You seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy, and even if you disagree with the lifestyle, an attempt to make it illegal pretty much violates the constitution. If those against homosexuality had something in their case that didnt fall under the category of “the bible says it is a sin” it might be a different story.
There are two difficulties that may be underlying the stalemate of this discussion.
First, Catholics recognize that we do live in a “theocracy.” This notion is reflected in the language of the beginning of the “Declaration of Independence” of the United States as well as in the concept of “limited powers” which under girds the United States Constitution. This concept was put this way by Pope Leo XIII: “. . . it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only ---- and this nature itself requires – that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.” Libertas Praestantissimum (On the Nature of Human Liberty), art. 44 (AD 1888).
Hence there are limits on the powers that government can exercise, because there are limits on the sovereign power which people have and therefore on the powers which they can delegate to the government. Hence, a government that attempts to “legislate” the definition of “human nature” is exceeding its power when it differs from the doctrines of the Catholic Church on this matter.
Second, a difference must be recognized between a claim that is true and a claim that is false, when weighing what claims must be recognized in justice by the government. Hence, a claim that seeks merely formal equality is not entitled to recognition, when compared to a claim that is grounded in both Devine and natural law. The issue of justice turns not on what one believes to be true, but on what is true. Hence, judgment in such matters depends on discerning the truth of the matter, not on merely formal equality of “propositions.”
This raises several issues in the current discussion. One is the authority of the Scriptures and the Magisterium. These represent the source of two important forms of truth: Divine Revelation on the one hand, and the accumulated wisdom of mankind over the last 10,000 years, more or less, on the other. In making decisions about public policy and the common good of society, these two forms of truth cannot be ignored. Scientific opinion (which is admittedly tentative and immature) cannot replace these other two sources of truth, if public administration is to be responsible.
This claim that truth must be relevant to both justice and to public policy is at the heart of the confusion that seems to overtake reasonable discussion almost as soon as the topic of the proper public policy regarding homosexual behavior and advocacy is raised.
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
), & I certainly don’t need any further temptations to it. Besides, this issue is an emotive one already - the last thing one should do is add any fuel to the fire.