Is having homosexual acts illegal in a country correct or incorrect?

[Rau]

Recall your statement Richca:
*"Governments that enact laws that are against the divine law are not really laws at all and they do not have to be obeyed as it is written "We must **obey *God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)."

My response is that the Government has not enacted any laws compelling anyone to act contrary to God’s law…as further discussed below:

Well, the U.S. supreme court ruled last month legalizing gay marriage which in effect is a redefinition of marriage and placing the union of gay men or women on an equal footing with the divine institution of marriage between one man and one woman. We also have legalized abortion in the U.S. which is the murder of the unborn. These laws concern me …

It is entirely reasonable that you ought be concerned, but does either of these laws require your obedience in any sense? Do either require you to do anything contrary to God.?

Well, if I was a gay man wanting to marry another gay man, the recent ruling by the U.S. supreme court legalizing gay marriage amounts to a law that would **cause **me to act in a sense contrary to the divine law and the divine institution of marriage. The same can be said about legalized abortion.

These laws do not demand any action whatsoever by a gay person desiring to be in a sexual relationship with another person, nor of a pregnant person desirous of ending their pregnancy. These laws choose not to enable those actions, but not to compel them. And you could probably argue that - at least in the case of abortion - they increase the incidence of that act. In the case of SSM, I doubt the law makes any difference to the extent of same sex sexual relationships. However, nothing here compels one to act contrary to God’s law. There is no sense in which there is something to be “disobeyed”.

I never said there was such a principle [that laws should forbid acts contrary to God]. What I stated in post #61 refers to human made positive law or laws contrary to the divine law. Accordingly, the legalization of homosexual acts and marriage is contrary to the divine law and ,consequently, homosexual acts and marriage should not be made legal by any human authority.

Understood, but as noted, these laws do not compel wrong acts, and there is nothing here we need to “disobey” to remain faithful to God’s law.

The difficulty with these laws is that not that they compel anyone, but rather the falsehoods they lift up by promoting certain ideologies. The ideology that says unborn children are disposable, not even human for a time. And the ideology that says Marriage is any relationship between (or among) human beings that the State cares to designate accordingly.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Recall your statement Richca:
"Governments that enact laws that are against the divine law are not really laws at all and they do not have to be obeyed as it is written “We must **obey **God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)."

My response is that the Government has not enacted any laws compelling anyone to act contrary to God’s law…as further discussed below:

It is entirely reasonable that you ought be concerned, but does either of these laws require your obedience in any sense? Do either require you to do anything contrary to God.?

These laws do not demand any action whatsoever by a gay person desiring to be in a sexual relationship with another person, nor of a pregnant person desirous of ending their pregnancy. These laws choose not to enable those actions, but not to compel them. And you could probably argue that - at least in the case of abortion - they increase the incidence of that act. In the case of SSM, I doubt the law makes any difference to the extent of same sex sexual relationships. However, nothing here compels one to act contrary to God’s law. There is no sense in which there is something to be “disobeyed”.

Understood, but as noted, these laws do not compel wrong acts, and there is nothing here we need to “disobey” to remain faithful to God’s law.

The difficulty with these laws is that not that they compel anyone, but rather the falsehoods they lift up by promoting certain ideologies. The ideology that says unborn children are disposable, not even human for a time. And the ideology that says Marriage is any relationship between (or among) human beings that the State cares to designate accordingly.

If the Supreme Court ruling only enabled SSM, and would stop there, then it would be limited to just that. However, the fallout is everyone else having not only to accept but celebrate it. Hence, businesses that cater to marriage are compelled against their wills to photograph, bake cakes and provide venues for SSM, or face huge penalties.

Schools have to fall in line, having to equate any kind of arrangement with traditional marriage. Second graders already in California start learning “any kind of family” propaganda in the LGBT program forced upon public schools. Since all this is counter-intuitive, you have to be “carefully taught”.

This follows the media whittling away traditional values and morals. It is clear that this agenda is pushed from the top down. No one asked John Q Public if that is what he wants. When there were referenda as in California in 2008, people voted to preserve marriage between a man and woman, eventually struck down by a single judge. These “learned men” are the ones to blame for over reaching their authority and legislating from the bench. Eventually, people become acclimated to the idea, once implemented, as in abortion. If someone in authority says it’s OK, they follow like sheep.

 

[Rau]

If the Supreme Court ruling only enabled SSM, and would stop there, then it would be limited to just that. However, the fallout is everyone else having not only to accept but celebrate it. Hence, businesses that cater to marriage are compelled against their wills to photograph, bake cakes and provide venues for SSM, or face huge penalties.

Schools have to fall in line, having to equate any kind of arrangement with traditional marriage. Second graders already in California start learning “any kind of family” propaganda in the LGBT program forced upon public schools. Since all this is counter-intuitive, you have to be “carefully taught”.

