Are laws against same sex sexual activity just laws?

[Holly3278]

Hey, everyone. I subscribe to the Human Rights Watch page on Facebook and I went to their site through one of their posts. It was about some gay men who had been arrested in Indonesia for gay sex. Apparently, an anti-pornography law was used to arrest them. Here is the link:

hrw.org/news/2017/05/04/indonesia-gay-porn-arrests-threaten-privacy

I also know that in other countries such as Saudi Arabia, same-sex sexual relations are illegal. Are such laws just laws or unjust laws? My first impression would be that since nobody has a right to engage in immoral sexual activity that these laws are just laws but I am not entirely sure if my interpretation is correct so I thought I would ask here.

 

[Kielbasi]

I also know that in other countries such as Saudi Arabia, same-sex sexual relations are illegal. Are such laws just laws or unjust laws? My first impression would be that since nobody has a right to engage in immoral sexual activity that these laws are just laws but I am not entirely sure if my interpretation is correct so I thought I would ask here.

Its not just Saudi Arabia, before1962, homosexual relations were illegal in every state in the United States, Illinois was the first state to legalize it.

 

[mVitus]

One issue I’d point out is that to make gay sex illegal, one would also be obligated to make premarital sex illegal. Laws are to protect society and individuals from basic harm. (ie hating your neighbor while not right is legal but not so with murder.) As homosexual sex is most often between two consenting adults, I wouldn’t say it meets the criteria of protecting another person, whereas homosexual marriage has caused issues around religious freedom.

 

[exnihilo]

I think so. As mentioned there were such laws. Even if they were irrationally ruled unconstitutional there are other laws making other sexual activity illegal. We still seem to think the state can make sex acts illegal.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Hey, everyone. I subscribe to the Human Rights Watch page on Facebook and I went to their site through one of their posts. It was about some gay men who had been arrested in Indonesia for gay sex. Apparently, an anti-pornography law was used to arrest them. Here is the link:

hrw.org/news/2017/05/04/indonesia-gay-porn-arrests-threaten-privacy

I also know that in other countries such as Saudi Arabia, same-sex sexual relations are illegal. Are such laws just laws or unjust laws? My first impression would be that since nobody has a right to engage in immoral sexual activity that these laws are just laws but I am not entirely sure if my interpretation is correct so I thought I would ask here.

My first reaction is that they might be just but imprudent. As in, there is nothing morally wrong with prohibiting same sex activity in theory, but the costs of having society police consensual sexual relations outweigh the benefits.

 

[exnihilo]

One issue I’d point out is that to make gay sex illegal, one would also be obligated to make premarital sex illegal.

You wouldn’t be obliged to. The states did make fornication, crimes against nature, and adultery illegal.

My first reaction is that they might be just but imprudent. As in, there is nothing morally wrong with prohibiting same sex activity in theory, but the costs of having society police consensual sexual relations outweigh the benefits.

It might be imprudent. But I don’t think when it was illegal that it was particularly costly. The laws really only came into play if the sex acts were known, which they shouldn’t be if those engaging in them are doing so privately.

 

[at9009]

One issue I’d point out is that to make gay sex illegal, one would also be obligated to make premarital sex illegal. Laws are to protect society and individuals from basic harm. (ie hating your neighbor while not right is legal but not so with murder.) As homosexual sex is most often between two consenting adults, I wouldn’t say it meets the criteria of protecting another person, whereas homosexual marriage has caused issues around religious freedom.

Not to mention make remarriage illegal expect if fit under annulment conditions (else it’s adultery). Make contraception illegal as well. But apparently it’s okay to make same sex sexual sins illegal but not opposite sex sexual sins illegal (even though just by numbers opposite sex sin is much greater). It also adds an extra layer of hypocrisy.

Let’s not forget some of these countries with these type of laws have also prosecuted rape victims for having premarital sex so I’m not sure I would look to their laws thoughts about government.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Does God have a commandment against it? Then it is just…

 

[Kielbasi]

One issue I’d point out is that to make gay sex illegal, one would also be obligated to make premarital sex illegal. .

Why would you say that?

I guess that sex outside of marriage could be outlawed too, but a law regarding gay sex would stand on its own.

 

[commenter]

One issue I’d point out is that to make gay sex illegal, one would also be obligated to make premarital sex illegal. Laws are to protect society and individuals from basic harm. (ie hating your neighbor while not right is legal but not so with murder.) As homosexual sex is most often between two consenting adults, I wouldn’t say it meets the criteria of protecting another person, whereas homosexual marriage has caused issues around religious freedom.

Adultery probably is still illegal most places, though not enforced much. But I don’t agree that you have to equate legality of heterosexual acts, with legality of homosexual acts. Heterosexual acts outside marriage break the moral law. Homosexual acts, under all conditions, break the moral law and the natural law.

