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

[MatthewTrainor]

MatthewTrainor;14056611:

The comparison of homosexual acts to adultery is a false one as adultery is primarily a violation of the marital oath of fidelity.

No.
It is, like homosexuality, a violation of God’s plan for sexuality.

My point was that adultery has an additional element that most homosexual acts do not possess that makes the comparison specious at best. Which is worse in God’s eyes, a married man having sex with another woman, or a single man having sex with a woman?

How about masturbation? Isn’t it a violation of God’s plan for sexuality too? Do you place it on the same moral level as adultery or homosexual acts? If a married person masturbates while their spouse is absent, is that adultery? Since only one gender is involved, isn’t all masturbation a homosexual act?

Yes, these things are all violations of God’s plan for sexuality. Likewise, apples, oranges and bananas are all fruits, but that does not make the analogous in all circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

My point was that adultery has an additional element that most homosexual acts do not possess that makes the comparison specious at best. Which is worse in God’s eyes, a married man having sex with another woman, or a single man having sex with a woman?

I believe it’s an otiose discussion to consider “which is worse” here.

Suffice it to say that BOTH are wrong.

Otherwise, we get into all sorts of inutile tributaries like, “Which is worse, a homosexual man who has sex with 3 men or a married man who has sex with 1 woman who’s not his wife?”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The government already legislates morality. After all there are laws against murder, stealing, fraud, bigamy and rape.

The question is how much of morality is the government allowed to legislate.

Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are crimes against persons whereas laws against bigamy and bestiality are legislated morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are crimes against persons whereas laws against bigamy and bestiality are legislated morality.

Nope, JdV. Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are legislated morality.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Nope, JdV. Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are legislated morality.

If everything is morality then the word morality is meaningless.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are crimes against persons whereas laws against bigamy and bestiality are legislated morality.

Children and animals should be protected.

 

[PRmerger]

If everything is morality then the word morality is meaningless.

You are correct.

But I don’t think anyone has asserted that “everything is morality”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Children and animals should be protected.

Bigamy is being married to two people, perhaps you are thinking of child molestation? Protecting animals can be done with a general anti-animal cruelty law, but bestiality isn’t necessarily harmful to an animal so a specific law against bestiality is “sex with animals is immoral”. That doesn’t mean it is a bad law, just that it is a case of legislating morality.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are legislated morality.

The difference is they are assaults on person and property.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Bigamy is being married to two people, perhaps you are thinking of child molestation? Protecting animals can be done with a general anti-animal cruelty law, but bestiality isn’t necessarily harmful to an animal so a specific law against bestiality is “sex with animals is immoral”. That doesn’t mean it is a bad law, just that it is a case of legislating morality.

Why don’t you ask the animal?

 

[MatthewTrainor]

I believe it’s an otiose discussion to consider “which is worse” here.

I’m only pointing out that homosexual activity is morally more analogous to fornication than it is to adultery. Most people object more to adultery than fornication, primarily because adultery involves an innocent victim, the non-cheating spouse, with whom the solemn marital vow has been shattered. This is why opponents to homosexual behavior try to make the analogy to adultery rather than fornication, hoping that the additional negative connotation due to the broken vow will carry over. Yes, we can agree that both are wrong, but only adultery made the top Ten Commandments.

Laws against murder, theft, fraud and rape are legislated morality.

If what you say is true then all punitive laws are “legislated morality.” When people talk about legislating morality they do not mean all laws that have any moral aspects, they mean laws that are drafted to exclusively enforce a moral code. Most of the legal proscriptions you cite serve the objective purpose of protecting the life and rights of persons other than the perpetrator. An argument could be made that Bigamy is a morality law if it prohibits the second marriage even when the first wife consents. The only laws that are strict morality laws are those that criminally proscribe behaviors that do not involve or affect any non-consenting people.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m only pointing out that homosexual activity is morally more analogous to fornication than it is to adultery.

This, too, is otiose.

It’s analogous to adultery.

Most people object more to adultery than fornication, primarily because adultery involves an innocent victim, the non-cheating spouse, with whom the solemn marital vow has been shattered.

I don’t know that this is true.

And even if it were, it’s irrelevant.

Yes, we can agree that both are wrong, but only adultery made the top Ten Commandments.

