Legalize Sodomy?

[Brad]

Vitus:

I do not know where everyone else dervies their morals. I don’t know everyone and frankly, it is not my business. I can only speak for myself. But I do know many athiests who show more morality and compassion than 90% of the Christians I’ve come in contact with. Now I may claim that is the Lord working through them in some way, shape or form, they would certainly deny that their actions are based on any kind of religion.

And unless you can verify that all laws are BASED on religous laws, and not simply related in some form, I dispute your claim. For example; OSHA, DOT, EPA and NRA laws certianly aren’t religious in nature.

The concept of being kind and not hurting others or God’s world are religious concepts. There is a higher authority on which these laws are based. The only reason for a law is to not do harm to yourself or someone else - this is because we were all made in the image and likeness of God.

You can dispute my claim, but you have yet to tell me where you derive your morals from? Would you steal from someone if it was legal? If not, why not?

 

[Southernrich]

fix:

Sodomy goes against the natural order. Preventing, if possible, helps society. Diease, alone, should be reason enough to stop that behavior.

Okay. Preventing disease is grounds for criminalization. Should we therefore criminalize drinking and smoking, given the health hazards both pose?

 

[Ken]

Brad:

Every single one. I would ask you to name a single law that is not based on religious morality. But for starters, there are laws against assault and murder which is based on commandment #5. There are laws against stealing, based on commandment #7. There are innumerable laws against loud noise at night, trespassing, defaming someone’s name etc, which are all based on the golden rule, a variation of which exists in many different religions. Laws protecting children from sexual misconduct all have their basis in religious teachings.

This, of course, is not to say that most of these laws have scientifically verifiable evidence proving the harm that they inflict.

If you are suggesting that our morality does not come from religious sources, I would ask from what authrority do we get our morality?

Murder has been outlawed in societies all over the world for most of history. Most of those societies never heard about the fifth commandment. Some of those societies had religions that condemned murder. Others did not have such religions, and society outlawed murder without help from religion.

So observation tells us that the fifth commandment was not necessary to outlaw murder.

 

[eikke]

Question: do we need a reason (by ‘reason’ i mean a utilitarian motive) to want to ban gay marriage? i mean, there are good utilitarian reasons to ban it, but there are also utilitarian reasons to legalize it. shouldn’t christians dispense with the utilitarian playing field altogether, recognizing that it’s a system of post-christian ethics designed to supplant our views in the first place?

 

[OhioBob]

Southernrich:

Seat belt laws?

1 Samuel 25:29
Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my master will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the LORD your God. But the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling.

Southernrich:

No Parking from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m.?

Proverbs 31:27
She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.

Southernrich:

Separate your garbage?

1 Kings 5:9
My men will haul them down from Lebanon to the sea, and I will float them in rafts by sea to the place you specify. There I will separate them and you can take them away. And you are to grant my wish by providing food for my royal household."

How about that, you can prove anything from the Bible!

 

[Vitus]

Brad:

The concept of being kind and not hurting others or God’s world are religious concepts. There is a higher authority on which these laws are based. The only reason for a law is to not do harm to yourself or someone else - this is because we were all made in the image and likeness of God.

No, you claim that it is based on a higher authority. You must show that the authors of these laws put them into being BECAUSE of their religious beliefs and not despite them.

You can dispute my claim, but you have yet to tell me where you derive your morals from? Would you steal from someone if it was legal? If not, why not?

We are not discussing my morals. As I am neither an athiest nor a homosexual it isn’t germaine to the conversation. And we are not discussing situational ethics.

 

[fix]

1.) You still have yet to define “natural” order.

I think I have. I have posted so much today I can’t keep track of which thread I am on. The natural law is written on every heart. Do not steal, murder, etc. There are two sexes, etc. You know and I know it.

2.) How does a government making illegal private actions by private individuals help society?

Private actions are not without consequences.

3.) What disease would that be?

Many diseases that are spread easily through their behavior.

 

[Southernrich]

OhioBob:

How about that, you can prove anything from the Bible!

LOL. Great Job! I salute your ingenuity in finding those verses. And are you ever right about finding proofs!

 

[Auberon_Quin]

eikke:

Question: do we need a reason (by ‘reason’ i mean a utilitarian motive) to want to ban gay marriage? i mean, there are good utilitarian reasons to ban it, but there are also utilitarian reasons to legalize it. shouldn’t christians dispense with the utilitarian playing field altogether, recognizing that it’s a system of post-christian ethics designed to supplant our views in the first place?

Yes, you need a reason to ban it. The state should not ban things arbitrarily.

