Catholic homosexuals

Originally Posted by MK27

I wasn't try to argue about what you believe. I was taking issue with what you literally wrote:


The part in bold is false. Biologism is not a factor in constitutional debates. It is not relevant to the debate at all -- as you point out, it is only of interest to people who are predisposed to consider homosexuality wrong or immoral or potentially illegal. They are looking for evidence that it is not biological.* That may/may not mean there is "less basis" in terms of meandering public support, but not at all that it has "less basis" in the constitution. The constitution protects all kinds of individual rights and freedoms that have nothing at all to do with whether those freedoms are genetically inherited or can be justified as "biological". I doubt there are ANY (right, left, center) judges or politicians that will want to make "scientific biologism" of this sort an element of the constitution -- you might as well throw the whole thing away.

I hope this clears things up for you

*which is not something that could be currently proven anyway. The most you could do is prove that it is genetic, you cannot prove that it is not.

There are virtually no classes of people that are allowed to be discriminated against based on something that is not their choice. Other than homosexuals, can you think of any obvious examples? It is pretty close to an open and shut case if choice is not involved.

If choice is involved, as in your example of religion, then it is not so simple. We allow a restaurant to bar people who choose not to wear a shirt. We allow the government to levy stiffer taxes on people who choose to smoke cigarettes. We ban people from using drugs. All of these things are choices that are restricted by laws that have not been overturned.

So yes, the constitutionality of gay marriage bans is a much murkier question if homosexuality was merely a behavior. That doesn't make the gay marriage bans proper, and is not an argument to vote for them, it is just a comment on what can and cannot be left to the will of the people based on our constitution and judicial precedent.

* Science does not "prove" things, it only provides a preponderance of evidence in favor of one theory or another. The preponderance of evidence in this case makes it clear that generally speaking homosexuality is a trait, not a choice.

Originally Posted by Daved

There are virtually no classes of people that are allowed to be discriminated against based on something that is not their choice. Other than homosexuals, can you think of any obvious examples?

Children. That's a pretty massive exception. For example, during Vietnam it was often pointed out that you could be drafted while you are too young to drink, but that did not really change anything. The extent to which children are clearly and explicitly discriminated against under the law is endless, and most people are okay with that. It even makes some sense

Originally Posted by Daved

So yes, the constitutionality of gay marriage bans is a much murkier question if homosexuality was merely a behavior. That doesn't make the gay marriage bans proper, and is not an argument to vote for them, it is just a comment on what can and cannot be left to the will of the people based on our constitution and judicial precedent.

I understand the opinion that it would be "even more unfair" if homosexuality were biologically determined. I'm just saying it does not hold any weight WRT to the Constitution and there is a good reason for that. "Judicial precendent" is a less precise concept, but I'll explain to you why it is not AT ALL established by precedent and why it never will (or should be).

At this point in time, no court or level of government will regard biological determinism as a factor in the creation or interpretation of law. The reason is very simple. Something that (really) is fundamental to the constitution is the concept of "rational agency", which all (sane, adult) human beings are considered to possess. The law and constitution are not DETERMINISTIC. They do not regard people as simply a collection of biological imperatives with no freedom. It must be this way. Otherwise, you open an absolutely ridiculous pandorian box, eg.

If one day a gene for being a psychopath is discovered, does that mean the behavior of psychopaths will also be protected under our (new, more or less completely re-written) Constitution? After all, it may not be totally their choice either.

It's already been recognized that having an extra X chromosome may make you more predisposed toward violence and criminal behavior. But that is NOT how the Constitution, or the law, work.* There is nothing at all unconstitutional about saying "Even if homosexuality is biologically determined, a sane, rational, adult citizen has the capacity to choose." For example, to not engage in sex period.

That's why you can have laws against adultery, and/or laws which penalize a cheating spouse in divorce cases. There is nothing unnatural about adultery however.

Another example would be: blacks are disproportionately imprisoned in the US. Do you think a potential solution to this is to demonstrate that this is a product of genetics?

