Are laws against same sex sexual activity just laws?

[Rau]

…The ELCA document you are talking about on Human Sexuality is really more descriptive of the different possible beliefs on homosexuality that might exist in the ELCA rather than being prescriptive, so it doesn’t really advocate or condemn anything.

Ahh, I remember it now. It more or less surveyed the membership and catalogued all the positions being held and showed willingness to accommodate them all!

As a result, SSM is equal to opposite sex marriage in all the congregations that perform such marriages and doesn’t exist in the congregations that don’t perform them. And, to be perfectly honest, I doubt that there are hardly any ELCA congregations or ministers that don’t perform SSM any more. Most of those congregations and clergy have probably left the ELCA for some other Lutheran denomination by now.

Ahem…that’s great. So ELCA leaned toward SSM and those parts who rejected it broke away.

As for unmarried couples in the ELCA, I know of a number of such couples and I’ve never heard anyone say anything against such arrangements.

I was not so much asking about gossip or sniping, but rather whether ELCA recognized the sin of fornication?

 

[Thorolfr]

I was not so much asking about gossip or sniping, but rather whether ELCA recognized the sin of fornication?

I don’t think that the ELCA has any official statement about fornication.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think that the ELCA has any official statement about fornication.

So ELCA members generally don’t know whether such is sinful or not?

 

[Thorolfr]

So ELCA members generally don’t know whether such is sinful or not?

Any ELCA member can read their Bible and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My intention is that it be entirely decoupled, thus my point that it should not be seen as an arrangement for “gays” (which your initial presentation implied).

If you check:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
it is interesting that state marriage appears to have already decoupled sex rights even from heterosexual marriage as I seem unable to find anything tangible!
The Church doesn’t seem to mind (except for the same sex thing).

That being the case, apart from use of the word “marriage”, US civil marriages are so far removed from Christian conception of marriage as to qualify for what you are saying above anyways .

 

[Rau]

If you check:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
it is interesting that state marriage appears to have already decoupled sex rights even from heterosexual marriage as I seem unable to find anything tangible!
The Church doesn’t seem to mind (except for the same sex thing).

That being the case, apart from use of the word “marriage”, US civil marriages are so far removed from Christian conception of marriage as to qualify for what you are saying above anyways .

On paper (i.e. The statute book) perhaps that case can be made. But in whose mind is marriage not a sexual relationship? And who would have the law books address sexual activity between persons married to each other? The law books do touch the edge of this however when they rule out marriage of persons too closely related (though that line has been adjusted over time). Civil unions did just the same thing, by the way, no doubt for the same reasons.

 

[nodito]

I think the fact that marriage in the United States is still only between two people is a remnant of the fact that it is meant to be a sexual relationship. We’ve lost sight of the fact that this was originally for the purposes of reproduction, so this facet of the relationship may soon dissolve (via state-endorsed polygamy and such) but I agree with Rau that the general public thinks of both marriages and civil unions as being sexual relationships.

I do really like the idea of state-endorsed committed friendship for giving rights to groups of same-sex or different-sex friends and family, (so long as they don’t also involve the right to children). But now I’m wondering if giving incentives for these types of relationships are to the state’s advantage, since it’s really stable families (committed parents who produce and raise children) that form the basic building blocks of society and that society has an interest in protecting.

 

[Otar_Mendes]

, (so long as they don’t also involve the right to children)…

Please, explain this. I’m not sure I understand this.

Do u want same-sax couples banned from having children(how would it work exactly?)? Adopting children? Adopting children of their partners?

So,let,s say there is a gay couple, two women, raising a child together. They do not have relatives. One of them dies. And, as I understood, according to your proposition, the second woman shouldn’t have any right to this child she was raising, taking care of and loved and this child goes into a foster home?

Did I get this right?

 

[Peter_J]

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?

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.

Hi to you both. I’m coming in late here, but after reading your arguments I’d like to ask, have you considered forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1027304 ?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

On paper (i.e. The statute book) perhaps that case can be made. But in whose mind is marriage not a sexual relationship?

Faulty logic. You are now using the word marriage to refer to multiple actual realities but assume those realities must still conform to your own use of the word which is clearly Christian or pre State.

And who would have the law books address sexual activity between persons married to each other?

An unusual statement. States and Tribes have forever rightly been making laws about who may marry who, and what the sexual service rights are,how they are now limited re outsiders, the consequences if violated, the affine relationships (“in laws”, “step parent” , official father of a child) created by intercourse etc
I am amazed you said this.
This decoupling of significant sexual rights/obligations re marriage in the law books is exactly the agenda of much of secular society at large whether gay or hetero.

 

[Rau]

Faulty logic. You are now using the word marriage…

I asked earlier “who does not understand marriage to be a sexual relationship”? Are you one who does not?

 

[Peter_J]

I am not in favour of SSM but I have no great issue with tolerating lesser legal recognition of stable, faithful SS cohabitations.

I think that’s a good idea in principle, but I’m doubtful that any country will proceed thus.

 

[Peter_J]

In the Old Covenant, it was punished with execution and many Catholic nations had laws against it but because it has become relatively common in some parts in the world it wouldn’t make sense to have such strict laws like execution against it in the present situation.

Then what about countries who at present do execute MSM and/or WSW? Should we say “They are good traditionalists Catholics” (or “good fundamentalist Protestants” or “good Muslims” etc as the case may be)?

