On outlawing abortion, contraception, and sodomy

[Nate13]

This has to be the most facile argument that I’ve seen in regard to a sexual act: It serves no purpose, therefore it should be made illegal.

But hang on. Maybe you think that all this useless sex is only perfomed between two men or two women. When you say you want to ban all useless acts, do you mean just between gays?

Because if it’s between men and women as well it covers everything that everyone does all the time that doesn’t directly involve conception. No oral sex either? How on earth do you personally decide?

Sex also bonds those involved together as one body. The reason sex is bonding is so that when that bonding sexual act results in a child the two parents are tied together as one to raise that child. Thus even if the sexual act is not procreative each time, it still serves the purpose of supporting procreation and the raising of children. This is also why the Church teaches that children have a right to be raised by a mother and father if possible, because it has so obviously been designed that way.

 

[Lochias]

This has to be the most facile argument that I’ve seen in regard to a sexual act: It serves no purpose, therefore it should be made illegal.

It serves no GOOD purpose. There’s a difference.

 

[Bradski]

It serves no GOOD purpose. There’s a difference.

Please explain…

 

[Lochias]

Please explain…

Sodomy can be harmful, and often is, because Tab A was never meant to go into Slot B. That’s as close as I can come to it delicately. Disease, tearing and the like are all reason enough to do away with it.

 

[Eilrahc]

Is sodomy still illegal in Arkansas?

 

[HelenRose]

I don’t think that the Catholic Church had any thing to do with creating sodomy laws in Arkansas. When those laws were enacted Catholics were probably outlawed in Arkansas.

Besides there is a huge difference in sodomy and abortion. Sodomy is dangerous but abortion always kills a human being.

 

[edwest2]

Contracepting was never made illegal, the purchasing and distribution of contraception was. Looking at porn was never illegal, the purchasing and distribution of it was. The point of the laws was not to go after the activity directly, but rather discourage them indirectly. Although doing these things may be in the best interest of society I don’t find that to be a great enough reason to make them illegal. Making large sodas might be in the best interest of society as well, but I do not support the government intruding into those kinds of decisions. I do wish to end all government funding or promotion of contraceptives though.

I have to ask you though why you think its so wrong for people to want the government to make these things illegal if they believe that is in the best interest of society? Your supporting the same principle when you support the government funding and promoting contraceptives, because by doing so your saying its ok for the government to be involved with these issues and saying they have a legitimate interest in them. If you believe making them illegal is an intrusion of the government you should also believe funding and promoting them is an intrusion of the government. You can’t only cry government intrusion when it works against you.

Looking at porn was never illegal?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

When dealing with the U.S., it’s important to remember that a function of government is not to micromanage personal behavior. Obviously, we’re moving in that direction as we move further away from our founding principles and more toward socialism.

The problem with the micromanaging of personal behavior is that the result may not be what Catholics want; it is far more likely to be in line with current Protestant thinking. So you can have your choice: personal behavior left out of the law, or laws that are likely to be contrary to Catholic position.

The article is not just talking about what Catholics want. It’s talking about the ordering of human life for the good of all, not just Catholics. Abortion is killing. Contraception is saying, I can’t control myself, which is a lie that has been peddled for the last 40 years. And with sodomy, prior to gay so-called marriage hitting the radar, job one was getting sodomy laws overturned and for what?

We are living through a time when men and women are saying I don’t know or I don’t care - give me lots of orgasms.

Can you control yourself regarding sex? Yes or no.
Can you avoid having sex with whoever? Yes or no.
Sodomy being legal helps who? Please be specific.

Now the government wants to continue what is wrong for society and encourage individuals to do wrong by giving them free stuff. Our government is enabling behavior that is bad for society in general and yes, it is intruding in our private lives.

Peace,
Ed

 

[epan]

Contraception was illegal in many states, if not all… (You couldn’t buy contraceptives.) Many people assume Catholics were responsible for such laws but this is a mistake—most anti-contraception laws were the handiwork of Protestant legislators.

The US Constitution protects the right to use contraception, with the 9th and 14th amendments. This was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1965.

 

[epan]

I am not saying make illegal because it is a sin. I am saying make it illegal because it is a bad act with bad consequences.

If you are talking sodomy, then you need to take three giant steps backwards to show that it is a bad act, with bad consequences.

If we adopt the libertarian views which the US was founded on, then the bad must be to others, not to those engaged in the act. For example, smoking is banned in public due to second hand smoke effects. Prior to the understanding of those effects, it was legal in public. Yet, we know of the deleterious effects to those who choose to smoke. It is not banned, even though we know the impact on our healthcare system, which is a cost burden that we all carry.

 

[epan]

What possible good could sodomy satisfy SO MUCH that they needed to be legalized in the first place?

Don’t you think you have it backwards (pardon the pun). The idea of a free society is that nothing is illegal unless it is specifically made illegal. So, the question is not whether to legalize sodomy, but rather why should it not be legal?