Anyway, Daved, like it or not, you are just playing into the hands of homophobes with your argument, because it is:
1) totally irrelevent to the law and always will be (hence, the argument cannot help there).
2) totally irrelevent, as laserlight points out, to whether homosexual behavior should be condoned or justified.

Ie. You are completely mistaken about the significance of the issue and of it's "constitutional" or "judicial" value. You actually have it backward: The law DOES NOT protect goups of people because they cannot help what they are -- it protects groups of people because they have an inalienable right to be what they are (IF this "being of a group"ness is recognized by precedent. But it is not about biology or science).

It may make a certain kind of sense to some people (altho IMO that is sad in itself).

* and nb, insanity pleas are substantially different from saying "I'm bad because of my genes".

Originally Posted by MK27

Children. That's a pretty massive exception. For example, during Vietnam it was often pointed out that you could be drafted while you are too young to drink, but that did not really change anything. The extent to which children are clearly and explicitly discriminated against under the law is endless, and most people are okay with that. It even makes some sense

Good one. Any more? Better yet, do you understand the point I was making?

Originally Posted by MK27

If one day a gene for being a psychopath is discovered, does that mean the behavior of psychopaths will also be protected under our (new, more or less completely re-written) Constitution? After all, it may not be totally their choice either.

There is no law against being a psychopath, only laws against behavior that psychopaths may engage in (and in fact there are laws that allow for different penalties for actions when the behavior is not a choice due to mental illness. So I don't see the point to this example.

Originally Posted by MK27

It's already been recognized that having an extra X chromosome may make you more predisposed toward violence and criminal behavior. But that is NOT how the Constitution, or the law, work.* There is nothing at all unconstitutional about saying "Even if homosexuality is biologically determined, a sane, rational, adult citizen has the capacity to choose." For example, to not engage in sex period.

That's why you can have laws against adultery, and/or laws which penalize a cheating spouse in divorce cases. There is nothing unnatural about adultery however.

Another example would be: blacks are disproportionately imprisoned in the US. Do you think a potential solution to this is to demonstrate that this is a product of genetics?

Anyway, Daved, like it or not, you are just playing into the hands of homophobes with your argument, because it is:
1) totally irrelevent to the law and always will be (hence, the argument cannot help there).
2) totally irrelevent, as laserlight points out, to whether homosexual behavior should be condoned or justified.

It may make a certain kind of sense to some people (altho IMO that is sad in itself).

* and nb, insanity pleas are substantially different from saying "I'm bad because of my genes".

Your arguments above don't really make sense to me, they're a bit all over the place. You might be right with what you're saying. But I think you're taking my statements farther than they were intended to go.

The biggest reason that a decision to declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional does not automatically lead to polygamy and incestuous marriage being legal is the difference between the class of people affected by gay marriage and the behavior of polygamy and incest. That's it. I'd welcome your opinion on whether you agree with that statement or not and why.

One last note. I disagree with your point #2 above. It is irrelevant to you and I perhaps, but it is very relevant to many people in this country and across the world. Unfortunately, we can't always argue based solely on our own perspectives, we must take into account the mindsets of others in order to successfully address their viewpoints.

Originally Posted by Daved

Good one. Any more? Better yet, do you understand the point I was making?

How 'bout you provide a counter example -- just one single one -- of how the constitution protects a group on the basis of genetic determinism. And I'll slip you a clue here: the equal rights amendment, which covers race and sex, also includes discrimination on the basis of creed and religion. It is not about biology.

Originally Posted by Daved

One last note. I disagree with your point #2 above. It is irrelevant to you and I perhaps, but it is very relevant to many people in this country and across the world. Unfortunately, we can't always argue based solely on our own perspectives, we must take into account the mindsets of others in order to successfully address their viewpoints.

If by "address" you mean reason with, no, you don't have to do that. There are far, far too many people who simply will not reason with someone who disagrees with them. For example, the kind of person who, when their views are addressed, repeatedly turns around and claims "you don't understand what I'm saying" or "that doesn't count" -- a common, endless, childish tactic at best indented to waste time, raise tempers, and make everyone look foolish by association. You don't have to "reason with" (for example) Hitler -- you just have to demonstrate that Hitler is a fascist (which wouldn't have been hard, since he freely admitted it).

