Homosexuality and the seperation of Church and State

[JReducation]

It is equally important to remember several points here.

1. The Church makes a clear distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2. In distinguishing the two, the Church is not anti-gay or anti-lesbian. It opposes a behaviour that violates the sacredness of human sexuality and one of its purposes.
3. Human sexuality has to ends: a) the expression of love and b) procreation. While two people of the same gender may truly love each other, for love is not limitted to heterosexuals, the second end of human sexuality cannot be met through homosexual activity.
4. The Church’s position of homosexual activity is intimately linked to her position of the sacredness of life. Not only must life be protected from conception, but it must be protected until death. Any behaviour that diminishes the dignity of human beings, is a behaviour that diminishes the dignity of life and all that it includes (i.e. sexuality). Therefore, all sexual behaviour (straight and gay) that fails to dignify the human person fails to promote the dignity of life.
5. The bottom line here is not gay or straight people, the bottom line here is sexuality that is in conflict with the dignity of man.

All nations have a moral obligations to protect and promote the dignity of their citizens. And the citizens of all nations have the obligation and the right to demand that their government do so.

JR

 

[ateista]

It comes as no surprise that gays are atheist.

Incorrect. Some of them are believers, some are even Catholics. And they suffer. Suffer from the prejudice and their inborn attraction to people of the same gender.

It is exactly this fork in the road they come to. The cannot be Catholic and gay, so out goes their faith and God. They will ramble on how the Church drove them to it and in a way it did, the truth of the Church, but they make it sound like it’s not inclusive. The Church does not exclude any sinner.

Does it not? I beg to differ. Maybe the church pays lip service to “love the sinner”… but that is of no consequence.

 

[ateista]

The KKK would be an example of a false religion. I am speaking of a religion that possesses the fullness of truth. The truth escalates itself.

False religion? They profess to be Christians… who base their views on the Bible. Go and argue with them!

 

[ateista]

Very, very well put!

Thank you!

 

[Schultzz]

In Political Philosophy we learn that in a Democracy the state chooses what they wish the law to be and who will lead them.

Is the USA wrong or right in their stance on homosexuality?

Is the Church right or wrong on their fight for keeping homosexual marriage and acts illegal?

Where does natural law fit in, in all of this?

Speaking of “natural law”, in the animal world (natural), same sex desire does not occur. What does that tell you of natural law?

 

[JReducation]

Speaking of “natural law”, in the animal world (natural), same sex desire does not occur. What does that tell you of natural law?

I believe that it does happen among penguins and they’re even monogamous. But we’re not penguins, so the analogy ends right there.

We have to look at natural law for humans.

JR

 

[ateista]

The deeper issue with your argument is that it essentially defines the free exercise of religion out of the constitution. In what appears to be your conception, the freedom to believe a certain thing is absolute but the freedom to act upon that belief is restricted, hampered by whatever diminished philosophical logic happens to be in vogue at the time.

No, it is based upon the Constitution - to be more precise - on the equal protection clause.

You argue that the KKK may be allowed to hold whatever bigoted ideas seem appropriate for them. You then make the bizarre claim that they ought to be prevented from advocating that any of these sincerely held beliefs be put into law. How far do you suppose one ought to take this prohibition? Is the KKK to be prevented from publishing pamphlets or other printed material in order to persuade others that the law must be changed? Should the privilege of voting on certain racially-charged proposals be restricted from members of the KKK?

You misunderstand me, They should be allowed to publish their views. They should even be allowed to petition the government about their “grievances”. But they should be struck down on Constitutional grounds. That is why we have the third branch, the judicial system.

Once we have answered all those thorny questions, we have even further to go. We must examine the standard by which we make such distinctions. Why is that sincerely held belief (whatever we choose to call it) so sacrosanct that it cannot be restricted in a similar fashion? Why is it that that sincerely held belief ought to be afforded any greater respect than the beliefs of the KKK?

There is no belief “sacrosanct”. You are free to advocate whatever you want to. You are only prevented from **acting **on it - if this action prevents others from expressing their beliefs.

