So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Its not part of my obligation as a member to try to coerce other people into conforming their behavior to my religious beliefs via legislation. I don't believe that homosexuality is "intrinsically evil" whatever that means. I believe it is incompatible with Exaltation, and I find it personally repulsive, but "intrinsically evil"? I don't think so. I'll reserve that for people who are actually intentionally harming people physically or economically, and people who are exploiting the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak -- not a couple guys who think they are in love with each other.

So just to clarify, you actually do believe in pushing your religious beliefs via legislation if you accept that your beliefs are dealing with something 'intrinsically evil' and therefore something that can cause harm. Your problem with opposition to redefining marriage, then, is not that people are bringing their religious beliefs into the public sphere but that you personally don't share their belief -- that 'gay marriage' is harmful to individuals and society -- even though it is espoused by the very church to which you belong.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stone holm]

How is having a law that states something along the lines of 'the government will subsidize heterosexual behavours that it won't subsidize for homosexuals' trying to "coerce other people into conforming their behaviour" to any religious beliefs via legislation?

Why don't you read what you just wrote and answer that for yourself.

[Stone holm]

So just to clarify, you actually do believe in pushing your religious beliefs via legislation if you accept that your beliefs are dealing with something 'intrinsically evil' and therefore something that can cause harm. Your problem with opposition to redefining marriage, then, is not that people are bringing their religious beliefs into the public sphere but that you personally don't share their belief -- that 'gay marriage' is harmful to individuals and society -- even though it is espoused by the very church to which you belong.

No. I don't believe in legislating my religious beliefs, but I believe. That secular reasons can be given for legislating against things which would fall within what I would probably classify as intrinsically evil. But merely labelling something intrinsically evil is not a sufficient basis. I believe politically in preserving personal liberty. Although homosexual behaviour may be sinful in my belief system, if it is between two consenting adults, I do not see it as harmful to society in any non religious sense. I will follow my religion as it applies to me and my family, but I will not use political coercion to impose my religious beliefs on another regardless of what another says. If you can find doctrine which says we are obligated to use seek legislation to force conformity to our religious beliefs, I would be interested in reading it. When throughout history one religious group has sought to impose its religious views upon another by force of law, it has not boded well for that group or society in general.

[Calm]

Why don't you read what you just wrote and answer that for yourself.

I don't need to be paid to love someone or to marry my husband and be faithful to him. I wouldn't expect any homosexual to feel that way either.

[Hamba Tuhan]

When throughout history one religious group has sought to impose its religious views upon another by force of law, it has not boded well for that group or society in general.

Nonsense. And we've been down this path before. When British colonials imposed legislation outlawing murder and theft in my corner of the world, they were imposing their religious views on other societies. They and other Christians were so successful at this process, in fact, that Christian values have been normalised as universal values in much of the world. And that's a good thing -- a very, very good thing -- although not all people who experienced major disruptions to their age-old lifeways saw it that way, of course.

Although homosexual behaviour may be sinful in my belief system, if it is between two consenting adults, I do not see it as harmful to society in any non religious sense.

And this is the very crux of the issue. If you did see homosexual behaviour as harmful to society in a 'non-religious' sense -- whatever precisely you may think you mean by that -- you'd be more than happy to oppose the radical attempt to normalise and domesticate it by means of legally redefining a basic institution of healthy society out of all practical usefulness,

Edited August 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[boulder257]

Yes, yes and yes to everything you said....in both posts.

I just don't see how people think it is even possible to turn off beliefs from influencing choices when they affect how we view the world on a fundamental level.

I certainly agree with the bolded. I don't even understand how you can turn one off. You would have to virtually become a different person.

BTW, I tried to give you reputation points for your comment, but I must not understand how to do so since it is not showing up.

Edited August 15, 2013 by boulder257

[Stone holm]

Nonsense. And we've been down this path before. When British colonials imposed legislation outlawing murder and theft in my corner of the world, they were imposing their religious views on other societies. They and other Christians were so successful at this process, in fact, that Christian values have been normalised as universal values in much of the world. And that's a good thing -- a very, very good thing -- although not all people who experienced major disruptions to their age-old lifeways saw it that way, of course.

