If homosexual marriage should be illegal, shouldn't all other sins be illegal as well?

[adv1sor]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

Should all porn be against the law?

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Where would you draw the line?

 

[mosher]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

Should all porn be against the law?

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Where would you draw the line?

This issue is not specifically a Catholic issue. Rather, it is an issue about the natural institution of Marriage (as opposed to the Sacrament). This applies to all peoples because it is an issue that is related to the Natural Moral Law. The reason why it is so important is because the State (according to the Natural Moral Law) exists for the very purpose of defending the institution of Marriage so that human flourishing can happen. In other words, if there was not Marriage there would be no need for the State.

While the other issues you point to are important they do not have the same foundational priority to human civilization. While all sin/vice does damage to human civilization there are some such as lying/murder/adultery (along with all other aspects that damage the human family such as divorce, spousal abuse, contraception, abortion, etc) that when committed stab at the very heart of human civilization.

Part of the reason why this can be difficult to see in our time is that we are so highly influenced by modern and post-modern thought. In these philosophical strains of thought there is a hyper-emphasis on the autonomy of the individual over and against the community. While the individual is important and we should not establish of false dichotomy between the individual and the community. It would be wrong to assert that the individual can flourish without the community. In this way, the institution of Marriage relates back to the individual and then radiates out, again, to the greater community.

A short quippy way of putting the issue is that the human family is the fundamental building-block of the human State. And, the State exists for the very purpose of supporting and sustaining the flourishing of the human family.

So, to answer your initial question, it is not about forcing people who are not Catholic to support and legally enshrine Catholic beliefs. Rather, the Church is also responsible for the defense of the Natural Moral Law, which is common all all men. Thus, on this issue (and most other moral issues that the Church addresses) the issue is not about strictly about a faith response to a moral issues. Rather, the Church is defending the common moral fabric of all humanity that can be discerned without the aid of Divine Revelation. Just because it is defending by the Church does not mean that it is a religious issue. The Church, in this case, is not arguing for the defense of the Sacrament of Matrimony, but is rather arguing for the defense of natural Marriage.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

No. It’s one thing for individuals to do what they want to, even if it’s sinful. It’s quite another to actively get the state involved. Remember that homosexuals are free right now to call themselves “married,” and have “weddings,” and the like. After all, with polygamists, this is exactly what happens – the first wife is the man’s legal spouse, all subsequent wives are married only religiously, not civilly. It’s the gay marriage supporters who are forcing the state to get involved to sanction their sin and reward it with legal benefits.

All that said, there is a legitimate state role in legislating morality and preserving virtue. Everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not, understands this reality. We have laws against murder because it’s objectively wrong, even if some people would prefer that we didn’t. We even have laws regulating which substances people can put into their bodies, in order to prevent them from doing immoral or harmful things to themselves. A legitimate debate can be had, even amongst Catholics, as to what role the State should play in promoting virtue as opposed to leaving everything laissez faire.

But the one line the State cannot cross is promoting evil. And when the State attaches legal benefits to gay “marriage,” it crosses that line.

 

[Betterave]

Homosexual marriage is not a sin, it is an oxymoron.

Your question is like asking: If allowing chickens to vote should be illegal, shouldn’t all other sins be illegal as well?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Because it fosters gender inequality. That’s one secular reason for outlawing it. The female couples will have more reproductive and custodial rights than the male couples, and they’ll also be able to pull in more money through child support and welfare than the men could.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

It’s one thing for the government to decide that it will not prosecute or criminalize homosexual behavior. But it is another thing entirely to decide to condone and recognize homosexual activity by allowing two people of the same sex to call their relationship a “marriage.”

 

[adv1sor]

Excellent answers and comments. (Except for the chickens voting thing or course).

I thank you.

I think I have looked at this the wrong way.

We don’t have laws against homosexuality and we shouldn’t have laws that favor homosexuality.

 

[BRUTEFORCE]

yes

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

Should all porn be against the law?

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Where would you draw the line?

This level of public morality enforcement has already been tried – see the Pilgrims and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600’s and 1700’s. Didn’t work out. Ironically, now in the land of the Pilgrims public religious belief is practically against the law, and deviant sexual practices are enshrined and protected in law. Surely there must be a happy medium.

 

[YankeeRC]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

Should all porn be against the law?

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Where would you draw the line?