It does not matter, if 99% of the population would consider a belief “worthy”. If it is against the Constitution, it should be prevented from becoming a law. Suppose a 99% of the population would be atheist. They should not be allowed to impose their worldview on you, and prevent you from exercising your religion as you see fit… as long as you peacefully exercise it, and express your views… If you are against abortion, not even 99% should be allowed to force you to have one.

This kind of freedom is for your protection.

 

[ateista]

Speaking of “natural law”, in the animal world (natural), same sex desire does not occur. What does that tell you of natural law?

Incorrect. It does occur.

 

[ateista]

Personal freedom, including freedom of speech - the freedom to express our beliefs but that does not mean that other people will respect those beliefs per se, but only our right to express them. However, with the KKK example, the members of the KKK do not have the right to act on their beliefs when that action infringes upon the freedom of others. So, yes, you can hand out fliers, etc., but you can’t discriminate and you can’t lynch, etc. Let me add that I am the only liberal I know who has a problem with “hate” speech. My problem is that legislation against hate speect results in the defacto silencing of much dissent. This is where we come back to freedom of speech - while it is true that speech can harm, for example, the KKK does say things that are hurtful to the people of color and Catholics (they used to be very anti-Catholic though I’m not sure they focus on this much anymore) and Jews who hear it. Yet I believe that the right to free speech overrides these considerations in this case since this right is so basic to our way of life (which is why it was the 1st Amendment). This does, however, have to be kept in context. A Klan member can express his opinions at a rally for example, but cannot - in his role as a job supervisor, say - engage in racial or religious harrassment of employees. It’s a fine line, no doubt. And, for me, it all boils down to civil rights.

Now there was a time in this country not that long ago when segregation was accepted, even legal. And the folks who supported these laws really believed they were “right” and many considered themselves to be “good” Christians. They could quote scripture to back up their racist views. One of the KKK men who was involved in the bombing of the church in Birmingham (I think it was B’ham) that killed the four black girls was a minister of some sort. I remember reading that one of the original jurors said that she voted “not guilty” because she just couldn’t send a preacher to jail! Seems like nonsense to us, but that’s the way people thing and that’s why we have to keep “religion” out of civil law. Remember, the 1st Amendment also gives us religious freedom so we can’t very well tell these folks they’re just nuts - they really believe God is a racist. And as we should all know by now, people will fight to the death over their interpretation of God. Which is why we should just leave it alone, IMO. We’d likely end up with a religious war over whose “GOD” was the right one. This, I think, is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. They’d lived through this type of persecution and they wanted to avoid it at all costs. Yes, there is a trade off, but I, for one, think it’s worth it.

Your words are pure gold! Well said, very well said!!

 

[ateista]

1. Human sexuality has to ends: a) the expression of love and b) procreation. While two people of the same gender may truly love each other, for love is not limitted to heterosexuals, the second end of human sexuality cannot be met through homosexual activity.

Nor can it be met if one of the heterosexual couple is infertile, had a surgery which leads to infertility or past the procreation age…

If you say that love is “incorrect” if there is no chance of procreation, then you should exclude these heterosexual couples, too… Are you willing to do that? I should hope, not! And if so, then the exclusion of homosexual couples becomes indefensible, does it not?

 

[OTavern]

Incorrect. Some of them are believers, some are even Catholics. And they suffer. Suffer from the prejudice and their inborn attraction to people of the same gender.

The idea that there exists an “inborn” attraction is dubious at best. A University of Berkeley researcher Wendy Saltzman has uncovered profound changes in marmoset monkey sexual function as a result of social interaction.

Reproductive failure in subordinate females can occur in
response to either intrasexual (i.e., rank-related suppression)
or intersexual (i.e., inbreeding avoidance) influences. The
specific roles of these two factors differ among species.
Captive S. oedipus females require cohabitation with an un-
related male in order to commence ovulatory cyclicity, even
after removal from the natal family (Widowski et al. 1990,
1992). Among captive C. jacchus females, in contrast, ovu-
lation suppression is determined by intrasexual dominance
relationships: daughters living with their families frequently
ovulate even in the absence of unrelated males but only
if they are not behaviorally subordinate to another female.