And this is the very crux of the issue. If you did see homosexual behaviour as harmful to society in a 'non-religious' sense -- whatever precisely you may think you mean by that -- you'd be more than happy to oppose the radical attempt to normalise and domesticate it by means of legally redefining a basic institution of healthy society out of all practical usefulness,

Laws against murder and theft can be supported without resorting to religious beliefs, there are sound secular reasons why a stable and peaceful society have governments which protect against murder and theft. Ancient Greece from which we derive many of our democratic concepts, tolerated homosexuality. During the colonial period, however, Ethan Allen was run out of Northampton, Mass. because he had himself publicly innoculated against smallpox which the dominant church at that time believed to be interfereing with god's will. I don't seem to be noticing that "all practical usefulness" of marriage has suddenly disappeared here in the Northeastern United States because of the approval of SSM. Similar thoughts were at one time expressed concerning interracial marriage, and society didn't collapse as a result of the demise of miscegenation laws either. Just because there is overlap between certain religious commandments and certain secular laws, does not mean that all religious commandments should be converted into secular laws. We in fact routinely condemn societies which have sought to impose all of their religious commandments upon the entire populace as secular laws -- am thinking in terms of Iran and certain middle-eastern states.

[3DOP]

Laws against murder and theft can be supported without resorting to religious beliefs, there are sound secular reasons why a stable and peaceful society have governments which protect against murder and theft. Ancient Greece from which we derive many of our democratic concepts, tolerated homosexuality. During the colonial period, however, Ethan Allen was run out of Northampton, Mass. because he had himself publicly innoculated against smallpox which the dominant church at that time believed to be interfereing with god's will. I don't seem to be noticing that "all practical usefulness" of marriage has suddenly disappeared here in the Northeastern United States because of the approval of SSM. Similar thoughts were at one time expressed concerning interracial marriage, and society didn't collapse as a result of the demise of miscegenation laws either. Just because there is overlap between certain religious commandments and certain secular laws, does not mean that all religious commandments should be converted into secular laws. We in fact routinely condemn societies which have sought to impose all of their religious commandments upon the entire populace as secular laws -- am thinking in terms of Iran and certain middle-eastern states.

Who is arguing that "all practical usefulness of marriage" will "suddenly disappear" wherever same sex marriage is civilly recognized?

Over time, not suddenly, laws might begin to appear making it illegal to use "hate speech" to say that homosexual activity is a sin. You would say that those should not be approved either. I can see how your position would work. But you are virtually alone here and you would be virtually alone in the homosexual community too. Almost everybody votes according to their deepest held beliefs without regard to any radical concept of "separation of church and state". In this way it can be said that a religious majority can impose its political will. Likewise a political majority can induce a government of the people to impose its vision of society through penalties to those religious groups that don't conform. There is always overlap and always will be. In democracies such as exist in Canada, the United States, and most of the West, legislation eventually appears that represents the majority and that side wins until it becomes a minority. That is how it is supposed to work and I am not complaining. But I would point out that one man, or a few men, are not the only tyrants.

But fear of the majority isn't what makes me vote as I do. I have a clear conscience about advocacy of legislation that recognizes Christian marriage as the foundation of the society in which I live. You speak of the two spheres. I recognize a third, where authority is given from God, and that is the family. When Christ reigns in the hearts of the majority, the state, the church, and the family will all be recognized as the foundations on which a healthy society rests. Just as the family has its hierarchy that is ordered so as to recognize faith based morality, so it has been and may be when a state is governed by representatives where faith based morals are upheld. But either way, it is impossible for the state to not become a judge regarding morality.

Must all morality that finds basis only in religious teachings be systematically ignored by those granted suffrage in any state? That seems to be your argument. The irreligious crowd gets to vote its most deeply held beliefs but we can't or shouldn't, according to you, only because of an exaggerated understanding of what separation of church and state is supposed to mean in America. It has never meant that people will vote against what they prefer because of some self-imposed discipline that disqualifies preferences that seem to derive from religion.