The State could choose to ban or at least restrict actions against the natural law, but not all actions against the moral law. In fact, that is how it was prior to, perhaps, the 1950s. Laws restricting contraceptives were put in place by Protestant dominated legislatures in many states.

I notice people who present arguments keep using terms like “among consenting adults”, as if that were a Given, that of course the law will ****always ****protect children.
Just because we may have loosened up in some areas…

slippery slope warning…

 

[exnihilo]

I notice people who present arguments keep using terms like “among consenting adults”, as if that were a Given, that of course the law will ****always ****protect children.
Just because we may have loosened up in some areas…

slippery slope warning…

Right, the law will always protect children, like it does with abortion. Not to mention this is an ad hoc argument. The person offering it almost never believes that anything two consenting adults agree to should be legal. For instance they don’t think a man could enslave himself to another. The folks offering this argument are almost never libertarians but rather they are hard core statists.

 

[commenter]

Right, the law will always protect children, like it does with abortion. Not to mention this is an ad hoc argument. The person offering it almost never believes that anything two consenting adults agree to should be legal. For instance they don’t think a man could enslave himself to another. The folks offering this argument are almost never libertarians but rather they are hard core statists.

Girls under a certain age cannon get ears pierced without parental consent, and cannot give legal consent to sex, but somehow are able to give legal consent to abortions - without parental consent, or even notification. The “right” of minors to sexual liberty will be the next frontier.

The natural law was the foundation for the USA, and is referred to in the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed by our creator (that is, not the government) with certain inalienable rights. In the early 1900s the US was somewhat reluctant to join Europe in moving away from the Natural Law. Margaret Sanger had to be careful in expressing her support for some of the Nazi policies.

By 1945 there was a temporary backlash against the Nazi extremes in abandoning the Natural Law. In the late 60s people forgot the Nazi eugenics specialists, and were saying, just bend the natural law a little, we won’t ask you to bend it anymore. Then another small demand. And another. At present there is a fullcourt attack on the Natural Law itself.

This is why 90% of all media attacks on religion are attacks on the Catholic Church. The Natural Law is not unique to the Catholic Church, it’s just that almost everybody else abandoned it.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Does God have a commandment against it? Then it is just…

Which would mean that civil laws should also compel Sunday church attendance - to say nothing of the fact that civil laws prohibiting same-sex activity imply the government’s right to police bedrooms, as in, say, the suspicion of same-sex activity being grounds for a search warrant. Sounds like the “sexual Gestapo” to me. Do we really want to live in such a society?

 

[commenter]

Which would mean that civil laws should also compel Sunday church attendance - to say nothing of the fact that civil laws prohibiting same-sex activity imply the government’s right to police bedrooms, as in, say, the suspicion of same-sex activity being grounds for a search warrant. Sounds like the “sexual Gestapo” to me. Do we really want to live in such a society?

3 Kinds of laws:

Divine Law
Natural Law
Positive, or man made law

Divine Law should only apply to those who believe it. I go to church on Sunday because I recognize the commandment. Those who don’t recognize the Mass, should not be required to go to Mass on Sunday. (How God responds to those who violate Divine Law is God’s business, not ours).

Homosexual acts go against the Divine Law, but also against the Natural Law, which does apply to everybody. It is possibly reasonable for the Positive Law to restrict them in some cases since they do violate the Natural Law.

Acts like child abuse or domestic violence often happen in the bedroom, and they are opposed by the Positive Law. If the police come to your house, you can’t claim exemption from those laws on the grounds you follow a different religion - even if you happen to cite documents from churches you don’t belong to, that those things are bad.
So what? These laws still apply to you, regardless of the fact they fit into some religious platforms, and you don’t believe in religion.

What are the consequences of the abandonment of the Natural Law, at least in the West? G. K. Chesterton said when you break the big laws you do not get anarchy. You get the small laws. That is why the erosion of the Natural Law leads to multiplication of government regulation, which we see now.

If you want to use the word “gestapo”, consider which nation abandoned the Natural Law most rapidly and aggressively in the 20th century - until they were temporarily(?) stopped in 1945. What were the consequences of abandoning the Natural Law, in terms of individual rights?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would you say that?

I guess that sex outside of marriage could be outlawed too, but a law regarding gay sex would stand on its own.

Why, it is not more unjust.
If the principle is that all sins against natural law should also be State law (which is essentially Catholic Shariah) then all the other matters mentioned here should be policed.
And indeed once we’re (eg stoning for adultery and shotguns for fornication).