Marmoset monkeys travel in family groups including a dominant male and a number of females. What is interesting is that only one female in the group is fertile. The subordinate females actually become infertile (completely stop ovulating) simply because of their standing in the social group. When the lead female dies or leaves the group, one of the subordinate females rises to take her place and becomes fertile again. This pretty much establishes that social factors can profoundly change the physiological roots of sexual function.

If this is true in higher order mammals like marmoset monkeys there is no reason to believe similar changes cannot take place in human societies. In other words, if monkeys can become completely infertile and cease ovulating because of “social standing” in a group, there is no reason for postulating some kind of “inborn” attraction among gay individuals. Socialization issues explain these quite adequately.

 

[JReducation]

Nor can it be met if one of the heterosexual couple is infertile, had a surgery which leads to infertility or past the procreation age…

If you say that love is “incorrect” if there is no chance of procreation, then you should exclude these heterosexual couples, too… Are you willing to do that? I should hope, not! And if so, then the exclusion of homosexual couples becomes indefensible, does it not?

First, the Church does not say that love is incorrect. It says that love is one of the two goals of sexuality. The other is procreation.

Second, if a couple is knowingly incapable of procreation, using the examples in your statement, this does not negate the natural order. Such cases are not the norm, they are he exception. When most couples marry they are capable of procreation.

If a person undergoes sterilization because they do not want to have children and they do so prior to marriage and they continue to subscribe to idea that they don’t want to have children, there is no way that they can validly contract a marriage.

To contract a valid marriage individuals capable of having children must be willing to do so. The only individuals who can validly contract marriage and not have children are those who cannot through no fault of their own.

In the case of a heterosexual couple, the possibility of having children was there, but through no fault of their own, it no longer is. In the case of a gay couple, this possibility was never there. Therefore, it is understood that they enage in a relationship there never was the possibility for a valid marriage.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[Swan]

Your words are pure gold! Well said, very well said!!

My turn to thank you!

 

[Schultzz]

Incorrect. It does occur.

Degrading your sexual desires to that of an animal reminds me of pictures of demons who were half animal half human in appearance. They had horns coming out of their head. So if you want to be like an animal that is your choice. But don’t expect your choice to be accepted in the norm. If we had communities or islands where those who decided to be animal-like in their desires could live in peace amongst themselves, then they could marry and have their own society away from those who did not agree with them. We could have one for pedophiles, and murderers and others, and they could have their own churches or whatever they choose. They just could not leave without good reason and not without a tracking bracelet. Then we could leave all judgements to God.
Problem solved.

 

[OTavern]

Incorrect. It does occur.

Yes it does, but typically as a result of environmental or social stresses like overpopulation, crowding, scarcity of possible mates, etc. – in other words “atypical” social or environmental circumstances.

Researchers at Cambridge University make the following comments:

…Bruce Bagemihl … in his book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (1999). … made it clear, however, that the evidence for homosexual behaviour in animals is overwhelmingly sketchy and anecdotal.

…the lack of research on this topic may be because, despite media hype and the claims of some researchers, relatively few species habitually engage in homosexual behaviour. One can hardly be expected to undertake a research project (let alone an entire research program that spans one’s career) aimed at studying a particular behaviour if doing so necessitates observing the study species for hundreds of hours before a single instance of the behaviour is observed. No funding agency would support such work and no investigator would be able to sustain such a research agenda. Thus, most studies on homosexual behaviour are generated in conjunction with, or as a sideline to, research on other topics.

 

[ateista]

First, the Church does not say that love is incorrect. It says that love is one of the two goals of sexuality. The other is procreation.

No problem. However, procreation is not “mandatory”, it is optional.

Second, if a couple is knowingly incapable of procreation, using the examples in your statement, this does not negate the natural order. Such cases are not the norm, they are he exception. When most couples marry they are capable of procreation.

Most, but not all. There is nothing “unnatural” or “exceptional” about having two people to marry, who are way beyond their reproductive age. And - as usual - majority does not count as an argument.

If a person undergoes sterilization because they do not want to have children and they do so prior to marriage and they continue to subscribe to idea that they don’t want to have children, there is no way that they can validly contract a marriage.

