Catholic Perspective on Gov't and Homosexuality

[robbie20]

preppy clothes are fine, but don’t start mincing your words or being limp-wristed, for your own sake. Also dropping the voice an octave (or at least a half) would be a worthwhile endeavour.

I can’t help I have a high pitched voice or lisp?!

 

[Soulstorm]

@markomalley

Oh no I’m glad to hear someone taking the position of having the government enforcing restrictions and what not; it gives another take on the issue. At the moment I still do not see it as just to punish someone for acting on their homosexuality, and despite hating gay pride parades with an utmost passion I still can’t find myself being willing to have the government come in and arrest and make it illegal for such groups to form-at least in the United States. If I could live in an ideal Catholic Theocracy then I would have no problem with the government barring sinful organizations.

With that in mind I will have to add something else so that this discussion can be a bit more usefulness out of it.

Now in an ideal world for us Catholics we’d live in a Theocracy that assisted us in maintaining morality by keeping a strict enforcement against what we considered mortal sins. However now we need to look at the reality that we live in the United States or somewhere in the Western world and that Western world is currently based in a Secular, Multicultural, Republic ideals.

So with that in mind does it change how we should view where the government should be on the issue of homosexuality? And if so where is the right place for government in terms of condemning or supporting of homosexuality.

 

[markomalley]

Mark you should look agian at the laws yo keep qoteing.

They are now invalid and dadt is over, gone, cuput.

Actually, the law they passed had nothing to do with changing that particular section of the US Code.

In fact, for what it’s worth, the DADT commission recommended that this section be eventually changed. But it wasn’t. Article 125 is still part of the UCMJ. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[markomalley]

@markomalley

Oh no I’m glad to hear someone taking the position of having the government enforcing restrictions and what not; it gives another take on the issue. At the moment I still do not see it as just to punish someone for acting on their homosexuality, and despite hating gay pride parades with an utmost passion I still can’t find myself being willing to have the government come in and arrest and make it illegal for such groups to form-at least in the United States. If I could live in an ideal Catholic Theocracy then I would have no problem with the government barring sinful organizations.

Well, first of all, I reject your idea that morality should only be enforced in a theocracy.

All societies must have a moral code that dictates how individuals govern themselves. Society needs to have laws in place to support that moral code. If that doesn’t exist, people tend to push the envelope until it tears.

Our moral code, like it or not, is roughly based upon that of Christianity…not specifically Catholic Christianity, but Christianity, nonetheless.

The same moral code that enjoins homosexual acts is the moral code that enjoins adultery, the code that enjoins prostitution, the code that enjoins pedophilia, the code that enjoins driving while intoxicated, theft, murder, rape, embezzlement, and so on. Most of us would never, ever consider committing most of these acts, not because of the law, but because of our own internal consciences.

Our internal consciences are governed, for the most part, by a concept called the “natural law” – not by some code of canon law or secular law. It seems that most of us internally know that it is wrong to kill another person, that it is wrong to take his goods, that it is wrong to lie or cheat, that it is wrong to have sexual relations with another person’s spouse, and so on. This is programmed by respect for the other person (or people) involved and, to a degree, by the biological functioning of our bodies.

I would submit that homosexual behavior (and the tendencies to wish to commit that) are a violation of that natural law. If you think about it, the purpose of sex and the biological urges that cause us to crave it are for the purpose of the perpetuation of the species. Reproduction. Our bodies put out pheromones to attract members of the opposite sex. Our bodies internally generate oxytocin and vasopressin that cause mates to bond…they are released as a side effect of orgasm. (In the case of oxytocin, it is also released at childbirth and with breastfeeding, of course). Biologically, we are intended to be heterosexual and monogamous. Our societal mores and laws are structured to reflect this biological reality. Homosexuality tends to pervert this natural functioning of the body and typically (with several notable exceptions in mature and dying societies) has been sanctioned, both morally and legally.

The Church, unlike society, has this remarkably benign and moderate attitude: don’t persecute the individual because he bears a cross. Dealing with that cross requires pity, not persecution. But don’t sanction or tolerate the destructive behavior that occurs if he drops that cross.

Most of us in society are not smart enough to discern the difference between the two concepts.

You said, I still can’t find myself being willing to have the government come in and arrest and make it illegal for such groups to form-at least in the United States.

Should we tolerate sexual deviance? At what point do we stop? And for how long do we wait until the bar is lowered farther? If a behavior is legal, then groups can form around that behavior and must be tolerated.

Should we tolerate homosexual behavior? Many on this forum think it’s not our business one way or the other. But our societal mores go down, they recruit new people, and now we’re at a point where children are raised to believe it is normal and of equal value with heterosexuality. (Just try advocating a position of homosexual sex being perverse while in a public school…) Homosexuality has not been considered a paraphilia in the psychiatric community for 40 years now. So-called “homophobia” is on the cusp of being declared a sociopathic condition by that same community (there has been discussion about its inclusion in the release of DSM-V).

