Are laws against same sex sexual activity just laws?

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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 these are commonplace topics on CAF and have been done to death.
Just do a search on my name and prostitution or shariah and you will likely come across at least three different threads in the last 4 years.

And I am sorry, but most theologically trained persons know that adultery and fornication are against natural law.
The problem is perhaps you don’t have a handle on what the Church really means by “natural law”. Admittedly I really meant all sins are “against nature” - however I was trying to indicate to you that there are two different senses in which “against nature” is understood in Catholic theology.

You are too influenced by colloquial modern pseudo scientific understandings of that phrase. Aquinas is the master on that topic, do a little research in the Catholic Encyclopedia perhaps at the New Advent website.

Do try and conditionalise your statements rather than come out a little dogmatically on issues Catholic when it is clear you do not have a strong education in Catholic Moral theology or Church History.

 

[nodito]

And I am sorry, but most theologically trained persons know that adultery and fornication are against natural law.

I agree that adultery and fornication violate natural law. You wrote “All sin…is against natural law.” This is plainly false. Not all sin violates natural law. I have a very strong understanding of the concept and frankly could do without your condescension.
Blue Horizon:

Nodito these are commonplace topics on CAF and have been done to death.
Just do a search on my name and prostitution or shariah and you will likely come across at least three different threads in the last 4 years.

Blue Horizon, in your your most recent post on the topic (and your only post in a thread about legalizing prostitution) you assert:
Blue Horizon:

It has been a long tradition of the Church that not all grave moral evils need to be criminalised. Prostitution is a classic case that may be acceptably decriminalised.

I would argue 1) You put forth no evidence in this thread or that one that the Church has singled out prostitution as a case of a grave moral evil that may be acceptably decriminalized (much less that it is prudent to do so) and that in any event 2) Your statement in this thread (the Church has *always *recognized the right of states to allow prostitution) is a far cry from your claim that prostitution may be decriminalized.

I’m an avid reader of CAF and would also dispute your impression of the topic being “done to death.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon, in your your most recent post on the topic (and your only post in a thread about legalizing prostitution) you assert:

I would argue 1) You put forth no evidence in this thread or that one that the Church has singled out prostitution as a case of a grave moral evil that may be acceptably decriminalized (much less that it is prudent to do so) and that in any event 2) Your statement in this thread (the Church has *always *recognized the right of states to allow prostitution) is a far cry from your claim that prostitution may be decriminalized.

I’m an avid reader of CAF and would also dispute your impression of the topic being “done to death.”

Just research Aquinas on prostitution. its clear cut and in the Summa.
Even Augustine had a famous line affirming what I day.
And do a similar search on CAF.

Heres a start:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13711717&postcount=129

Here’s Augustine:
“If one suppresses prostitutes, the passions will convulse society; if one gives them the place that is reserved for honest women everything becomes degraded in defilement and ignominy. Thus, this type of human being, whose morals carry impurity to its lowest depths, occupies, according to the laws of general order, a place, although certainly the most vile place, at the heart of society.”

It is as I say.

 

[nodito]

Just research Aquinas on prostitution. its clear cut and in the Summa.
Even Augustine had a famous line affirming what I day.
And do a similar search on CAF.

Heres a start:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13711717&postcount=129

Here’s Augustine:
“If one suppresses prostitutes, the passions will convulse society; if one gives them the place that is reserved for honest women everything becomes degraded in defilement and ignominy. Thus, this type of human being, whose morals carry impurity to its lowest depths, occupies, according to the laws of general order, a place, although certainly the most vile place, at the heart of society.”

It is as I say.

And this is what the Church says today, from the Pontifical Council of Pastoral Care for Migrants and Itinerant People (emphasis mine):

1. Prostitution is a form of modern day slavery

It is important to recognize that sexual exploitation, prostitution and trafficking of human beings are all acts of violence against women and as such constitute an offence to the dignity of women and are a grave violation of basic human rights. The number of women of the street has increased dramatically throughout the world for a variety of complex economic, social and cultural reasons. In some cases the women involved have experienced pathological violence or sexual abuse since childhood. Others have been driven into prostitution in order to have sufficient means of living for themselves or their families. Some search for a father figure or a loving relationship with a man. Others are trying to pay off unreasonable debts. Some leave situations of poverty in their country of origin, believing that the job being offered overseas will change their lives. It is clear that the sexual exploitation of women that pervades the world’s social fabric is a consequence of many unjust systems.
.
.
.

c) The Church must demand the enforcement of laws protecting women against the scourge of prostitution and trafficking. It is also important to advocate for effective measures against the demeaning portrayal of women in advertising.
.
.
.

(d) The legal aspects of prostitution and trafficking – prohibition, regulation, abolition – must be attended to in every country. Examples of good practice should be shared (e.g. from Sweden).

 

[Clevus]

They have backing on Divine principles. The non condign punishment meted out is an issue, and is based on man’s propensity to be cruel and unjust. God also means that those whose task it is to minister man’s justice systems should be of impeccable character and virtue. The sad irony is that this can only be achieved through the aid of the graces that the Christian receives through Divine providence.

 

[USMC_Convert]

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?

So you are saying God’s commandments are not just and humans should not model their laws after them?