What do you say though to the non-religious person who just thinks homosexual activity is repulsive and regrets its growing recognition as an acceptable and normal behavior in advertising, entertainment, and public displays of various kinds? Since I thought it was disordered before I became a Christian, could that make any difference? I do hold the opinion that in addition to being against Christian morality, it is also against the natural order. Since I think I don't need revelation from on high to tell me that homosexuality is bad for the common good, does this give me a legitimate reason to vote against its acceptance by society as a normal and legally recognized behavior?

3DOP

Edited August 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. I don't believe in legislating my religious beliefs, but I believe.

It is a shame that you don't because lots of people every were do that every time they freaking vote. And some do it in the name of "choice" while others do it because they want to appear to be "open minded" with regards to certain things. Either way people legislate thier beliefs all the time. I have a right to do it and I am sick of people saying that we or the church shouldn't do things. They are people after all that make up the church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Say rather there is a wishy-hopey socialist/quasi-socialist faction amongst Mormons who are lockstep with the antireligious Left, who are embarrassed by Mormondom and wish it would just wise up and join the trendylefty Elites[tm].

Stop the political bashing.

You political basher you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey stone holm,

I admire, while disagreeing with the premise of your consistent opinion. I won't speak for Mormons. I admit that this forum seems to suggest that there is an undercurrent in Mormonism that seeks to divorce politics and religion.

There does indeed seem to be a few members that are definitally in the tank for leftist marxist communist ideals. Though they are in the minority at least as far as if they are in the US.

 

 

But that view isn't compatible with my own and it appears to me that there is also an undercurrent in Mormonism that understands religion and politics similarly as I do. This leads me to believe that LDS views on religion and politics remains to be fully developed.

I would be one of those, I am pretty sure anyway. Oh well I don't want to get too political as this is already too politcal.

 

You were warned about political bashing.  As soon as I can find the ban feature after the board upgrade you will be out of the thread.

[3DOP]

But back to Pope Francis.

He isn't changing anything. Now you'll see polls where self-identified Catholics say they voted for legalization of same-sex marriage. But the Catholics who go to Mass on weekdays and who never miss a Sunday without good reason are the ones who pay the bills and whose consciences are formed by the teachings of the Church. The reason why a lot of self-identified Catholics vote against Catholic morality is because they have stopped going to Church very much. That crowd was never aligned with the LDS on this subject. I am going to Mass tonight at 7 PM without my family. I am making an extra trip by myself because it is a holy day of obligation. I take my faith seriously and it is us who go to Mass when it is inconvenient that are allied with the LDS on this question. It is also us who are a little dismayed when the pope makes some statement that can and has been understood contrary to Catholic teaching. It appears that this pope will be a little reckless in the way he expresses himself. That does not mean he has the authority to overturn two thousand years of Catholic tradition. At this point, I am convinced still that he does not even wish he could so do.

On The Feast of the Assumption of Mary, Mother of Christ, whose Holy Family has been a model for Christian Civilization,

3DOP

Edited August 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

In the US you have the right to believe anything you like. What you don't have is the right to impose your beliefs on others.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

D&C121:39

39. We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

[USU78]

In the US you have the right to believe anything you like. What you don't have is the right to impose your beliefs on others.

Is that so? Hmmmm. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

It would seem the good folks in my home state have a different view on such things.

Which view would tend to disagree with your assertion.

[thesometimesaint]

Is that so? Hmmmm. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

It would seem the good folks in my home state have a different view on such things.

Which view would tend to disagree with your assertion.

Heavens forbid that young impressionable minds find out that there were/are homosexuals in history. For example; That somehow the fact that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual makes his music evil. I guess I'll have to remember that the next time BYU puts on his ballet "The Nutcracker Suite".

[Stone holm]

Is that so? Hmmmm. http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

It would seem the good folks in my home state have a different view on such things.

Which view would tend to disagree with your assertion.

Teaching history is not imposing beliefs. It is true that history can and has in the past been distorted. For example as I wound my way through elementary, junior high and high school, the history I was taught during the Cold War would have led you to believe that the United States with a little help from Britain basically won WWII single-handedly saving the U.S.S.R. as a kind of after thought. No recognition was given to the fact that it was the Soviets, not the Americans, who physically destroyed most of the German Army. Likewise history back then would not have pointed out that many of the Greek philosophers that we discussed were either homosexual or bisexual, let alone that some were pedophiles. Unless we intend to scrap teaching history altogether, which I do not think would be a good idea -- then the concept should be to make it as inclusive and accurate as possible.

