Re: How Should We Respond to Homo***uality?

>>>>While I don't deny the words of Scripture nor the Church Fathers on
>>>>the subject, I never did understand why many seemed so inordinately
>>>>disgusted by this particular sin and so tolerant of other ***ual
>>>>sins.  As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures consider homo***ual
                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>*** to be simply one of many forms of fornication, no worse than
>>>>others.
>
>>> I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
>
>>Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not
>>base their theology on Canon Law.
>
> You just couldn't come up with a response that makes sense, could you?

Well it makes perfect sense.  The writer above said "scripture".
You state Canon Law as if every Christian accept it.  Most of the
Christians 
in the USA do not.

>>Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
>>home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".
>
> I can't imagine why you would believe this. It is just another false
> generalization.

No it's quite true.  The sins we are more forgiving of are the ones that
hit 
home.

>>I assume that homo***uality was thought at the time to be affecting
>>only a few perverts on the edge of society.
>
> But this is a _bad_ assumption.

No, it is not.  Since there was no indication of the existance of 
responsible, charitable, humble, loving and dedicated homo***uals at the 
time...we can assume the "assumptition" is true.

>>The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than
>>the sins of others.
>
> And here is another.
>
>>i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any
>>surprise that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be
>>stoned to death?
>
> You just had to dig yourself deeper into confusion, didn't you? We
> were not _talking_ about the Mosaic Law. But it is the Mosaic Law, not
> Canon Law, that called for her to be "stoned to death".

No confusion....we are talking about Scripture.

>>What happens to to the man involved?  I guess the writers of the law had
>>much more understanding for him.....than her.
>
> Then you guess wrong -- again.

No, I was correct, there is no death penalty for the man.

> But for the sin _you_ are in favor of, the penalty is a much longer
> period of excommunication. That makes it clear which is regarded as
> the more serious, incurable sin.

I am not a Catholic, so excommunication from "Rome" doesn't have any
effect 
for me.

My faith is in Christ alone.