As for dispensing with the utilitarian arguments altogether, that’s an interesting perspective and one I hadn’t really explicitly thought about. The state’s powers are described by the Constitution, which describes them in solely utilitarian terms such as “provide for the common defense” and so forth. The Constitution makes no provision for the state to do something solely because it’s in accord with God’s law.

Now let me be clear – the church can make rules for its own people based on its interpretation of God’s law. The problem is that you have to convince the rest of us non-believers that the church’s interpretation is constitutional, and that means tying them to one or more of the utilitarian purposes outlined in the Constitution.

I think.

 

[Vitus]

:clapping: Well done OhioBob!

And my answer to why most current laws are made?

Ecclesiastes 10:19 Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.

 

[fix]

Southernrich:

Okay. Preventing disease is grounds for criminalization. Should we therefore criminalize drinking and smoking, given the health hazards both pose?

Drinking and smoking are both highly regulated, btw. It should be criminalized because it is wrong. Certain diseases are much more prevalent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Should I list them?

 

[OhioBob]

fix:

Certain diseases are much more prevalent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Should I list them?

Please don’t. I just ate.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

fix:

Drinking and smoking are both highly regulated, btw.

So maybe an acceptable compromise is just to tax sodomy?

 

[Vitus]

fix:

The natural law is written on every heart. Do not steal, murder, etc. There are two sexes, etc. You know and I know it.

The law written on every heart is there regardless of religion. And I would think most people know there are only two sexes. So how does homosexuality go against this law?

fix:

Private actions are not without consequences.

How does this affect you?

Many diseases that are spread easily through their behavior.

Which diseases exclusive to sodomy are those?

 

[OhioBob]

fix:

Drinking and smoking are both highly regulated, btw. It should be criminalized because it is wrong. Certain diseases are much more prevalent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Should I list them?

Far more diseases are spread through poor handwashing techniques. But I don’t think we are ready to outlaw dirty hands.

 

[Southernrich]

fix:

Drinking and smoking are both highly regulated, btw.

Wasn’t speaking of regulation, but of criminalization. You said that disease alone was grounds for criminalization, so smoking and drinking seem appropriate.

 

[OhioBob]

Wow, I just became a “Senior Member” on this thread. :dancing:

But I don’t feel any wiser…

 

[The_Barrister]

Vitus:

The law written on every heart is there regardless of religion. And I would think most people know there are only two sexes. So how does homosexuality go against this law?

How does this affect you?

Which diseases exclusive to sodomy are those?

The problem I see is that the arguments from people who cheer for and celebrate sodomy cannot be distinguished from those who promote any other act between “consenting” individuals. Or from those who promote other “private” acts between a human and … whatever.

1. It’s in the privacy of my bedroom
2. It’s not affecting you
3. It’s none of your business
4. I’m not hurting anyone

Tell me, please, how you differentiate your argument from the argument of someone who wants to sodomize a goat? Or a “consenting” boy or girl?

Oh, just because you’re talking about “adults”? So why is it okay for “adults” and wrong for “goats” or “kids”? That is, WHAT ARE YOUR MORALS BASED ON?

Or do you just make it up as you go?

 

[eikke]

Auberon Quin:

As for dispensing with the utilitarian arguments altogether, that’s an interesting perspective and one I hadn’t really explicitly thought about. The state’s powers are described by the Constitution, which describes them in solely utilitarian terms such as “provide for the common defense” and so forth. The Constitution makes no provision for the state to do something solely because it’s in accord with God’s law.

Now let me be clear – the church can make rules for its own people based on its interpretation of God’s law. The problem is that you have to convince the rest of us non-believers that the church’s interpretation is constitutional, and that means tying them to one or more of the utilitarian purposes outlined in the Constitution.

the problem with that argument is that the constitution is no less arbitrary a criterion for legislation than any other.
i don’t see it as an issue of convincing non-believers of the constitutionality of christianity-inspired legislation, so much as recognizing that phenomena like judicial activism can be as easily applied to justify overtly christian laws as it currently is applied by anti-christian (i.e. utilitarian) judges.

 

[fix]

Vitus:

The law written on every heart is there regardless of religion. And I would think most people know there are only two sexes. So how does homosexuality go against this law?

Well, surely you know? Men and women were meant to be together. men and men were not. One is natural, one is not. Any child could have told you that.

How does this affect you?
It helps to destroy the culture. This was answered before.

Which diseases exclusive to sodomy are those?

Gay bowel syndrome, aids is much more easily transmitted through abrasions in the rectal epitheliium than vaginal epithelium.