Proving that homosexuality is biological will not change anyone's mind, but I will give you this: it would make it much harder for wacko fundamentalist homophobes to pedal their philosophy in public, because they would now have to take a stance that gay people are not just abominations of the devil, but also uncurable or incapable of being saved (like souless savages) and thus not even human beings in the eyes of the Lord. They ARE fascists,* but unlike Hitler, they are not willing to admit it publicly, for political reasons. Eg, they could well end up classed as domestic terrorists, and more significantly, it might hurt other elements of their political agenda (by association again), which just fighting to prevent gay marriage might not be worth that much to them. But they will not change their minds...they hate, they clearly relish indulging hatred, and they don't care about the potential rights of others. Address that.

* walks like a duck, acts like a duck, etc.

Originally Posted by MK27

How 'bout you provide a counter example -- just one single one -- of how the constitution protects a group on the basis of genetic determinism. And I'll slip you a clue here: the equal rights amendment, which covers race and sex, also includes discrimination on the basis of creed and religion. It is not about biology.

Why would I provide such a counter example if that isn't the point I'm making? You're talking about specific laws or parts of the constitution that talk about biology. I'm merely saying that the fact that it is not a choice makes interpretation of the existing laws easier. If you're concerned with laws, the 14th amendment says that, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is much easier to make the case that a class of persons is being denied equal protection under the law if they don't have a choice. If they do have a choice, then one can say that they do have equal protection, it is only their choice that is not protected.

Originally Posted by MK27

If by "address" you mean reason with, no, you don't have to do that. There are far, far too many people who simply will not reason with someone who disagrees with them.

That doesn't mean you have to do it, too.

Originally Posted by MK27

For example, the kind of person who, when their views are addressed, repeatedly turns around and claims "you don't understand what I'm saying" or "that doesn't count" -- a common, endless, childish tactic at best indented to waste time, raise tempers, and make everyone look foolish by association. You don't have to "reason with" (for example) Hitler -- you just have to demonstrate that Hitler is a fascist (which wouldn't have been hard, since he freely admitted it).

Cute, but I made those comments in order to honestly explain where I was coming from. They weren't meant as insults or diversions. When having an honest discussion, those types of statements don't have to waste time, raise tempers, or make anyone look foolish.

Originally Posted by MK27

Proving that homosexuality is biological will not change anyone's mind, but I will give you this: it would make it much harder for wacko fundamentalist homophobes to pedal their philosophy in public, because they would now have to take a stance that gay people are not just abominations of the devil, but also uncurable or incapable of being saved (like souless savages) and thus not even human beings in the eyes of the Lord. They ARE fascists,* but unlike Hitler, they are not willing to admit it publicly, for political reasons. Eg, they could well end up classed as domestic terrorists, and more significantly, it might hurt other elements of their political agenda (by association again), which just fighting to prevent gay marriage might not be worth that much to them. But they will not change their minds...they hate, they clearly relish indulging hatred, and they don't care about the potential rights of others. Address that.

* walks like a duck, acts like a duck, etc.

I have known many people personally, as well as people online and public figures, who have been against gay marriage. Other than a handful of public figures, they have all been good people who thought they were doing the right thing. If we dismiss the arguments of, and abstain from reasoning with, all good people trying to do the right thing that disagree with us, there won't be much discussion at all and we won't make any progress in any direction other than towards more division and less acceptance.

Originally Posted by Daved

If you're concerned with laws, the 14th amendment says that, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is much easier to make the case that a class of persons is being denied equal protection under the law if they don't have a choice.

Absolutely not. The American Constitution is about defending liberty -- not acceding rights to people "because they have no choice", or on account of their unfreedom, etc. That's a perversion, and you should not encourage people to think that it is reasonable.

Again, the equal protection applies to discrimination on the basis of religion. "Freedom of Religion" means you are free to choose your religion and not be discriminated against on the basis of that choice. I am free to say that I think Catholicism is ridiculous or that homosexual sex is repugnant -- that does not, however, give me the right to say that because of my opinion, the rights of Catholics and gays should be curtailed.