I wonder, if the Church would conduct a thorough examination of tubal ligation, or hysterectomy. I rather doubt it, and also doubt if the Church would require a semen-sample to be examined to show that the sperm-count is over zero. Though I would love to see such requirements as a prerequisite for church-weddings. Can you imagine the uproar?

However, marriage is a secular institution, and there is absolutely no requirement that the couple is a) able, and b) willing to procreate. Many people simply do not want to have children, and that is their own business.

To contract a valid marriage individuals capable of having children must be willing to do so. The only individuals who can validly contract marriage and not have children are those who cannot through no fault of their own.

Which, even if were a correct argument, would include a homosexual couple, who are incapable of having children through no fault of their own. Mind you, they still can adopt children.

In the case of a heterosexual couple, the possibility of having children was there, but through no fault of their own, it no longer is. In the case of a gay couple, this possibility was never there. Therefore, it is understood that they enage in a relationship there never was the possibility for a valid marriage.

Since your definition of a “valid” marriage is incorrect, this conclusion is also incorrect.

 

[ateista]

Yes it does, but typically as a result of environmental or social stresses like overpopulation, crowding, scarcity of possible mates, etc. – in other words “atypical” social or environmental circumstances.

So, what is the point? Some higher apes, like the bonobos habitually engage in both hetero and homosexual activities, many times to lower their frustration level. In other words, they make love, not war. Pretty civilized, I would say.

 

[Other_Eric]

No, it is based upon the Constitution - to be more precise - on the equal protection clause.

You misunderstand me, They should be allowed to publish their views. They should even be allowed to petition the government about their “grievances”. But they should be struck down on Constitutional grounds. That is why we have the third branch, the judicial system.

There is no belief “sacrosanct”. You are free to advocate whatever you want to. You are only prevented from **acting **on it - if this action prevents others from expressing their beliefs.

It does not matter, if 99% of the population would consider a belief “worthy”. If it is against the Constitution, it should be prevented from becoming a law. Suppose a 99% of the population would be atheist. They should not be allowed to impose their worldview on you, and prevent you from exercising your religion as you see fit… as long as you peacefully exercise it, and express your views… If you are against abortion, not even 99% should be allowed to force you to have one.

This kind of freedom is for your protection.

So, as I understand it, you accord the constitution the level of some unimpeachable holy writ, unassailable by either reason or logic. It is the constitution, or rather your interpretation of it, that becomes sacrosanct. You therefore accord any opinion on any subject, secular or spiritual, the exact same legal status. The bigoted views of a member of the KKK, the sexual views of a member of the Metropolitan Community Church or the more common economic views of a capitalist should all enjoy the same legal status.

You seem not to realize that a value judgment is being placed on the quality of each individual belief and that the free exercise of those beliefs can be restricted for some compelling state interest. The KKK is thus denied the free exercise of their beliefs not so much because the constitution prevents it (should the KKK develop a strong enough coalition, they could amend the constitution to suit their ends) but because you believe society would be ill-served should those beliefs be put into practice.

As Catholics, the Church teaches us that we cannot turn a blind eye to the sins of our brothers and sisters lest we be guilty of passively participating in those sins. The free exercise of that belief will involve the just discrimination against those people who experience same-sex attractions. Your standard of being prevented from acting on a belief if it prevents another from acting on his belief is self-contradictory. Those with same-sex attractions, who act on their sexual impulses, prevent a Catholic, serious about his religion, from acting on his sincerely held beliefs. Clearly there is a value judgment being placed on whose free exercise of their beliefs it ought to be licit to restrict in favor of the beliefs of another.

For Christians, there is an obvious and secular compelling state interest to be had in the regulation of sexual activity. With its strategic value in procreation and the necessity of such in order to continue our way of life (with its constitution) the move to degrade the sexual faculty to nothing more than the hedonistic pursuit of orgasm does not merely ill-serve society, it has the potential to kill it. The direst predictions of the KKK only boil down to the genetic integration of the races. The predictions of Christians, on the other hand, point to a palpable threat to the continuation of a free society and therefore demonstrate why it is that those with same-sex ought to be prevented from ever acting on them.