Should we tolerate adultery? Once that is fully ingrained as acceptable in our society, what kind of impact would that have? How about ephebophilia? (You do realize that in some western societies, such as Croatia, Austria, Bosnia, Germany, Hungary, Portugal the age of consent is 14. In Spain, it’s 13) What about if all societal mores against prostitution disappear? Do you feel comfortable with the idea of 13 and 14 year olds being prostituted? Or do you feel comfortable with the idea of older homosexual males seeking out 13 and 14 year old boys – as long as there is no deceit, it is perfectly legal in at least some of the countries I listed above.

And then where do we go?

I remember as a kid, the argument given was “just leave us alone. Don’t barge into our bedrooms.” The very concept of a Folsom Street Fair was inconceivable (if you’re not familiar, look it up…but be warned, what you will see is NSFW). And in the past 40-50 years, we have degenerated to the point to where we’re wrong if we oppose public, state-sanctioned marriage between two people of the same sex.

A couple of quotes from non-Catholics (since we don’t want a theocracy):

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

“It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side” Thomas Jefferson

 

[markomalley]

Mark you should look agian at the laws yo keep qoteing.

They are now invalid and dadt is over, gone, cuput.

One other thing: here are some links to show that they are current law:

Article 125 of the UCMJ, from the official US government US Code site.

And the specific court martial specifications for sodomy are located on p IV-96 of the MCM (here). And Adultery (Article 134 specification 62) is on page IV-114. And cohabitation (Article 134 specification 69) is on page IV-120.

BTW, do I think that any JAG is going to bring charges against anybody for consensual sodomy? I doubt it. But the law is still there.

 

[Soulstorm]

I’m glad you decided to join this topic Mark, you’re providing a very good perspective on this situation and I agree that as soon as something is legal its only a matter of time before you’re forced to tolerate it and accept it as natural.

However I would like to know how essentially laws against homosexuals would be played out among civilians in the United States. One of the main problems I see on the individual level is that it would strengthen and encourage allowing people to get away with harming homosexuals. For instance, the “gay panic” defense of someone beating/killing someone because they were of the same sex and flirting with you would be acceptable because that person wasn’t suppose to be doing anything homosexual in the first place.

Also for the United States at least, I do not believe we have a choice in the matter of allowing people to promote sexual deviancy. After all the government doesn’t shut down the Ku Klux Klan, and they’re free to have parades of white supremacy so long as there is no evidence that they’ve harmed anyone or broke any laws.

 

[markomalley]

I’m glad you decided to join this topic Mark, you’re providing a very good perspective on this situation and I agree that as soon as something is legal its only a matter of time before you’re forced to tolerate it and accept it as natural.

However I would like to know how essentially laws against homosexuals would be played out among civilians in the United States. One of the main problems I see on the individual level is that it would strengthen and encourage allowing people to get away with harming homosexuals. For instance, the “gay panic” defense of someone beating/killing someone because they were of the same sex and flirting with you would be acceptable because that person wasn’t suppose to be doing anything homosexual in the first place.

Also for the United States at least, I do not believe we have a choice in the matter of allowing people to promote sexual deviancy. After all the government doesn’t shut down the Ku Klux Klan, and they’re free to have parades of white supremacy so long as there is no evidence that they’ve harmed anyone or broke any laws.

That’s where the Church’s position has wisdom. Society would do well to adopt that position. Treat individuals who are subject to this (or some other, no offense, defect) with mercy. But don’t in any way sanction the activity.

In this type of society, the individual consciences of our legislators need to be formed around this, and other aspects, of the moral law. Then they can make legislation that supports and reinforces those societal mores.

The question is, though: how do you push the genie back into the bottle once it’s escaped?

 

[robbie20]

If I’m want to have gay sex (hypothetically of course) I’ll find a way to do it even with sodomy laws…

Mark in 2003 all the sodomy laws were invalidated…

 

[markomalley]

If I’m want to have gay sex (hypothetically of course) I’ll find a way to do it even with sodomy laws…

Mark in 2003 all the sodomy laws were invalidated…

*Lawrence *struck down the Texas sodomy statute and it was struck down because of the violation of due process. If you examine what happened, a cop entered an apartment on a totally unrelated matter (a weapons complaint), saw two adult males engaging in anal sex, and arrested them on the anti-Sodomy charge.

*Lawrence *has no bearing on the UCMJ. The UCMJ is written to preserve good order and discipline with the US military and is explicitly allowed by the Constitution.

I am not saying that I agree with Lawrence, but agree or not, it has nothing to do with the UCMJ. Sorry if you didn’t understand that. I know the propaganda out there is pretty pervasive and I’d see where you’d come up with that misunderstanding.

I think I’ve already expressed my opinion enough to where any more would be redundant.