[USU78]

Heavens forbid that young impressionable minds find out that there were/are homosexuals in history. For example; That somehow the fact that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual makes his music evil. I guess I'll have to remember that the next time BYU puts on his ballet "The Nutcracker Suite".

There's more and more invasive stuff going on in the CA legislature this year as well.

This is indoctrination. This is offensive to a lot of people, myself included. It is not the business of the State to impose arcane sexual practices and persons, even if only in print and/or verbally described, especially upon youth.

It is sheer bullying and an imposition of irreligious views upon the unwilling.

You can have your beliefs legislated, nay imposed by legislative or administrative fiat, so long as it's the "right" kind of belief. Religious beliefs are excoriated in print and elsewhere, including but not limited to the District Court's opinion striking down Prop 8.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can have your beliefs legislated, nay imposed by legislative or administrative fiat, so long as it's the "right" kind of belief.

I wish our liberal and progressive freinds could see this. Infact what I see is a double standard. I can't my kind of a belief and push it because it is not the right kind of belief. The Gay marriage push is one example of this. It is find for some one else to push this belief onto me. THen comes the lame arguments of "how are we pushing that onto you"? This is simple. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and any other type of marriage is not a marriage. Plain and simple. But because it is not the right kind of belief I should not be able to have it.

[Stone holm]

I wish our liberal and progressive freinds could see this. Infact what I see is a double standard. I can't my kind of a belief and push it because it is not the right kind of belief. The Gay marriage push is one example of this. It is find for some one else to push this belief onto me. THen comes the lame arguments of "how are we pushing that onto you"? This is simple. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and any other type of marriage is not a marriage. Plain and simple. But because it is not the right kind of belief I should not be able to have it.

Were you really seeking to enter a SSM? Are they somehow coercing you to enter a SSM? You have a religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I share that religious belief. I live in a State that authorizes SSM, you know what...nobody has come and said I have to divorce my wife and marry a man....isn't that amazing? And nobody is telling my grandsons that they have to marry men....wow, what a revelation.

[thesometimesaint]

There's more and more invasive stuff going on in the CA legislature this year as well.

This is indoctrination. This is offensive to a lot of people, myself included. It is not the business of the State to impose arcane sexual practices and persons, even if only in print and/or verbally described, especially upon youth.

It is sheer bullying and an imposition of irreligious views upon the unwilling.

You can have your beliefs legislated, nay imposed by legislative or administrative fiat, so long as it's the "right" kind of belief. Religious beliefs are excoriated in print and elsewhere, including but not limited to the District Court's opinion striking down Prop 8.

Does the belief that the earth is flat somehow make the teaching the fact that the earth is round(Slightly pear shaped) in public schools anti-religious indoctrination?

Is it bullying to require young impressionable minds be taught in public schools that the earth is not at the center of the universe?

Why do you feel it is acceptable to teach in public schools that it is OK to physically or emotionally to hurt others because of their religious beliefs, and/or sexual orientation? How would you feel if it was done to you or yours?

I personally don't pay much attention to what others not of a particular religion have to say about the religious beliefs of those others(Though learning about them is a hobby of mine), and am much more concerned with those that would impose their religious beliefs on me, and you. It isn't ancient history that the Church was persecuted as a perversion of Christianity, and is still mistrusted by much of the Christian world. So no I can't impose my religious beliefs on others, because that would deny my nonbelievers their rights. I am perfectly fine with letting Hindies believe that one of their aspects of meditation is of their belief in the Tantra. What I would never subscribe to is making it a crime to believe or not believe it.

The Church can teach as belief whatever it wants. Even discipline with excommunication those members that violate those beliefs. What the Church can not do is impose that belief on non-member others.

I get that you don't like homosexuality and/or homosexuals. It and they have been here since the beginnings of the human race, and will be with us for the foreseeable future. You can rant and rave about it till the cows come home, or you take a live and let live, and God will judge belief. Your choice.

