[sinkspur]

Strikes me that your posts approving of the Supreme Court decision creating a "right to sodomy" comes pretty close to what the Vatican is talking about here.

No jail for homosexuals. No jail for heterosexual sodomites either, for that matter.

That's all I've ever advocated.

[Antoninus]

No jail for homosexuals. No jail for heterosexual sodomites either, for that matter. That's all I've ever advocated.

So you're ok with sodomy being illegal as long as no jail time is in order, right?

[ninenot]

Good evening, Deacon.

You can't get away with that little fillip--"no jail for homos or hetero sodomites.."

You see, once the civil law no longer reflects the natural law--the moral law--the civil law no longer stands as a teacher. Believe it or not, that's one of the functions of law--to teach.

You expressly stated that the law should be struck down, based on the "inequality" of prosecuting homos for actions taken by others.

A far more sensible position would be, of course, for you to advocate "equalizing" the law--that is, making heterosexual sodomy illegal, too.

But you chose to derogate from the extant law, derogating from the natural law.

That was your position, Deacon.