Justice Scalias Son Doesnt Think That Homosexuality Really Exists 07/04/2013 10:03 am EDT Excerpts: Almost a month after the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in favor of marriage equality were handed down, the son of dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia will speak in front of Courage, an organization that believes gays and lesbians should never have sex. Paul Scalia, son of Antonin Scalia, is a Roman Catholic priest affiliated with Courage, a group that "ministers to persons with same-sex attractions," according to its website. He is also a featured speaker at Courage's annual summit, taking place this year between July 25 and July 28 at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill. Justice Scalia's opinions on homosexuality at this point are well known. In one of his most famous decisions regarding the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT), Scalia wrote that a Texas law banning sodomy was simply trying to protect Texas citizens from "immoral and unacceptable" sexual behavior. Overshadowed by his father for years, the similarly anti-gay opinions of Scalia's son Paul, however, are beginning to attract attention as well. An important tenet of the younger Scalia's position on homosexuality is his belief that being gay is not an immutable characteristic or identity. In 2005, Scalia espoused this view in an article for the magazine First Things, where he warned about high school clubs that encourage tolerance of homosexuality, and readily label themselves or others "gay" or "homosexual." "Labels presume that a person is his inclinations or attractions; he is a 'gay' or is a 'homosexual,'" Paul Scalia wrote. "At some point adults have to admit that a fifteen-year-old who claims to be 'a questioning transgendered bisexual' is really just confused." In an example of how one might avoid these types of labels, Paul Scalia referred to homosexuality as a "phenomenon" in a 2010 piece for the Catholic Herald. That piece also warned that same-sex marriage posed a threat to marriage and future societies. Scalia's general thought process is perhaps best summed up, however, in a 2012 article written for Humanum: Issues in Family, Culture & Science. "In short, we should not predicate homosexual of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations," Scalia writes. "Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon... Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual orientation any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient)." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-scalia_n_3543284.html?ir=Politics&ref=topbar ....... IMO: Paul Scalia has only one rigid, self-proclaiming agenda and that is to deny any existence of homosexuality anywhere in todays world, but in 2010 he said it was a phenomenon and that it posed a threat to marriage and future societies. History tells us that homosexuality has been with us since our creation, that it has been active down thru the ages, and will continue as a way of life for many people. So what? What do we have to fear from other peoples sexual preferences? Any hurt that we might have is if someone in our family declares his sexuality, or if we have some thoughts ourselves of our own sexual inclinations that we cover up by bellowing in rage at anything that isnt straight heterosexual. I think that before you decide on what your inclinations regarding homosexuality are, you might remember that Jesus didnt say: Stay away from homosexuals......He said: Love One Another!
The OP is not quoting him correctly. Obviously he thinks homosexuality exists...he is just arguing the semantics of it. Theists have been doing this on every issue since forever.
..... If you look at the following portion of his quote you will see that he is deep into one woman one man marriage, and innocuously, where the sun rises. This leaves no room for any other sexual preference in the Catholic Church's view. Where would the Church be if it did not demand a woman-man marriage? see: a) "Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not." and: b) "We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient)." In a) He is setting the only course for the Church to follow, marriage is for one man and one woman, leaving all others out in b) He equates the one man, one woman concept with the unchangeable, resolute, and unbending dictum with the unchangeable, resolute, unbending rising of the sun each day in the East and setting each day in the West. The finality of it does not meld with the evolvement of every human being on Earth. He leaves no room for anything diverse, new, anything different from the norm which he has molded into his concept of what the Church should be. He takes in everything but the real human condition.
Another forum Left complete LIE Thread Title: he said NO SUCH THING. Does the PF Left Cabal have a contest going for the most UNTRUE thread title?
