be allowed as a matter of principle. Note that the French proposition is indeed about the first issue, and not the second. This would have been a coherent choice, and in line with the official position of the catholic church.

But he has chosen to oppose the proposal in order not to provide any potential leverage to supporters of gay marriage.

By doing so, Vatican effectively said: “we are willing to let people suffer and die for no justified reason (death penalty for homosexual behaviour still exists in many countries) rather than risk to loose just an inch of ground in the gay marriage controversy”.

How they can reconcile this with Christ’s teachings just beats me.
I would be even more upset if I were a believer.

If instead we are talking about personal rights (b), then they cannot be left to the vagaries of the voters, and must be set by Constitutional/Supreme Courts.

But if (a) is valid, so the Catholic Church is free to state whatever they think. What is the meaning in reprimanding them for speaking out clearly? Or for having an opinion?

Of course if (b) is valid (and that’s the way France is handling the situation at the moment) then Prop8 and the opinion of the Catholic Church are (or should be) inconsequential. Migliore’s remarks make therefore perfect sense, from his point of view.

Obama is mixed on it — politically, he can’t openly back gay marriage, but he is very supportive of totally equivalent civil unions, and *does* take the chance to speak in support of gays whenever and wherever he is able — e.g. even in his election night speech, he did explicitly mentioned LGBT folks in his describing the inclusive American society he envisions. This to me is a good sign of where things will move in the coming future..