[thesometimesaint]

I wish our liberal and progressive freinds could see this. Infact what I see is a double standard. I can't my kind of a belief and push it because it is not the right kind of belief. The Gay marriage push is one example of this. It is find for some one else to push this belief onto me. THen comes the lame arguments of "how are we pushing that onto you"? This is simple. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and any other type of marriage is not a marriage. Plain and simple. But because it is not the right kind of belief I should not be able to have it.

No one in this country is stopping you from legally getting married as long as it is with a consenting adult that is not closely related to you. You can have any belief you want with regards to whom you marry, even belong to a church that doesn't perform homosexual marriages. Why are you trying to impose your beliefs on people that don't have your beliefs?

[california boy]

There's more and more invasive stuff going on in the CA legislature this year as well.

This is indoctrination. This is offensive to a lot of people, myself included. It is not the business of the State to impose arcane sexual practices and persons, even if only in print and/or verbally described, especially upon youth.

It is sheer bullying and an imposition of irreligious views upon the unwilling.

You can have your beliefs legislated, nay imposed by legislative or administrative fiat, so long as it's the "right" kind of belief. Religious beliefs are excoriated in print and elsewhere, including but not limited to the District Court's opinion striking down Prop 8.

Prop 8 was struck down for the very reason this thread has been talking about. Even the majority does not have the right under our constitution to impose their religious beliefs on those that do not follow those beliefs. The whole Prop 8 argument came down to those defending Prop 8 proving that gay marriage harms them in some way. THEY WERE UNABLE TO in a court of law come up with any reason why gay marriage harms them. And that is why the court threw prop 8 out. The state could also not come up with a reason why gay marriage harmed the state, and that is why the state refused to defend prop 8.

You can throw around words like administrative fiat all you want, but, until you can come up with a reason why gay marriage harms you or society, then you are going to loose. You have no argument. Not liking homosexuality is not an argument. Being against your religious beliefs is not an argument. We have always done it this way is not an argument. You have to show harm. That is why it is easy for the examples of murder or stealing while may be religious beliefs are also secular beliefs. Murder and stealing causes harm. Gay marriage, no harm.

[USU78]

Does the belief that the earth is flat somehow make the teaching the fact that the earth is round(Slightly pear shaped) in public schools anti-religious indoctrination?

Is it bullying to require young impressionable minds be taught in public schools that the earth is not at the center of the universe?

Why do you feel it is acceptable to teach in public schools that it is OK to physically or emotionally to hurt others because of their religious beliefs, and/or sexual orientation? How would you feel if it was done to you or yours?

I personally don't pay much attention to what others not of a particular religion have to say about the religious beliefs of those others(Though learning about them is a hobby of mine), and am much more concerned with those that would impose their religious beliefs on me, and you. It isn't ancient history that the Church was persecuted as a perversion of Christianity, and is still mistrusted by much of the Christian world. So no I can't impose my religious beliefs on others, because that would deny my nonbelievers their rights. I am perfectly fine with letting Hindies believe that one of their aspects of meditation is of their belief in the Tantra. What I would never subscribe to is making it a crime to believe or not believe it.

The Church can teach as belief whatever it wants. Even discipline with excommunication those members that violate those beliefs. What the Church can not do is impose that belief on non-member others.

I get that you don't like homosexuality and/or homosexuals. It and they have been here since the beginnings of the human race, and will be with us for the foreseeable future. You can rant and rave about it till the cows come home, or you take a live and let live, and God will judge belief. Your choice.

So . . . you disapprove of my [and GBH's] belief that homosexual marriage is an abomination, and that the Church and, indeed, Church members have been and may yet be involved in both that and other moral issues by both speaking up in the public square and supporting issues and candidates.

Interesting.

[Hail_Linus]

Regarding the Original Post:

The first part of this post will address why Catholic Theology will never accept homosexual acts as not being sinful. If that does not convince you , part two will list political reasons why it will never happen.

Part One

First let me explain what Catholics mean by "intrinsically evil/disordered". This means that this act can never be justified and is always a sin. Another example is abortion. Compare this to killing a human being which can be justified in cases of self defense or war.