But given that these have been repealed, including sodomy which was once a worldwide crime, and the Church no longer tries to have them reimposed (though it strongly opposed repeal at the time), unlike abortion, it appears the Church accepts it is just for a State to prudentially decide on these matters if the Commonweal is protected.

You do know the Church has always accepted the right of States to allow for both prostitution and divorce don’t you?

Likewise with gay marriage.
The main reason the Church will remain opposed is on two points.
A. The word marriage … another word needs to be used as it should be reserved for one man and one woman. But with time as new generations don’t realise the history behind the word I think the Church will give up fighting this semantic battle.
B. Equal adoption/parental rights as hetero marriages. I think the Church will always fight this as unjust. It likely won’t win.

I believe the Church is only prudentially opposed to other forms of gay union with lesser rights than marriage. There is nothing essentially unjust in such State laws if the Common Good is advanced.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Adultery probably is still illegal most places, though not enforced much. But I don’t agree that you have to equate legality of heterosexual acts, with legality of homosexual acts. Heterosexual acts outside marriage break the moral law. Homosexual acts, under all conditions, break the moral law and the natural law.

The State could choose to ban or at least restrict actions against the natural law, but not all actions against the moral law. In fact, that is how it was prior to, perhaps, the 1950s. Laws restricting contraceptives were put in place by Protestant dominated legislatures in many states.

I notice people who present arguments keep using terms like “among consenting adults”, as if that were a Given, that of course the law will ****always ****protect children.
Just because we may have loosened up in some areas…

slippery slope warning…

All sin, including adultery, is against natural law. Some sins are also against nature.

 

[mVitus]

Why would you say that?

I guess that sex outside of marriage could be outlawed too, but a law regarding gay sex would stand on its own.

I’d say that making gay sex illegal necessitates making premarital sex illegal too because the arguments are derived from the same place. It would be saying “Your sexual acts are immoral for being neither unitive nor open to life, but that straight couple having contraceptive premarital sex that’s neither unitive nor open to life is fine. You mad?” In all honesty, what’s so much more horrid about gay sex that it should be outlawed without outlawing premarital sex? I find no reason to outlaw either* but if you do, at least be consistent.

*Yes they’re both sins, but the nature of them does not infringe on another person’s rights. To go back to the hatred vs. murder, both can rise to mortal sin yet it’d be ludicrous to make hating another person illegal. Compare that to stealing $5 from a store, probably a venial sin, which is illegal. So in that case why is the grave matter legal but the venial matter outlawed? Not to mention the technical difficulties of even reporting the crimes. As the adults would be consenting, neither of them would report it.

 

[nodito]

All sin, including adultery, is against natural law. Some sins are also against nature.

No, this is not true. There are many laws binding only on Catholics. If I as a Catholic deliberately eat meat on a Friday in Lent, I commit grave sin, but I do not violate natural law. Natural law is true for everyone and everywhere. It is built into our nature as humans. Sins that violate natural law would include murder, elder abuse, contraception, etc.
Blue Horizon:

You do know the Church has always accepted the right of States to allow for both prostitution and divorce don’t you?

Where does that come from? The Church tolerates divorce for serious reasons but to my knowledge has never acknowledged a so-called “right of States” to permit prostitution.

 

[nodito]

My first reaction is that they might be just but imprudent. As in, there is nothing morally wrong with prohibiting same sex activity in theory, but the costs of having society police consensual sexual relations outweigh the benefits.

This is my initial impression as well.

 

[USMC_Convert]

3 Kinds of laws:

Divine Law
Natural Law
Positive, or man made law

Divine Law should only apply to those who believe it. I go to church on Sunday because I recognize the commandment. Those who don’t recognize the Mass, should not be required to go to Mass on Sunday. (How God responds to those who violate Divine Law is God’s business, not ours).

Homosexual acts go against the Divine Law, but also against the Natural Law, which does apply to everybody. It is possibly reasonable for the Positive Law to restrict them in some cases since they do violate the Natural Law.

Acts like child abuse or domestic violence often happen in the bedroom, and they are opposed by the Positive Law. If the police come to your house, you can’t claim exemption from those laws on the grounds you follow a different religion - even if you happen to cite documents from churches you don’t belong to, that those things are bad.
So what? These laws still apply to you, regardless of the fact they fit into some religious platforms, and you don’t believe in religion.

What are the consequences of the abandonment of the Natural Law, at least in the West? G. K. Chesterton said when you break the big laws you do not get anarchy. You get the small laws. That is why the erosion of the Natural Law leads to multiplication of government regulation, which we see now.

If you want to use the word “gestapo”, consider which nation abandoned the Natural Law most rapidly and aggressively in the 20th century - until they were temporarily(?) stopped in 1945. What were the consequences of abandoning the Natural Law, in terms of individual rights?