 

[Lochias]

Don’t you think you have it backwards (pardon the pun). The idea of a free society is that nothing is illegal unless it is specifically made illegal. So, the question is not whether to legalize sodomy, but rather why should it not be legal?

If you think that’s what makes a society free, then we have no common ground to stand on. I suggest you take up your arguments with God, Who is the Author of the rules that we follow.

Never, not once EVER, have I seen any example of God condoning a society in which He allows all the folks to decide for themselves what’s True, or Right, or Good or Evil.

I am appealing to you on this level because you call yourself a Methodist; to be frank, I know Methodists who would be utterly, horribly ashamed of your stance here, and would, in fact, call it anti-Christian.

 

[epan]

If you think that’s what makes a society free, then we have no common ground to stand on. I suggest you take up your arguments with God, Who is the Author of the rules that we follow.

Never, not once EVER, have I seen any example of God condoning a society in which He allows all the folks to decide for themselves what’s True, or Right, or Good or Evil.

I am appealing to you on this level because you call yourself a Methodist; to be frank, I know Methodists who would be utterly, horribly ashamed of your stance here, and would, in fact, call it anti-Christian.

Have you ever heard of the US Constitution? You might look it up, and read it.

 

[epan]

If you think that’s what makes a society free, then we have no common ground to stand on. I suggest you take up your arguments with God, Who is the Author of the rules that we follow.

Never, not once EVER, have I seen any example of God condoning a society in which He allows all the folks to decide for themselves what’s True, or Right, or Good or Evil.

I am appealing to you on this level because you call yourself a Methodist; to be frank, I know Methodists who would be utterly, horribly ashamed of your stance here, and would, in fact, call it anti-Christian.

I hit “submit” before I finished.

One of the freedoms which you enjoy, is the freedom to practice the religion of your choice. This freedom does not exist in so robust of a fashion in much of the world, and through most of history. Yet, you advocate a theocracy. Why is that?

If you are unhappy with the founding principles of the US, then there are alternatives. You probably would not be happy in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but you might be much happier living in the Vatican.

Why do you live in the US, if you so dislike the principles of libertarianism which inform our government?

 

[Lochias]

One of the freedoms which you enjoy, is the freedom to practice the religion of your choice. This freedom does not exist in so robust of a fashion in much of the world, and through most of history. Yet, you advocate a theocracy. Why is that?

 

[epan]

epan;10021839:

One thing I sincerely do not enjoy is having words put in my mouth. I haven’t advocated a theocracy any more than Jesus has, …

I’ve got news for you. The US Constitution and other founding documents guarantee plurality and diversity will be allowed. The measure of that is not based on what Jesus said.

Muslims, atheists, anarchists, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists… etc… are all welcome for follow their bliss. The measure of legal behavior is that which harms others. If the state has no compelling interest in denying a behavior, then that behavior is assumed to be legal.

This has nothing to do with your personal definition of Christian morality.

It is true that many Christian moral standards do coincide with legality. So do the standards of other religions and philosophies.

In the particular case of Catholicism, some moral standards are deemed by our society to be relevant in this respect, and some of them to be irrelevant, insofar as they should be applied to the entire (non-Catholic) population. That is the nature of a secular society and culture. It does not necessarily adopt the particular point of view of a particular religion. Fortunately, in our secular society, it does not preclude you from adhering to your personally acceptable moral standards, unless they happen to violate societal standards.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you trying to say that your personal morality, which you believe is a universal moral standard, because of your faith in Catholicism, should be the law of the land? That is how I interpret what you say. If that is what you are advocating, than I would submit that you are indeed advocating a theocracy.

 

[Lochias]

epan;10021839:

One thing I sincerely do not enjoy is having words put in my mouth. I haven’t advocated a theocracy any more than Jesus has, but your view appears to completely and totally do away with moral and natural law (in the context that the Church uses the term “natural law”) simply because something has become popular.

Are you

saying that Sodom and Gomorrah would be happily tolerated and accepted by God in today’s world? Have you become so drawn into the lure of the secular world that God’s laws, traditions and commands mean nothing to you?

Why do you claim to be Christian if you don’t follow some of the basic Christian ideals and tenets, like the sinful nature of homosexual acts? That sword cuts both ways, see.

 

[Lochias]

I’ve got news for you. The US Constitution and other founding documents guarantee plurality and diversity will be allowed. The measure of that is not based on what Jesus said.

They don’t guarantee immorality.

Muslims, atheists, anarchists, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists… etc… are all welcome for follow their bliss. The measure of legal behavior is that which harms others. If the state has no compelling interest in denying a behavior, then that behavior is assumed to be legal.

But now the state is infringing on those rights…Catholics and others who believe that contraception is immoral are now effectively being told that they can hold those views only inside a church building. So much for plurality and diversity.

This has nothing to do with your personal definition of Christian morality.