 

[Peter_J]

How can a normal man be not attracted to women at all?

Emphasis added.

Do you mean straight? I doubt anyone’s claiming that straight men are attracted to women.

 

[Rau]

I think that’s a good idea in principle, but I’m doubtful that any country will proceed thus.

Are/Were civil unions such a “lesser legal recognition”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I asked earlier “who does not understand marriage to be a sexual relationship”? Are you one who does not?

You know as well as I do we are talking legal definitions not primarily the human realities that may or not anchor into these legal vehicles.

I think you have lost the plot of this small debate.

 

[Rau]

You know as well as I do we are talking legal definitions not primarily the human realities that may or not anchor into these legal vehicles.

The legal framework which supports marriage does so recognizing what marriage is (well - it did till very recently ). Were there no connection, the Church would take little interest in what the state does.

 

[ATraveller]

Hi to you both. I’m coming in late here, but after reading your arguments I’d like to ask, have you considered forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1027304 ?

I see how that relates to this.
Sometimes I wonder if the only reason why gays get more attention is they themselves committed one sin but not the other or they know more people who committed one sin than the other or the chances of personally knowing someone who is gay is lower.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The legal framework which supports marriage does so recognizing what marriage is (well - it did till very recently ). Were there no connection, the Church would take little interest in what the state does.

My point is that with decriminalisation of fornication, adultery, marital rape, marriage then, according to US State legislation marriage is no longer needed to legitimise heterosexual sex which used to be the case and still is re Church Law.

Therefore, strictly speaking, such a lessened legal vehicle cannot be said to legitimise sexual service between partners anymore…though a romantic momentum still associates for some.
Private cohabitation/consent is where it’s at for “regulating” secular sex nowadays…a purely private affair. Marriage comes afterwards for a variety of reasons…some of which are also romantic and not actually enshrined in the legal vehicle they seek.

Therefore if State marriage is hollowed out further to include same sex couples that pretty much meets your acceptable legal criterion of a Civil Union that does not confer sexual rights.

In fact US State Marriage is now so far from Christianity that it is really only “marriage” in word only. Essentially it is only a contract conferring a range of economic and affine rights and is in fact a generic Civil Union vehicle anyways it seems .

The Church may as well accept that unfortunate reality, realise the word “marriage” in the US really just means CU for heterosexuals (and has for some time) and that the State approves of cohabitation if couples want semipermanent sex.

It therefore makes perfect sense that heterosexual CUs be opened to any cohabiting couples
hetero,gay or just older couples not interested in sex but sharing life together.
It also seems good for society that those who show long time permanence automatically access the same CU rights as those formally “married” … be they hetero or gay or whatever.

One day the Church will realise all this is a logical and natural consequence of accepting the decriminalisation of adultery and sodomy. If that is tolerable then the above is likely tolerable.

It would seem the Church has no monopoly even on the word “marriage”. It was invented by the State long before the Church came along and started slinging it’s lead from the time of Constantine.

 

[Rau]

My point is that with decriminalisation of fornication, adultery, marital rape, marriage then, according to US State legislation marriage is no longer needed to legitimise heterosexual sex which used to be the case and still is re Church Law.

Therefore, strictly speaking, such a lessened legal vehicle cannot be said to legitimise sexual service between partners anymore

The law will not oppose persons engaging in sexual relations - that is clear. And in deciding this, the State did not change anything about the nature and context of marriage. The repeal of fornication laws no doubt faced opposition from some claiming the State was failing to uphold certain virtues, but did the State lessen or fail in its support for those marrying? No.

Therefore if State marriage is hollowed out further to include same sex couples that pretty much meets your acceptable legal criterion of a Civil Union that does not confer sexual rights.

The introduction of SSM is a definitive step which changes the meaning of the thing the State is supporting. State marriage law used to support the public sexual union of man and woman. Civil Unions were conceived of to do similar - most often for same sex couples. Neither has to this point ceased to address what we would regard as sexual relationships. This is true, despite the fact that there is no requirement for a legal “legitimising” of casual sexual relationships [But Note: protracted sexual relationship with cohabitation in many jurisdictions are deemed equivalent to marriage eg. “defacto relationship” etc.]. The State once saw a particular reason to support (this goes beyond “legally legitimising”) the sexual union of “man + woman”. It has now seen reason to support other kinds of sexual relationships, and moreover, to declare them equivalent.

Essentially it (US State Marriage) is only a contract conferring a range of economic and affine rights and is in fact a generic Civil Union vehicle anyways it seems .

This is not in dispute. But nothing done legally has operated to remove the presumption of a sexual element. Decriminalising fornication has no bearing on this. Siblings cannot marry, nor enter Civil Unions. If it is simply a generic framework to deliver certain practical benefits - why not?

It therefore makes perfect sense that heterosexual CUs be opened to any cohabiting couples hetero, gay or just older couples not interested in sex but sharing life together. It also seems good for society that those who show long time permanence automatically access the same CU rights as those formally “married” … be they hetero or gay or whatever.

In reality, marriage or CU - these are understood to be sexual relationships. The State has no interest in relationships (other than “Man + woman”) simply because they are sexual. As I’ve said, by all means lets have a legal framework more widely applicable than presumptively sexual relationships.