Using this logic we would have to say that adultery is worse than pedophilia, because, hey, pedophilia isn’t in the Top Ten.

If what you say is true then all punitive laws are “legislated morality.” When people talk about legislating morality they do not mean all laws that have any moral aspects, they mean laws that are drafted to exclusively enforce a moral code.

Sure. The law against murder enforces a moral code.

Most of the legal proscriptions you cite serve the objective purpose of protecting the life and rights of persons other than the perpetrator. An argument could be made that Bigamy is a morality law if it prohibits the second marriage even when the first wife consents. The only laws that are strict morality laws are those that criminally proscribe behaviors that do not involve or affect any non-consenting people.

Ok.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

This, too, is otiose.
It’s analogous to adultery.

I have identified objective factors that distinguish adultery from fornication to support my claim. You gratuitously assert that such factors are irrelevant and simply contend that your claim is correct without providing any reasonable basis. Your position on this point is by definition irrational.

Using this logic we would have to say that adultery is worse than pedophilia, because, hey, pedophilia isn’t in the Top Ten.

Touché.

 

[PRmerger]

I have identified objective factors that distinguish adultery from fornication to support my claim.

Well, the “objective factors” need to be relevant.

I could say that the difference between adultery and homosexuality is that with adultery there’s a marriage clerk and with homosexuality there isn’t.

That’s an objective factor.

But it’s…irrelevant to the discourse, is not?

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Well, the “objective factors” need to be relevant.

Yes. Explain to me then how an immoral act that concurrently violates a solemn vow made before God is not thereby morally worse than the same immoral act that violates no vow (because none was made prior to the act)?
CCC 2147:

Promises made to others in God’s name engage the divine honor, fidelity, truthfulness, and authority. They must be respected in justice. To be unfaithful to them is to misuse God’s name and in some way to make God out to be a liar.

Is not the deliberate violation of a solemn vow made before God by itself an immoral act? Do adulterers get a pass on taking the Lord’s name in vain because they are committing a sexual sin at the same time? Unmarried persons committing a sexual sin do not have this additional violation against God, how is it not relevant?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Explain to me then how an immoral act that concurrently violates a solemn vow made before God is not thereby morally worse than the same immoral act that violates no vow (because none was made prior to the act)?

Fair enough.

I see your point.

Is not the deliberate violation of a solemn vow made before God by itself an immoral act?

Indeed.

Although I might take issue with the fact that in the act of adultery the man (for example) sees himself as deliberately violating his vow. That is, he doesn’t say to himself, or to God, “I do this in deliberate violation of the vow I made before you”.

Do adulterers get a pass on taking the Lord’s name in vain because they are committing a sexual sin at the same time?

Huh?

Unmarried persons committing a sexual sin do not have this additional violation against God, how is it not relevant?

I stand corrected. :tiphat:

 

[Polycarp1]

I believe it is not up to anyone to judge, nor anyone else’s business what happens between two consenting adults in their bedrooms. Therefore, no sexual acts between the said adults, gay or straight, can ever become “illegal” as much as another person sees them as unnatural, immoral, or strange.

Fortunately or unfortunately what we believe or would like to believe should be true has no impact on real truth. We are not to judge people as that is for God alone but we are to judge and correct sinful behavior. Not to do so would be callous.

When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood Ezek 33:8

 

[Seamus_L]

We had laws against sodomy (though not enforced) on the books into the 21st century, and to alot of people that didn’t make us Nazi Germany or Iran. I believe those laws were good, in that they prevented alot of people from having easy access to sin.

 

[Thorolfr]

We had laws against sodomy (though not enforced) on the books into the 21st century, and to alot of people that didn’t make us Nazi Germany or Iran. I believe those laws were good, in that they prevented alot of people from having easy access to sin.

Sodomy laws don’t prevent people from having easy access to sin. They put people considered to be sinners in jail.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

We had laws against sodomy (though not enforced) on the books into the 21st century, and to alot of people that didn’t make us Nazi Germany or Iran. I believe those laws were good, in that they prevented alot of people from having easy access to sin.

Why shouldn’t other sins be criminalized? I feel that is a complete invasion of privacy. No one should know who is committing sodomy. How will you catch them? A nosy neighbor perhaps. People will always win regardless of laws.