My view is the Church’s view, which came long, long before America did.

It is true that many Christian moral standards do coincide with legality. So do the standards of other religions and philosophies.

Ever thought long and hard about why that is?

In the particular case of Catholicism, some moral standards are deemed by our society to be relevant in this respect, and some of them to be irrelevant, insofar as they should be applied to the entire (non-Catholic) population. That is the nature of a secular society and culture. It does not necessarily adopt the particular point of view of a particular religion. Fortunately, in our secular society, it does not preclude you from adhering to your personally acceptable moral standards, unless they happen to violate societal standards.

As humans, we were never meant to be a secular culture…any Christian can tell you that. Societal standards are not my God.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you trying to say that your personal morality, which you believe is a universal moral standard, because of your faith in Catholicism, should be the law of the land? That is how I interpret what you say. If that is what you are advocating, than I would submit that you are indeed advocating a theocracy.

Ok, sure. If you won’t take a stand behind your faith, I will behind mine.

Now, answer my question, please: How do you call yourself Christian when you disregard very basic tenets, traditions and laws of the Christian deposit of faith??

 

[epan]

They don’t guarantee immorality.

But now the state is infringing on those rights…Catholics and others who believe that contraception is immoral are now effectively being told that they can hold those views only inside a church building. So much for plurality and diversity.

My view is the Church’s view, which came long, long before America did.

Ever thought long and hard about why that is?

As humans, we were never meant to be a secular culture…any Christian can tell you that. Societal standards are not my God.

Ok, sure. If you won’t take a stand behind your faith, I will behind mine.

Now, answer my question, please: How do you call yourself Christian when you disregard very basic tenets, traditions and laws of the Christian deposit of faith??

I would agree with you, that the HHS mandates infringe upon religious liberties. It remains to be seen where the courts will put it on the continuum of civil rights vs. government authority. This is not the first time that issues like this have come up. I am curious, because in most civilized countries, health care is considered to be a civil right. This has not been the case in the US. If the courts rule in favor of the mandates, it will be a clear indication that US thinking is shifting that way.

You can defend your religious point of view as strongly as you like. I encourage you to do that. But the fact still remains that this is a secular society, and your views apply to you, and not to anyone else who does not accept them. That is really the bottom line here.

Making accusations that I am somehow not a Christian, because I advocate a more libertarian view than you do, is absurd.

The world is changing. US society is changing. Views on sexuality are largely generational. More Catholics voted for Obama than for Romney. Those who don’t come to terms with change over time, turn into anachronistic curmudgeons, who find themselves very unhappy about the times that the live in.

Well, I have been stuck in Iceland here because my plane which stopped for refueling developed engine trouble. It looks like I am going to a hotel now. With any luck, I’ll get back to the US to spend some leave with family, before heading out to Afghanistan.

For anyone who discounts the value of having a diverse and secular society, which allows all sorts of views and lifestyles to flourish, including devoutly religious of all sorts… Visit Afghanistan. You will see what happens to a culture when one religion gets to call the shots for everyone.

 

[Lochias]

I would agree with you, that the HHS mandates infringe upon religious liberties. It remains to be seen where the courts will put it on the continuum of civil rights vs. government authority. This is not the first time that issues like this have come up. I am curious, because in most civilized countries, health care is considered to be a civil right. This has not been the case in the US. If the courts rule in favor of the mandates, it will be a clear indication that US thinking is shifting that way.

And woe betide us all if it does.

You can defend your religious point of view as strongly as you like. I encourage you to do that. But the fact still remains that this is a secular society, and your views apply to you, and not to anyone else who does not accept them. That is really the bottom line here.

Truth is Truth, even if only one believes. You’re welcome to delude yourself all you wish.

Making accusations that I am somehow not a Christian, because I advocate a more libertarian view than you do, is absurd.

Way to tap-dance around the question. I’ll repeat it again: How do you call yourself Christian when you disregard very basic tenets, traditions and laws of the Christian deposit of faith??

The world is changing. US society is changing. Views on sexuality are largely generational. More Catholics voted for Obama than for Romney. Those who don’t come to terms with change over time, turn into anachronistic curmudgeons, who find themselves very unhappy about the times that the live in.

You’re doing a great many of us a disservice. I say to you: Hide and watch us.

Well, I have been stuck in Iceland here because my plane which stopped for refueling developed engine trouble. It looks like I am going to a hotel now. With any luck, I’ll get back to the US to spend some leave with family, before heading out to Afghanistan.

Indeed, and a Happy Thanksgiving to you. Thank you for your service to our country.

For anyone who discounts the value of having a diverse and secular society, which allows all sorts of views and lifestyles to flourish, including devoutly religious of all sorts… Visit Afghanistan. You will see what happens to a culture when one religion gets to call the shots for everyone.

Injustice, trampling of religious rights, and murdering babies by the score…yup. Gotta love those secular societies.