Here are some theological reasons why the Catholic Church cannot change its position:

The teaching that homosexual acts are a sin was given to the Catholic Church in the Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Church cannot contradict the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit of Faith is all of the teachings that were given to us directly by the Apostles. It ended around 100 A.D. at St. John's death. Protestants like to say their theology is Bible-based. However, the Bible is actually Church-based. The New Testament books were chosen based primarily on two criteria. 1) The books could not be written after 100 A.D. and 2) the books could not contradict the teachings given to the Catholic Church in the Deposit of Faith.

Protestants believe we are saved by "Faith Alone." Catholics believe that, although we cannot earn salvation, we can lose salvation. When we commit a mortal sin we push our selves away from God. We lose our inheritance (Kingdom of God) by violating Jesus' two great commandments “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and " You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Homosexual acts violate both of the Two Great Commandments. These acts are a form of idolatry which prevents us from fully loving God which is a violation of the first commandment. Additionally, homosexual acts involve using another person solely for sexual pleasure as well as letting oneself be used for solely for pleasure. God's children are not there to be used as sexual gratification objects. The participants are also encouraging one another to sin. This is harmful to both people as you are supposed to " love your neighbor as yourself".

Homosexual Acts are not even allowed for heterosexuals. First, heterosexuals sin if they have sex outside of marriage. Since homosexuals cannot marry in the Catholic Church all of their sex is outside marriage. Second, even their actual activity is not permissible for heterosexual married couples. I don't want to get graphic so I'll just say 1) it doesn't matter where it starts (except one certain act) but sex must always end here life begins (if you know what I mean) and homosexual sex does not have that possibility, 2) you can never perform a sex act that physically harms or can potentially harm a person, i.e. fissures, incontinence, etc.

Part Two

I am sure you are aware that there is a schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church very much wants the Church to be unified again. Well I can guarantee you that if the Catholic Church ever changed its position on homosexual acts there would no longer be any possibility for reunification.

You might be thinking that perhaps the Easter Orthodox Churches might change their position. However, although they are in schism they acknowledge the fact that only the Pope(Bishop of Rome) can convene an Ecumenical council to discuss the matter. Additionally, they would still be bound by the same things I mentioned above, i.e. deposit of faith, infallible teaching, etc..

Most people (including Catholics) are unaware that Roman/Latin Rite Catholics are not the only kind of Catholics. There are over 20 Eastern Rite Churches in the Catholic Church such as the Melkites, Maronites, Byzantines. The Eastern Catholics would probably break ties with the Catholic Church if it changed its position on Homosexuality.

[USU78]

Prop 8 was struck down for the very reason this thread has been talking about. Even the majority does not have the right under our constitution to impose their religious beliefs on those that do not follow those beliefs. The whole Prop 8 argument came down to those defending Prop 8 proving that gay marriage harms them in some way. THEY WERE UNABLE TO in a court of law come up with any reason why gay marriage harms them. And that is why the court threw prop 8 out. The state could also not come up with a reason why gay marriage harmed the state, and that is why the state refused to defend prop 8.

You can throw around words like administrative fiat all you want, but, until you can come up with a reason why gay marriage harms you or society, then you are going to loose. You have no argument. Not liking homosexuality is not an argument. Being against your religious beliefs is not an argument. We have always done it this way is not an argument. You have to show harm. That is why it is easy for the examples of murder or stealing while may be religious beliefs are also secular beliefs. Murder and stealing causes harm. Gay marriage, no harm.

You are too aligned to see the principles being attacked here. For others I will respond as follows:

If there is a sociopolitical issue on which there is and can be no compromise, somebody's belief must be imposed, and somebody else's must be suppressed. A policy choice gets made. If the policy choice is made, either by a court or a legislature, that choice prefers one set of beliefs over another. I can both believe and cite more than sufficient public health and policy grounds in favor of suppressing homosexual behavior, but if I am discouraged from expressing my belief or even citing the data and findings in support thereof, then my belief is suppressed, while another's, viz., yours, is aggrandized to my detriment. Your [im]morality has been imposed upon me and mine.

The prior assertion that nobody can or ought to have their morals imposed on others by government is laughably naive. It's done every day. The only issue is whose morality is going to be imposed: the guys who want to shut down the boy scouts and create a community hostile to the boy scouts by affecting law and policy makers, or those who want a community friendly to the boy scouts.