Saying people are hardcoded to be gay will not at all change the admonition that they must control their behavior, or (even better ) act straight and marry someone from the opposite sex. They have done that in the past, so obviously it is not so hard coded as to be impossible -- that is already proven. They can learn to deal with their sickness, even if it is permanent.

If they do have a choice, then one can say that they do have equal protection, it is only their choice that is not protected.

Sure. So we should just let the place be run by morons, because that implies that people should not be allowed to choose to engage in homosexual activity.

Again (and again) -- "even if they have no choice about being gay, they still have the choice to not act that way." That is who you are trying to bargain with. You will not change their stance, vis that homosexuality is wrong and should be discouraged by any means necessary.

I have known many people personally, as well as people online and public figures, who have been against gay marriage. Other than a handful of public figures, they have all been good people who thought they were doing the right thing.

They don't believe that. Those people are lying, one way or another: either they are not at all good people and have fooled you, or else they are not really so bad and have (bluntly) a maturity problem. I too have known many people like this, some close to my heart, but when they act stupidly, I don't try and pretend or believe it is for a good reason. It is just an ignorant and hateful thing to think and that should be made clear. They are certainly not doing that because they think that gay people could choose to go straight, so it is their own fault. Etc. IMO, these people often do not take themselves seriously, and so find it easy to say very silly things.

The reason that would even be considered anything eles is because there are a lot of very wishy-washy ways of thinking allowed to circulate, Daved, and by treating them as worthy of serious consideration you are contributing to that as well.

Originally Posted by MK27

Again, the equal protection applies to discrimination on the basis of religion. "Freedom of Religion" means you are free to choose your religion and not be discriminated against on the basis of that choice. I am free to say that I think Catholicism is ridiculous or that homosexual sex is repugnant -- that does not, however, give me the right to say that because of my opinion, the rights of Catholics and gays should be curtailed.

I agree with you, but only because of the principle that I outlined earlier: neither Catholicism nor homosexual sex cause external harm (although abachler would disagree on the former and some Catholics would disagree on the latter ). On the other hand, if Catholics were to engage in say, ritual human sacrifice of random people pulled from the street, then certainly the "rights" of Catholics do to so should be curtailed, and I posit that this would not be discrimination on the basis of religion.

Originally Posted by MK27

They don't believe that. Those people are lying, one way or another: either they are not at all good people and have fooled you, or else they are not really so bad and have (bluntly) a maturity problem.

How do you know this? As far as I can tell, it is an unjustified ad hominem attack. I could just as easily make the same presumption about you.

Originally Posted by MK27

Absolutely not. The American Constitution is about defending liberty -- not acceding rights to people "because they have no choice", or on account of their unfreedom, etc. That's a perversion, and you should not encourage people to think that it is reasonable.

It's perfectly reasonable, at least in the way I've described it here, and I haven't seen any good reasoning from you on why it wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by MK27

Again, the equal protection applies to discrimination on the basis of religion. "Freedom of Religion" means you are free to choose your religion and not be discriminated against on the basis of that choice. I am free to say that I think Catholicism is ridiculous or that homosexual sex is repugnant -- that does not, however, give me the right to say that because of my opinion, the rights of Catholics and gays should be curtailed.

The equal protection clause is not specific to religion. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Originally Posted by MK27

Sure. So we should just let the place be run by morons, because that implies that people should not be allowed to choose to engage in homosexual activity.

Again (and again) -- "even if they have no choice about being gay, they still have the choice to not act that way." That is who you are trying to bargain with. You will not change their stance, vis that homosexuality is wrong and should be discouraged by any means necessary.

That is an argument to be had over whether one should support same-sex marriage or not, it is not an argument about whether banning same-sex marriage is constitutional. It is easy to defeat that argument logically if we are asking about support for same-sex marriage, but that's not terribly relevant to the question of constitutionality. And, of course it's not terribly relevant to the analogy to polygamy and incest, which was the original context of my claim.

