Legalize Sodomy?

[Melchior]

Auberon Quin:

The US Supreme Court held this year that homosexual sodomy is not criminal conduct.

High time, too. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of the state, as long as (a) both consent, (b) both are over-age, and (c) nobody is harmed.

All of society is harmed. It is a modern myth to say that there is no harm done is not direct and physical to individuals. Societies rise and fall based on what they tolerate. All actions whether done in private or not has a societal ripple effect.

For example one of the societal effects of abortion on demand, you know the “private act between a woman and he doctor”, is that it is nearly imposible to adopt a child in America. Childless couples are forced to spend thousands of dollars to travel across the world just to be parents. And the system this creates here makes the few available American infants nearly impossible to find adoptive parents because of the cost and beuracratic hoops people have to jump through. It makes it easier to go to China for a child!

Also, there is a major talent vacuum in the sciences ans technology in America because of te destruction of an entire generation.

So to say that a private act does no harm to others is simply nonsense.

Mel

 

[space_ghost]

Auberon Quin:

Space Ghost, I view you as a person of genius, but your numbers are a little off. The current court is 7-2 appointed by the GOP; only Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Democrats.

your right… i knew this thread would become a pain in the B… oh, never mind… thanks for the correction…

 

[Auberon_Quin]

zange:

QUIN,
Well, Catholic or not, you make good points and I respect what you say and how you say it. I for one welcome your contributions to this forum.

But I think the state’s interest cannot be limited to merely public safety and health, narrowly construed. “Safety and health” ultimately involve considerations of value, and the state is inherently involved in determining which values should be mobilized to achieve a broader concept of “safety and health” (broader than merely physical safety and health): this includes income redistribution, and various kinds of support for individuals and groups, including middle class home owners and wealthy corporations.

Discussions that couch the question in terms of State agency, however, may inject an unnecessary bias. Were this an autocratic or despotic state, I’d be inclined to agree with the more liberatarian critiques. But at least in the USA, these issues are decided by representatives of the people, who can be voted out of office, if the laws they pass don’t conform with the majority opinion of the people. If we find ourselves in the minority, then we have an obligation to work to change the laws to reflect what we think is right and just (and that is a moral question). Of course that doesn’t mean we must agree that the laws should reflect all aspects of our faith. But we shouldn’t be deterred from trying to pass laws that we do feel would make this a better society, even if those beliefs stem from our religious faith.

Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate the welcome.

Let me ask you this: The examples you cite do not involve criminalization of conduct. Doesn’t the state have to meet a higher burden when it decides to put people in the pokey for conduct?

I am also uncomfortable with the approach that the majority can determine whether conduct should be criminalized or not. There are very few Buddhists in America; if the majority decided that being a Buddhist should be criminalized and punishable by ritual flogging, would you accept that as right?

Of course not. We have courts to act as a check on the legislative branch, and one of the things those courts do is to determine whether laws passed by the majority match up to the Constitution. Even if 99.99% of the people support something, the court should strike it down if it’s unconstitutional.

I am fine with you attempting to pass legislation based on your religious beliefs, or at least some legislation. I look at the content of the legislation, not the source. If one of our state legislators announced that little green men from Neptune had told him to pass laws that sent rapists to prison, I’d be all for those laws.

Similarly, if one of our legislators announced that Gautama Buddha had told him to pass laws that sent sodomites to prison, I’d be against the laws. This has happened in my state, except I think it was Jesus the legislator claimed to have seen.

 

[tom.wineman]

Auberon Quin:

The US Supreme Court held this year that homosexual sodomy is not criminal conduct.

High time, too. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of the state, as long as (a) both consent, (b) both are over-age, and (c) nobody is harmed.

---

The US Supreme Court fortunately can’t rule on God’s laws.
They can only pervert the constitution.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

tom.wineman:

The US Supreme Court fortunately can’t rule on God’s laws. They can only pervert the constitution.

Exactly.