Even NY state, had laws as recently as the 70’s which made adultery, sodomy, pornography, statutory rape (underage sex) arrestable crimes. I had no problem with such laws being on the books.

 

[exnihilo]

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Of course. And everyone, including atheists, do this. Every law is about enforcing a belief/morality. When the belief/morality is that murder is wrong then almost everyone goes along with it. Where it starts to get problematic is with the widespread, more popular sins.

Of course we could say that we should only have laws for things that directly harm others and not for sins that harm only the self. This would still make murder, theft, abortion, adultery, and many other major sins against the law. But this would exclude things like drug laws. What we find is that many people, including many non religious folks, are still for laws that only directly harm the individual. So we find no great moral revulsion to controlling private behavior.

Since the rest of society, including atheists, are not truly against legislating morality we should not so limit ourselves. But, I also think it worth considering the results. Attempting to legislate morality in the name of the church does not always help the church. We should be more concerned with the church than legislating morality.

 

[tafan]

Aquinas answered this question directly in Article 2 of Question 96 ww.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm. And on this one, his answer is quite straight forward and easy to follow.

“Whether it belongs to human law to suppress all vices?”

Key paragraph:

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like

 

[Eloh]

No, they shouldn’t.
Not everyone in your country follows your religion. Respect that.

 

[dcs6f4]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

Should all porn be against the law?

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Where would you draw the line?

This may help you understand the Catholic side a little better… catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

 

[JonathonofOhio]

The only reason we hear about gay marriage is because marriage has become a government licensed tax bracket. So the government charges you a fee to get married, but they also make money from breaking up marriages too (divorce court). God created marriage, not man, but man has corrupted it. We should make no laws about marriage at all, except that the government should have no right to regulate, tax, or create licenses for what is a divine institution.

So my answer to where we draw the line is this: We have the government take a few steps back, and then draw the line right in front of the part where we let the government charge hidden taxes in the form of licenses, thereby forcing upon us regulation upon regulation in order to make the taxation/licensing system fair for everyone. Simply put: get government out of the business of marriage.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

First from a political standpoint:

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?
Absolutely not, to do so is counter to everything the Constitution stands for.

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?
See Above

Should all porn be against the law?

See above, also, the fewer laws on the books the better.

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

Absolutely not

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Absolutely not

Where would you draw the line?

At as few laws as possible to maintain order.

Now from a moral standpoint (where I vote, as opposed to how I feel):

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs?
Absolutely not. Except in circumstances where it is for the wellbeing of the majority or the weak, exactly like having laws against “honor” killings

Should there be a law against renting rooms at hotels or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples?

No. That is a moral choice that they will make regardless of whether they can rent a particular room or not. It is wiser to not cohabitate etc. But they will do whatever they choose. We must educate, not legislate on this issue.

Should all porn be against the law?

Ab-So-Freaking-Lutely. Pornography damages everything it touches:morally, spiritually, emotionally, and often physically. It distorts a mans perception of what women should be and distorts womens perception of what sex should be.

Should we imprison men and women who show disrespect for their parents?

Why? We are commanded to honor our father and mother, not respect them… A bit legalistic there, but you get the drift.

What about people who don’t go the Church on Sunday? Should they face a punishment of law?

Nope. Sins against the self cannot be punished systematically by a government without harming the populace as a whole. What if I missed for a good reason but dont or cannot explain it?

Where would you draw the line?

With reason. What is reasonable? What makes sense? Legislation can never be the cause of moral behavior but it can give solid consequences for immorality as necessary.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Homosexual marriage is not a sin, it is an oxymoron.

Your question is like asking: If allowing chickens to vote should be illegal, shouldn’t all other sins be illegal as well?

Quoted for awesomeness.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

No, they shouldn’t.
Not everyone in your country follows your religion. Respect that.

I think the OP was asking a hypothetical question…

 

[dcs6f4]

Should all porn be against the law?

Ab-So-Freaking-Lutely. Pornography damages everything it touches:morally, spiritually, emotionally, and often physically. It distorts a mans perception of what women should be and distorts womens perception of what sex should be.

I think Part IV in the link I posted would help you paint homosexual relationships with the same brush…

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I think Part IV in the link I posted would help you paint homosexual relationships with the same brush…

I think that homosexual marriage is a brush of a different color, but a similar brush nonetheless.But I only responded to the questions as posed by the OP. I am working on not diverting threads down rabbit holes (which I seem to do a lot)