Originally Posted by MK27

They don't believe that. Those people are lying, one way or another: either they are not at all good people and have fooled you, or else they are not really so bad and have (bluntly) a maturity problem. I too have known many people like this, some close to my heart, but when they act stupidly, I don't try and pretend or believe it is for a good reason. It is just an ignorant and hateful thing to think and that should be made clear. They are certainly not doing that because they think that gay people could choose to go straight, so it is their own fault. Etc. IMO, these people often do not take themselves seriously, and so find it easy to say very silly things.

The reason that would even be considered anything eles is because there are a lot of very wishy-washy ways of thinking allowed to circulate, Daved, and by treating them as worthy of serious consideration you are contributing to that as well.

Not much to do but say I disagree and I'm sorry you feel that way.


BTW, I didn't know the details before, but when looking up something for this thread, I found more information about the class of people I was referring to earlier. I guess the term is suspect class. From wikipedia:

To be considered a suspect classification in the United States, the statute at issue must target:

1. a "discrete" or "insular" minority[1] who
2. possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion),
3. share a history of discrimination, and
4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

So, apparently I was more right than I realized.

Originally Posted by daved

So, apparently I was more right than I realized.

Ditto!

All I can say is that if your interest is in proving that America is A FUNDAMENTALIST FASCIST STATE*, then keep going. Why you would want to do that is your own issue, but I don't need to guess about it.

You could be absolutely correct: the future of the earth and human society may revolve around hatred, violence, discrimination, and destruction, but in that case (rationally) I suspect it won't be that long: your children are warriors, we will all die by the sword

Fortunately, I would point to the other three categories under suspect discrimination WRT to the law (that is, the ones you did not highlight):

1. a "discrete" or "insular" minority[1] who
3. share a history of discrimination, and
4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

all of which very clearly and easily could be used to describe homosexuals and also support my contention that this is not simply about what MUST OR NEED BE "an immutable characteristic".

* perhaps at war w/ other fundamentalist fascist "states" -- nice move, Daved. Hopefully all our logic will be solved in APOCALYPSE.

Originally Posted by laserlight

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". As this thread demonstrates, what exactly constitutes "unjust discrimination in their regard" is debatable, but the point here is to "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

It is one thing to sin, know that you sin and want to change and another thing to sin and want to sin. So a catholic homosexual should hate his homosexuality, as a liar hates that he lies? It is not the same thing in this occassion. And lets not forget that god is revealed as both vengeful, harsh as well as loving and merciful. Meaning that there is no "as long as you do the rest it is ok to have one sin". Sin is never accepted in christianity, only in the sense of it to be forgiven.

I agree with your point of view as a good stance christians should have towards homosexuals, if they believe it is actualy a sin.

But still for the homosexuals themselves, being both a catholic and believing that his homosexuality is a sin is contradictive. Except if he feels sorry for it. In which case he wouldn't be defending it. For me, the most likely thing to happen for a true catholic when he realises that he is a homosexual, or decides that he wants to be, is to have an inner debate, to decide himself what christianity things about it. Then probably discuss it and in general search for it. A process which will make him/her either a catholic homosexual that believes that homosexuality is not a sin, or a non-catholic homosexual, or a catholic non-homosexual. My initial point being that a catholic homosexual that is offended wouldn't rely on his civil rights to be accepted, but debate on the fact if homosexuality is a sin.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

A process which will make him/her either a catholic homosexual that believes that homosexuality is not a sin, or a non-catholic homosexual, or a catholic non-homosexual.

There's no room in the church doctrine for debate. Once it is established by the higher instances, the faithful must accept it as dogma. So there's no room for Catholics who believe that homosexuality is not sin. And while this type of feeling can be achieved at the personal level, it will not be accepted by the church. Just as any other sinner, said Catholic will be living in sin regardless of what they believe. In fact, because they choose to refute the dogma their sin is bigger. Larger even if they weren't Catholic. Eventually this is part of the process that leads to the formation of other faiths around the bible.

As for what the bibble actually has to say about homosexuality, a quick google search will reveal it. As time passed and the church adapted their doctrine to the times it lived in, convenient interpretations allowed to transform this:

Originally Posted by 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

into this:

Originally Posted by Cathecism of the Catholic Church, 2358

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

From sinful heathens deserving of a death penalty (and surely they died) to poor souls deserving our pity and compassion. None of each does homosexuals any good.