 

[mangy_dog]

Which religious views? “Should” it be the muslim view be the one which prevails in “influencing” government? Are you so eager to observe the Ramadan? Not to eat or drink between the sunrise and sunset for a whole month? Don’t forget, the fastest growing religious segment is the muslim.

It can and it ***should ***fail.

Yes, I agree. This is why I hope that all the religious views will eventually disappear, and only the truth will remain. No matter how strong the “obstinate refusal” happens to be and how long that “short term” will be.

Belated happy atheist day…4/1/08.

How’s that for equal rights? Your own holiday.

Anyway,… still praying for all you atheists to recognize the error of your ways and return home.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[ateista]

So, as I understand it, you accord the constitution the level of some unimpeachable holy writ, unassailable by either reason or logic.

Your understanding is incorrect. The constitution is not “holy”, it is changable. It was a great concept, and its “spirit” is still alive and well. In one short sentence it says: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.

It is the constitution, or rather your interpretation of it, that becomes sacrosanct.

Not my interpretation.

You therefore accord any opinion on any subject, secular or spiritual, the exact same legal status. The bigoted views of a member of the KKK, the sexual views of a member of the Metropolitan Community Church or the more common economic views of a capitalist should all enjoy the same legal status.

Yes. The opinion, yes. Acting upon it, no.

You seem not to realize that a value judgment is being placed on the quality of each individual belief and that the free exercise of those beliefs can be restricted for some compelling state interest.

Well, it can happen. But it has to be a legitimate and compelling interest. And not just a whim of few individuals.

The KKK is thus denied the free exercise of their beliefs not so much because the constitution prevents it (should the KKK develop a strong enough coalition, they could amend the constitution to suit their ends) but because you believe society would be ill-served should those beliefs be put into practice.

Any belief that contravenes the basic concept of the constitution is correctly prevented from being **acted **upon.

As Catholics, the Church teaches us that we cannot turn a blind eye to the sins of our brothers and sisters lest we be guilty of passively participating in those sins.

Which is neither here nor there. Since you cannot demonstrate that your beliefs are more than wishful thinking, you can practice among yourselves, you are even allowed to express them publicly, but that is all. You cannot and should not interfere with anyone else’s life.

As I said, it is for your protection, lest some other group would decide that their “sincerely” held belief system compels them to interfere with yours.

The free exercise of that belief will involve the just discrimination against those people who experience same-sex attractions.

Just??? I would love to see your absolute fury, if some other group would discriminate against you, based upon **their **sincerely held belief system!

Your standard of being prevented from acting on a belief if it prevents another from acting on his belief is self-contradictory. Those with same-sex attractions, who act on their sexual impulses, prevent a Catholic, serious about his religion, from acting on his sincerely held beliefs.

Pure BS. They do not practice in your churches, or in your homes.

You just reminded me of a joke:

An old woman calls the police and complains that the couple across from her apartment engages in disgusting sexual practices, and it bothers her to be exposed to such sight. The police comes to investigate. They see nothing in the apartment, and say so. The old woman replies: “not where you are, you can’t see it from there”. And she climbs up on top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, leans out at an angle, and says: “Come up here and you will see those disgusting people!”…

I hope you see the parallel. It is none of your business what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

For Christians, there is an obvious and secular compelling state interest to be had in the regulation of sexual activity.

No, there is not. Not even for all Christians. Only a small minority of them.

With its strategic value in procreation and the necessity of such in order to continue our way of life (with its constitution) the move to degrade the sexual faculty to nothing more than the hedonistic pursuit of orgasm does not merely ill-serve society, it has the potential to kill it.

Wow, how pathetic. The gay or lesbian couple will bring down civilization, if allowed to practice their love peacefully, in their own bedroom…

The direst predictions of the KKK only boil down to the genetic integration of the races. The predictions of Christians, on the other hand, point to a palpable threat to the continuation of a free society and therefore demonstrate why it is that those with same-sex ought to be prevented from ever acting on them.

Really? Why don’t you “predict” that the free exercise of homosexual love will not just bring down civilization, it will create a black hole, which will suck in the whole Galaxy!