As long as you harm nobody else, your behavior is between you and your God, and my behavior is between me and mine.

 

[space_ghost]

i am all for letting someone stand before thier God… your right about one thing… it’s between you and God, as to your soul…

My concern is the belief that as long as two people agree, then it’s ok… i can’t buy that… it’s not scriptural, it’s not traditional, nor is it logical…

You don’t have to look far into Gods word to see disfavor with sodimites… or their eventual punishment…

You don’t have to look hard to find writings from the early church fathers to see that they believed it was a sin…

Even science has come on board now to say it is an inherently unhealthy practice… don’t do it…

God’s design for Sex, (any kind) (in my opinion) was between both man and woman [only] within the bonds of marriage… He designed it. We have preverted it to the use of anyone and any toy, and have spent billions trying to justify it in todays society…
Even in the animal kingdon, it’s non-existant…

I do believe however, what you do is between you and God, I just hope you research a little more…

Peace… or better yet… good luck…

 

[Auberon_Quin]

space ghost:

You don’t have to look hard to find writings from the early church fathers to see that they believed it was a sin…

Even science has come on board now to say it is an inherently unhealthy practice… don’t do it…

The early church fathers also thought gluttony was a sin, and science has come on board to say that it’s unhealthy. Should we criminalize the possession of Big Macs? How about smoking? Drunkenness?

I am very aware of what the church teaches about homosexuality. The problem (and we are never going to get around it on this board) is that I do not accept the teachings of the church or the church fathers as authoritiative, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the criminalization of conduct.

 

[space_ghost]

Auberon Quin:

The early church fathers also thought gluttony was a sin, and science has come on board to say that it’s unhealthy. Should we criminalize the possession of Big Macs? How about smoking? Drunkenness?

I am very aware of what the church teaches about homosexuality. The problem (and we are never going to get around it on this board) is that I do not accept the teachings of the church or the church fathers as authoritiative, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the criminalization of conduct.

who do you accept as authority?

 

[Auberon_Quin]

space ghost:

who do you accept as authority?

Oooohhh. Good question.

In what context?

 

[space_ghost]

Auberon Quin:

Oooohhh. Good question.

In what context?

most have a spiritual compass in their mind… you know, is it right to steal this, or hurt her, or lie about that… what rule of life do you utilize to guide your decisions by…

Some say Budah, some Confusious, others Jesus, etc…

is there for you a person, entity or God that you submit too… ?

 

[fix]

Auberon Quin:

The US Supreme Court held this year that homosexual sodomy is not criminal conduct.

High time, too. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of the state, as long as (a) both consent, (b) both are over-age, and (c) nobody is harmed.

Not all vices should be made a secular criminal offenses, but sodomy certainly should be illegal. It is wrong on many levels. Just as prostitution is illegal in most states, so should sodomy, particularly homosexual sodomy. It is a health hazard and a moral hazard.

 

[space_ghost]

fix:

Not all vices should be made a secular criminal offenses, but sodomy certainly should be illegal. It is wrong on many levels. Just as prostitution is illegal in most states, so should sodomy, particularly homosexual sodomy. It is a health hazard and a moral hazard.

How in the world would you enforce such a law… do you break donw the doors with a camera… I am 4 square with the wrongness of the action, but i don’t know about making laws, wasting time, paper and manpower trying to enforce…

Some states still have adultry laws on their books… are they enforced?

 

[zange]

Auberon Quin:

Let me ask you this: The examples you cite do not involve criminalization of conduct. Doesn’t the state have to meet a higher burden when it decides to put people in the pokey for conduct?

I am also uncomfortable with the approach that the majority can determine whether conduct should be criminalized or not. There are very few Buddhists in America; if the majority decided that being a Buddhist should be criminalized and punishable by ritual flogging, would you accept that as right?

Of course not. We have courts to act as a check on the legislative branch, and one of the things those courts do is to determine whether laws passed by the majority match up to the Constitution. Even if 99.99% of the people support something, the court should strike it down if it’s unconstitutional.