Curiously enough, there's no "respect, compassion and sensitivity" in the words of the Portuguese Bishop and the Pope when they addressed the decision of the Portuguese government to legalize gay marriages. Instead it was pure racism what their mouths spewed.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

As for what the bibble actually has to say about homosexuality, a quick google search will reveal it.

I listed more in my post #35. But do you really want to discuss a scriptural interpretation here? After all, you have just made a classic mistake in the interpretation of scripture, but I doubt that this really matters to you.

In fact I did, didn't I? I'd preferred you didn't adopt a paternalistic stance. But you are right nonetheless. But it was a honest mistake. It's been many years since I last studied the Bible. And all of that was done many years ago in Portuguese. The name of the books in English is sometimes very different from their Portuguese counterparts and I didn't realize I was quoting one of the books of the Hebrew bible. So my apologies.

But you stance does trouble me, laserlight. You cannot just "wash your hands" from the free interpretation of the scriptures and accommodate only that wish is more convenient to your views or your desire to defend the faith. Unless that of course is a substantial part of your faith. In wish case, there's no possible debate. You beliefe in what you believe and you are closed to any other interpretation. You are a ture follower of your church.

If I wish to discuss the scriptural interpretation? Of course I do! It's exactly because of this, exactly because of the problem the Bible presents to all of its readers as being a puzzling book (at best) and a false book (at worst) that the church "invented" dogma. Perhaps the major contributor to the schism in the Catholicism. The truth is not in their God anymore. But in what men say their God wants. Men that present themselves as representatives of God on earth. I can find the same amount of symbolism and muddiness in any of Nostradamus illustrations, why aren't they accepted by you? Are those who think of Nostradamus as a true prophet less deserving of your acceptance? By your dogma, yes. But what about reason? What does reason say to someone who follows a dogma? Why should that be wrong and this be right?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The truth is not in their God anymore. But in what men say their God wants. Men that present themselves as representatives of God on earth.

The truth was never in their God, because he does not exist no matter how hard or how many members of a given species want to believe that he does. Gods are one of the means by which religions usurp rational authority.

For example, "compassion" is sometimes touted as a Christian principle, like it was something they could own or serve as an authority on (thanks to their special relationship with the highest of all authorities!). This is because Christianity and religion in general are fixated upon ethical principles -- not out of a desire to disseminate them, but because of a need to curtail, enframe, and limit otherwise straightforward, natural, rational ideas such as "respect, compassion, and sensitivity". As laserlight slyly hints (and Mario F. screams), the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality is a terrific example of how they take up these ideas and throttle them in a phantasmagorical context.

There is a heresy whereby the origins of the Church are actually in devil worship (ie, not even the Pope believes in God), and that it is the members of the church which mitigate its evil and bring to it their innate human capacity for reason and empathy -- hence, all doctrine is dishonest and hypocritical. However, what tends to happen in this heresy is that the well intentioned members end up confused and rendered impotent by the evil within the Church. Don't have to look to far to see this! It's a normal, everyday reality for much of us, methinks.

The notion that all religious followers are lying to themselves is too easy to be true. As someone who has been on both sides of the fence, I remember distinctly what it meant to believe in a god. There was no sense of falsehood, no doubt even. It felt right, righteous, and it made sense.

However I do not wish to discuss the validity of the Church. In fact it irritates me that in order to defend the idea the Catholic Church "should leave homosexuals alone" I am forced into discrediting the church. This is precisely because at the eyes of the church, the doctrine is one. Indivisible, non debatable and immutable. So, if I wish to question homosexuality I am forced into questioning the whole of the church doctrine.

The end result is we eventually end up debating whether there is even a God. This is both the religion strongest and weakest point. This wholeness of the doctrine is perhaps the biggest responsible for its existence to this day, but also the biggest responsible for its diminishing numbers.

I have very personal thoughts about religion, the faithful and their leaders. None of which very popular and admittedly even offensive. I'd rather prefer if we kept the debate on homosexuality.