 

[ATraveller]

This may be worth considering. Ubiquitous heterosexual non-marital sex in the West has led to same-sex ‘marriage’ and the push by activists for Christians to recognize gay people *need *sex because the behaviour of many heterosexuals (majority in the West) imply people *need *sex.
If people can’t be consistent and look extremely hypocritical, then it opens up the possibility to many other things.
Instead of focusing on gay people, heterosexuals need to work on our own outwardly sins. Though we might be right in speaking about God’s standards no one will take us seriously. How can we show gay people they can refrain from having sex if most straight people can’t even wait for marriage and have multiple partners?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Instead of focusing on gay people, heterosexuals need to work on our own outwardly sins. Though we might be right in speaking about God’s standards no one will take us seriously. How can we show gay people they can refrain from having sex if most straight people can’t even wait for marriage and have multiple partners?

Very good point.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Really, in order for the outlawing to have a logical reason, you’d have to outlaw all sodomy (homo or hetero). Would lesbian sex still be legal? I’m not sure that was ever subject to laws in the past like gay sex was…

Following it to its logical conclusion, it’d be hard to justify outlawing homosexuality and not onanism. Or contraception. And then masturbation.

It’s a bit of a rabbit hole IMO. All of these are immoral for approximately the same reasons.

 

[mikekle]

Sexual sin is progressive, it will ALWAYS get worse, we have been conditioned to tolerate and accept homosexual relationships and eventually marriage. At one time no network tv station would air such material, there was also a time when interracial relationships were equally taboo, times have changed though, and really imo, some of the illegal sexual things right now, are more than likely going to be things we eventually tolerate and accept in the future, that just how sin works, its not like society reaches a certain point and refuses to delve any deeper.

I really dread to think what kinds of sexual relationships will be accepted 50+ yrs down the road, if history is any indicator, its going to be crazy. Just like homosexual marriages, people will be looking back and saying “Gee, I never thought id see the day when ‘X-Y-Z’ is accepted in society”, tv networks will be applauded for being the first ones to depict and show these things in a positive light, etc etc.

 

[exnihilo]

I really dread to think what kinds of sexual relationships will be accepted 50+ yrs down the road, if history is any indicator, its going to be crazy. Just like homosexual marriages, people will be looking back and saying “Gee, I never thought id see the day when ‘X-Y-Z’ is accepted in society”, tv networks will be applauded for being the first ones to depict and show these things in a positive light, etc etc.

In fifty years the decadent West will probably have collapsed. Also we can’t sink too much lower.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And this is what the Church says today, from the Pontifical Council of Pastoral Care for Migrants and Itinerant People (emphasis mine):

And your point is?

 

[mVitus]

And your point is?

I’m guessing his point is that there’s been a few hundred years since Aquinas and some of the social commentary he had then doesn’t apply too well these days. The circumstances under which Aquinas and Augustine considered the legality of prostitution were different than the circumstances under which The Modern Church considers it today. And as the Church document nodito cited was from the Church today, I’d say it has more relevance than Aquinas a few hundred years ago.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m guessing his point is that there’s been a few hundred years since Aquinas and some of the social commentary he had then doesn’t apply too well these days. The circumstances under which Aquinas and Augustine considered the legality of prostitution were different than the circumstances under which The Modern Church considers it today. And as the Church document nodito cited was from the Church today, I’d say it has more relevance than Aquinas a few hundred years ago.

Well let’s wait for Nodito.
But it’s also fairly clear that Moral teaching re State activity and principles are timeless.
The Church’s prudential pastoral views and approach to how best to eradicate personal sin, with or without State assistance, are prudential and therefore change from age to age.

The pastoral Pontifical Council’s applied pastoral approach (including Heads of State amongst others) is not de Fide Church moral teaching but an attempt to apply and adapt it in various subjective prudential ways!

Nor is all prostitution a form of human trafficking or slavery which is the actual concern of the document quoted. Even the publication itself makes that clarification.

 

[steve93]

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.

This.

 

[buffalo]

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.

There are great health consequences as a result of this act. An undue burden is put on the tax payer to handle these increased costs.

 

[mVitus]

There are great health consequences as a result of this act. An undue burden is put on the tax payer to handle these increased costs.

The increased health consequence is a result of STDs, which are easily transferred by heterosexual premarital sex too. So again why just gay sex and not hetero too? I also find the logic of taxpayer burdens a bit callous as it could just as easily apply to sick individuals having children, along with ties to a eugenics mindset if that becomes a primary arguing point.

 

[buffalo]

The increased health consequence is a result of STDs, which are easily transferred by heterosexual premarital sex too. So again why just gay sex and not hetero too? I also find the logic of taxpayer burdens a bit callous as it could just as easily apply to sick individuals having children, along with ties to a eugenics mindset if that becomes a primary arguing point.

It is much more than just STD’s.

 

[nodito]

And your point is?

In order for something to always be true, it must currently be true. You asserted that the Church has always recognized the rights of States to allow prostitution. I submit that this is not the Church’s current position. That rather, today, the Church views prostitution as a form of exploitation against women and that as such “The Church must demand the enforcement of laws protecting women against the scourge of prostitution and trafficking.”

 

[Lea101]

Laws against what I call “personal sins” (sins that someone does that hurts their salvation, but not the people around them like masturbation, premarital sex, etc) should not exist imo. It doesn’t help, first of all.

Second, it would be pretty hard to enforce. My country has a law against male homosexuality and it is hardly enforced (because arresting gay people for what they do in the bedroom is ridiculous, as well as how do you even find out about that?) there is literally no point in having a law.

Laws that only target gay people are also, well, homophobic. It is only targeting a certain group of people, even though we all have done a mortal sin before (at least most of us). We don’t see people debating laws on making pre marital sex illegal, or masturbation, or even gossiping. Pretty sure there is a good number of people in favor of a law against SS sex aren’t concerned for gay people’s salvation at all, too.