This follows the media whittling away traditional values and morals. It is clear that this agenda is pushed from the top down. No one asked John Q Public if that is what he wants. When there were referenda as in California in 2008, people voted to preserve marriage between a man and woman, eventually struck down by a single judge. These “learned men” are the ones to blame for over reaching their authority and legislating from the bench. Eventually, people become acclimated to the idea, once implemented, as in abortion. If someone in authority says it’s OK, they follow like sheep.

That’s true, though these various compulsions you mention arise from the non-discrimination laws, rather than the law that says 2 men can marry. Frankly I don’t think one ought to discriminate in a business transaction because a person experiences same sex attraction, but I think it’s a nonsense to forbid persons from declining to accept an assignment to photograph a wedding - whether same sex or not.

 

[PutresOmega]

Homosexual acts should be illegal because our children should not be subject to two same-sex individuals kissing in the street in front of them. We should allow children be children and protect them at a time in their life when they are still developing their own character and trying to understand their own sexuality.

As you said, you aren’t here to argue. That said, your reasoning for the second part is faulty - that sort of reasoning worked before the advent of the internet but now that the internet is around your children will be exposed to homosexual romance/coupling through it. Additionally, if the worry is the child being psychologically harmed by seeing men holding hands or kissing, there is no scientific evidence showing there is any real danger there. If there was we would expect to see an epidemic of confused twenty somethings in Canada today (Canada has been pretty cool with LGBT stuff including marriage for a couple of decades). I would also avoid the “LGBT doom nations” canard mentioned elsewhere in the thread: such argument amounts to ergo hoc proptor hoc fallacy.

You are better off standing on your moral views. Attempts to fabricate a secular basis for making homosexuality illegal have not only failed but done irreparable harm to the traditional romance side of the fight. It causes onlookers to assume you have no faith in your own moral/religious perspective (and if you have so little faith in it, why should we?), makes you come across as dishonest, or both.

 

[PRmerger]

You are better off standing on your moral views. Attempts to fabricate a secular basis for making homosexuality illegal have not only failed but done irreparable harm to the traditional romance side of the fight. It causes onlookers to assume you have no faith in your own moral/religious perspective (and if you have so little faith in it, why should we?), makes you come across as dishonest, or both.

The best secular argument for making homosexuality illegal is that it is bad for the human condition to indulge in a disordered desire.

 

[Strydersroom]

The best secular argument for making homosexuality illegal is that it is bad for the human condition to indulge in a disordered desire.

This really makes no sense and is a completely subjective and weak argument in my opinion. What exactly does bad for the human condition mean? And who would determine what disordered means? I am very happy and being gay, no pun intended, has been really good, great even for my human condition. And I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in

 

[PRmerger]

This really makes no sense and is a completely subjective and weak argument in my opinion. What exactly does bad for the human condition mean? And who would determine what disordered means? I am very happy and being gay, no pun intended, has been really good, great even for my human condition. And I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in

No one is happy indulging in disordered desires, Strydersroom.

It may feel satisfying to gratify this “itch” but in the end, no one is happy when one pursues something that is contrary to our nature.

Imagine you were in conversation with someone who was indulging in an activity you considered disordered. (I know you can imagine this–think of some deviant practice). He tells you, “I am quite happy doing this. I also watching others do this in the privacy of my home.”

You wouldn’t think that this would be bad for his psyche? Bad for his mental and emotional and spiritual health?

Think of some deviant, disordered act here.

NB: before you say, “How dare you compare homosexual activity to the deviant, disordered action I’m thinking of!” I will pre-empt by saying: I am making no such comparison at this time. Simply evaluate my question as it is presented.

Do you think someone who indulges in the type of disordered desire you’ve imagined can be healthy, mentally, spiritually, emotionally?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Russia got it right. Bravo!
lifesitenews.com/news/american-clergymans-plan-to-officiate-gay-wedding-thwarted-in-ukraine
An American clergyman in the Ukraine was deported for planning to officiate a gay wedding.

 

[Strydersroom]

No one is happy indulging in disordered desires, Strydersroom.

It may feel satisfying to gratify this “itch” but in the end, no one is happy when one pursues something that is contrary to our nature.

Imagine you were in conversation with someone who was indulging in an activity you considered disordered. (I know you can imagine this–think of some deviant practice). He tells you, “I am quite happy doing this. I also watching others do this in the privacy of my home.”

You wouldn’t think that this would be bad for his psyche? Bad for his mental and emotional and spiritual health?

Think of some deviant, disordered act here.

NB: before you say, “How dare you compare homosexual activity to the deviant, disordered action I’m thinking of!” I will pre-empt by saying: I am making no such comparison at this time. Simply evaluate my question as it is presented.

Do you think someone who indulges in the type of disordered desire you’ve imagined can be healthy, mentally, spiritually, emotionally?

I’ve been extremely happy in my marriage for years now. Nothing disordered about it, in fact it’s quite ordered and normal, like any other marriage.

 

[Rosebud77]

UOTE=PRmerger;14072425]The best secular argument for making homosexuality illegal is that it is bad for the human condition to indulge in a disordered desire.

 

[Rosebud77]

I’ve been extremely happy in my marriage for years now. Nothing disordered about it, in fact it’s quite ordered and normal, like any other marriage.