I am fine with you attempting to pass legislation based on your religious beliefs, or at least some legislation. I look at the content of the legislation, not the source. If one of our state legislators announced that little green men from Neptune had told him to pass laws that sent rapists to prison, I’d be all for those laws.

Similarly, if one of our legislators announced that Gautama Buddha had told him to pass laws that sent sodomites to prison, I’d be against the laws. This has happened in my state, except I think it was Jesus the legislator claimed to have seen.

(the usual disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, so officially, I don’t know what I’m talking about here)

Yes, the state has to meet a higher burden before it throws people in jail. That is an enshrined principle within the distinction between civil and criminal law. I offer examples of tax incentives, etc, only to show that the state is inherently involved in passing laws that reflect moral values. Both civilly and criminally.

As for “majority rules” versus “judicial activism” (the extreme formulation of the issues at play here): judicial activism can never be the final security of the minority from the majority’s will. Should the absolute majority disagree with the Court, they can revise the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, to reflect their view. Your only security is in the reasonableness (some of us would say, the charity) of the majority towards the minority. I’d probably agree with you on some of the specific disutopic scenarios you present. But the fundamental point is that laws do reflect moral views, the majority’s moral views do become law, in short, “the majority” (the number fluctuates depending on the circumstance) does determine what is illegal (both criminally and civilly) in a democracy. I’m not uncomforable with that principle, even though, as many have already noted, the majority can be wrong (no, I don’t agree that slavery or segregation was moral, just because a majority of voters accepted them as moral during part of our history). But that’s no reason for believing that the minority is always morally right, or that we should always side with the minority. Ultimately, we answer to God, while we try our best to bring his Kingdom of Heaven to earth.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

space ghost:

most have a spiritual compass in their mind… you know, is it right to steal this, or hurt her, or lie about that… what rule of life do you utilize to guide your decisions by…

Some say Budah, some Confusious, others Jesus, etc…

is there for you a person, entity or God that you submit too… ?

I’m not sure about “submitting,” but I am a Zen Buddhist. We don’t view Buddha in any way similar to the way Christians view God; Buddha does not judge our conduct. It is difficult to summarize the principles of Zen Buddhism (the first principle is that there, uh, are no principles), but if you find a copy of the Eightfold Path, you’re at least in the ballpark.

 

[fix]

space ghost:

How in the world would you enforce such a law… do you break donw the doors with a camera… I am 4 square with the wrongness of the action, but i don’t know about making laws, wasting time, paper and manpower trying to enforce…

Some states still have adultry laws on their books… are they enforced?

How have been enforced for all these years? Why make laws agianst speeding? It can’t be enforced to the degree in which there are speediers?

 

[space_ghost]

Auberon Quin:

I’m not sure about “submitting,” but I am a Zen Buddhist. We don’t view Buddha in any way similar to the way Christians view God; Buddha does not judge our conduct. It is difficult to summarize the principles of Zen Buddhism (the first principle is that there, uh, are no principles), but if you find a copy of the Eightfold Path, you’re at least in the ballpark.

well, i wish you peace my friend on your path in life… good luck

 

[condan]

Auberon Quin:

The US Supreme Court held this year that homosexual sodomy is not criminal conduct.

High time, too. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of the state, as long as (a) both consent, (b) both are over-age, and (c) nobody is harmed.

Incest? Polygamy?

By saying that right and wrong are relative concepts, we have opened Pandora’s box.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

space ghost:

How in the world would you enforce such a law… do you break donw the doors with a camera… I am 4 square with the wrongness of the action, but i don’t know about making laws, wasting time, paper and manpower trying to enforce…

Some states still have adultry laws on their books… are they enforced?

Numerous states still have laws on the books that criminalize sodomy; some criminalize homosexual sodomy, others criminalize all sodomy. Those laws are generally very old, and they were not enforced at all. The situation in Lawrence (the US Supreme Court case) came about because a neighbor ratted out Lawrence and his lover to the police, who actually came and arrested them.

