But…but…I still want to see gays and lesbians as criminals! And I still want to rationalize violence against them! And I still want to argue that violence against them isn’t inherently related to criminalization of homosexuality!
No one is rationalizing violence against them. Low sarcasm does not combine well straw man. At least rationalize begins with “rational” as opposed to being irrational, unreasonable and illogical. Use of our reason takes work, but it aids in communication.
And radical LGBT won’t rest until Catholic Churches gladly perform same sex marriages.But…but…I still want to see gays and lesbians as criminals! And I still want to rationalize violence against them! And I still want to argue that violence against them isn’t inherently related to criminalization of homosexuality!
Yeah… I do hope folks here realize that “rationalize” and “rational” aren’t in the same ballpark.
There’s so much paranoia inherent in comments like this one that it’s nearly impossible to sift through.
Then let us use reason. If violence is inherent in criminalization, why aren’t gangs beating up people because they use marijuana in states where it is illegal? They do not because violence is not inherent in criminalization. At times, they may be related, like if the same anger that leads to some to anger also leads some to lobby for criminal laws, but there is not causative relationship, nor is violence inherent in criminalization.
I think the author of this comment and the poster it was directed have different meanings of this.
To borrow a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation: what if consent can be proven, “even the absolute smallest degree; what then?”. With how the gay rights movement justifies “love”, they couldn’t legally argue against it.
Marriage is subsidized by the state for the benefit of the state. Subsidizing gay relationships has no benefit to the state.
If purely secular reasons are utilized, one benefit is adoption of children who would otherwise be in orphanages or foster care system.
That’s good.
Than that I believe is absolutely wrong and unjust and is anything but Christian.
“Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian, even though they profess with their lips the teaching of Christ.” Justin Marytr
You hit the nail on the head. IMO,there is an utter hypocrisy in some of our societies, of the type that would make the Pharisees and Saducees proud.
Just to be clear…I don’t believe we should use stoning as a method of punishment for any sin.You hit the nail on the head. IMO,there is an utter hypocrisy in some of our societies, of the type that would make the Pharisees and Saducees proud.
While anti-gay laws are marching across Africa, what is happening to laws against rape as a weapon of war, subjugation and domination? What is happening to laws against every form of degradation that can be inflicted on the institution of marriage (adultery, polygamy, forced marriage etc). Is it respect for marriage and God’s law, or human pride in some form of ‘superior’ macho sexuality that drive these draconian laws?
Oh, I got you on that. And I agree.
People need to be REALLY careful about legislating morality. I’m no moralist and I don’t know if this would be official Catholic teaching, but I frown about big government outlawing any and every kind of sin.
Well, that’s a good point because intention matters big time in sin.
Be careful with this.
That is absolutely incorrect. There are numerous arguments against it.
All I can here is that is quoting Scripture in editorials isn’t helping. People want to know why we are “losing” the argument (in terms of popularity), that, unfortunately, is a reason why.
A government that outlaws perverse sexual behavior doesn’t have to be a overly controlling,socialist style government. The governments of the medieval ages to the 18th century were not as centralized and not always too intrusive into personal affairs as modern governments are,but they did outlaw homosexual behavior,because there was a general agreement in societies that it was against natural law and abominable. Government laws should uphold natural law. That is one of the main purposes of government. People nowadays are against laws that forbid sexual perversion because their sense of right and wrong is not grounded upon natural law so much as upon the secular ideals of personal liberty,tolerance and equal treatment. It’s true that what is needed is a solid Christian culture that starts with the family. In America and Europe that has been lost for the most part,and people’s natural sense of revulsion at homosexuality has been diminished so much that criminalizing it would go against their sensibilities. The African societies that favor outlawing homosexual behavior have apparently not lost the natural sense of revulsion toward sexual behavior as much as European and American societies have.
Isn’t Catholic teaching more than just “quoting Scripture”? If Protestants did that, then I can understand: it’s Bible and that’s it.
And some radical Christians wont rest until every gay person is imprisoned or dead.
I’d like to point out that England didn’t get sodomy laws until after the Anglican schism and Mary who returned England to Catholicism abolished those laws. Also the primary reason for it was to confiscate property for the state which happened before cough coughKing Philipcough cough.