“methinks the person doth protest too much” ( the word in the quote was lady…) Define disordered please

 

[Rau]

…Nothing disordered about it, in fact it’s quite ordered and normal, like any other marriage.

Disordered (as used here in theology) is not the opposite or “orderly” (which is the sense in which you use the word “ordered”).

I would suggest your relationship - I understand to be a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex - is not like “any other marriage”. For the sexual relationship - or its sexual acts - are by their nature and of necessity not ordered to the purposes for which your sexual faculty exists.

 

[Rosebud77]

Homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise - children should not be the pawns in the sexual, squabbles, fantasies and desires of adults. This goes for heterosexual couples who fight over their children as if they were property or homosexual couples who believe they have a right to children in the same they have the right to own any piece of property.

As for the teaching of the Church - like it or not - married couples who use artificial contraception are just as much in the wrong as homosexual couples who engage in homosexual activities.

The Church does not discriminate against homosexuals. She teaches that sex is a gift given for the procreation of children and the bonding of fathers and mothers for the benefit of children.

This is a difficult teaching and one that is hard to accept. One can disagree with this teaching but they can not say that is discriminates. It is a hard teaching across the board.

except that it is not hard at all. to accept or to live if God is in your heart and soul and life … if He is not, a whole different ball game and not one anyone sensible woudl want to play

 

[Rosebud77]

Very sad. very scary. Every government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. How would one enforce this rule, and how would one determine what “act” is illegal? Genitals only? Kissing? Holding hands?

It’s quite offensive, obscene and despicable that some people would support such a clear violation of human dignity and freedom.

My dear; only you here talk of bedroom and other matters.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The best secular argument for making homosexuality illegal is that it is bad for the human condition to indulge in a disordered desire.

There are many things that could be considered bad for the human condition (such as smoking tobacco), but they aren’t illegal. This thread is supposedly about what should be legal or illegal. There is a very strict standard applied to making something illegal. It needs to be more than “it isn’t good for you”.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been extremely happy in my marriage for years now. Nothing disordered about it, in fact it’s quite ordered and normal, like any other marriage.

You actually didn’t answer my post.

Would you mind doing so?

Incidentally, a serial adulterer could say the exact same thing you’re saying…but that doesn’t make him actually happy. Nor does it make his disordered desire moral. Nor does it excuse his lifestyle.

 

[PRmerger]

There are many things that could be considered bad for the human condition (such as smoking tobacco), but they aren’t illegal.

Can you tell us why it’s illegal for a child to smoke tobacco? And for companies to advertise their tobacco? And why it’s banned in most restaurants?

The idea seems to be, pretty much, because “it isn’t good for you”, no?

This thread is supposedly about what should be legal or illegal. There is a very strict standard applied to making something illegal. It needs to be more than “it isn’t good for you”.

Of course. There is indeed more to it that “it isn’t good for you”.

 

[simpleas]

You actually didn’t answer my post.

Would you mind doing so?

Incidentally, a serial adulterer could say the exact same thing you’re saying…but that doesn’t make him actually happy. Nor does it make his disordered desire moral. Nor does it excuse his lifestyle.

I couldn’t resist commenting on how you can say on an internet forum that someone ( Strydersroom) isn’t happy in their relationship…

What’s a serial adulterer? Someone who has multiple relationships while married, or just keeps having affairs while married? (one at a time)

Obviously, and IMO, a person like this is a unhappy person, but I can’t compare that to people who are in long term relationships, and have love for each other.

The adulterer is or can hurt more than self. People in relationships are not hurting anyone.

 

[Rosebud77]

I couldn’t resist commenting on how you can say on an internet forum that someone ( Strydersroom) isn’t happy in their relationship…

What’s a serial adulterer? Someone who has multiple relationships while married, or just keeps having affairs while married? (one at a time)

Obviously, and IMO, a person like this is a unhappy person, but I can’t compare that to people who are in long term relationships, and have love for each other.

The adulterer is or can hurt more than self. People in relationships are not hurting anyone.

The poster being mentioned here comes across as very unhappy from the times he claims he is happy. He clearly is not and the kind of relationship he is in can never be happy. Based on quicksand. I am in what you can call long term relationships with people of both sexes but they do not, cannot and never will include sex and a farcical “marriage”. They are relationships which are very good indeed, feed all of us and do not break the laws of God as known to Catholics. Oh and yes they hurt themselves and each other and yes, society

 

[Strydersroom]

The point is simple: What two consenting adults, married or not, straight or gay, do in the privacy of their own home, platonic or sexual, is no one else’s business. The caveat being unless they’re running a meth lab, etc. Thus one can only speculate what “acts” if any are taking place, and thus can never legislate sexual morality/acts on said adults. And people wonder how the stereotype of religious sexual guilt is perpetuated. from the should sodomy be illegal (which includes oral sex) to the recent doggy style mortal sin thread (yes that thread existed) people see completely obsessed over acts that are private and not their concern one iota. In my opinion.