Many states also have laws criminalizing abortion and adultery on their books. Anti-abortion laws are not enforced because of Roe; I believe anti-adultery laws were also struck down, but I don’t remember the name of the case or when it was decided.

Zange, I’d disagree with your use of the phrase “judicial activism” to describe the court’s role in striking down unconstitutional laws. That’s what the court is supposed to do, and it has been doing that since Marbury v. Madison, in 1808.

The tyranny of the majority is a real concern, at least if you happen to find yourself in the minority. And while it’s easy to say that the majority can always get its way by amending the Constitution, the fact remains that amending the Constitution is designed to be extremely difficult to protect against this very problem. The Constitution is a check on the power of the majority.

The role of the courts is to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the excecutive are in accord with the principles enshrined in the Constitution. (Do the courts always do a good job? Of course not.) If you amend the Constitution to, say, ban alcoholic beverages or allow the reintroduction of human slavery, then it becomes the duty of the courts under the Constitution to strike down laws that conflict with those amendments.

I do not believe that either the majority or the minority is always morally right. But whether somebody is morally right isn’t the test of whether their conduct is punishable under the law. In the view of Catholics, it is a mortal sin (at least it used to be; I’ve lost track) to miss Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, but that is not conduct that the state should punish.

SpaceGhost, as for bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, you don’t mind if I fight you at every turn, do you? Leave Heaven to God, and spend your time here getting ready and working for a just and orderly society.

Once again, I realize that my views disagree strongly with the views that many of you hold. I appreciate the civility and courtesy with which you’ve treated me, and I hope I’ve been similarly civil and courteous in response.

Quin

 

[zange]

Auberon Quin:

I’m not sure about “submitting,” but I am a Zen Buddhist. We don’t view Buddha in any way similar to the way Christians view God; Buddha does not judge our conduct. It is difficult to summarize the principles of Zen Buddhism (the first principle is that there, uh, are no principles), but if you find a copy of the Eightfold Path, you’re at least in the ballpark.

Wonderful to know. I spent some time in the Buddhist path. And I found the cardinal insight of Buddhism quite revealing: Suffering has a cause, and that cause is desire. Zen (Ch’an) Buddhism is a particular mode of praticising Buddhism’s path to relief from suffering, which is the overcoming of desire, which is rooted in Man’s clinging to self.

And I think there is a good deal of common ground here between Buddhists and Catholics: (carnal) desire is the source of a good deal of suffering, and this should be a hint at how to approach homosexuality, as many others above have pointed out. In all forms of sexuality, the key is (for Buddhists) to empty one’s self into Non-Being. Hence, an identity like “homosexuality” is not compatible with the path to the release from suffering as taught by the Buddha (please don’t cite the homosexual conduct of some Buddhist monks, anymore than the sexual abuse by some Catholic priests). For Catholics, sexuality must be an expression of love of one’s spouse, not self-gratification or desire for pleasure. These two religions are not that far apart on this point. Of course, there are differences down the road.

But we should continue this in the Comparative Religion forum, perhaps, rather than apologetics?

Peace.

 

[Vitus]

Just a couple nitpicks, homosexuality was not the sin Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed for, it was for inhospitality. Secondly, not all homosexual relationships invovle sodomy.

Personally, I do not want to see the govenrment getting involved in bedroom issues or issues involving spirituality. It is not the role of government to enforce personal morals. I would not want them banning pork because it is an offense to Muslims, or caffeine because of Mormans or public prayer because of athiests.

Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong. I do not want my ideas of right and wrong forced upon anyone, just as I would not want anothers morals forced upon me. I do not want to live in a country that has moral police (like the Taliban of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia) that robs me or anyone else of their free will.

And while I may try to convince others that certain actions are right and wrong, I would never force that upon another person. If I wouldn’t do that to another, why would I want a government to do that?