Punishments for Sodomy?

[anon67074017]

There should not be punishments from the government for sodomy. That is something that should be left to God. We as Catholics should be careful not to be like Judge Claude Frollo. We should show sinners the love of God instead.

 

[lemongrass80]

Thanks again to all for replying.

A few more thoughts from me:

1. The “privacy” folks seem to forget that it’s currently the gay movement (or a part of it) want their activities to publicly legitimized. If gay activities are private, then why are gay peoples asking for public recognition and acceptance of those acts (so-called “marriage”?).
2. I agree with certain post(s) in that such acts are described as “abominations” in the Bible whereas other things are not described as “abominations”. I don’t think that all sins are not evil; all bad things are bad. But some things are worse than other things.
3. As for punishments, we have to agree that certain levels and types of punishments (or what might be called punishments) are certainly accepted in the Catholic Church. Take penance, for example. A penance is a kind of corrective action that we undertake, isn’t it? What about fasting? Fasting is something we do to overcome temptations and progress spiritually, right? and it’s not any walk in the park. St. Francis of Assisi jumped in the snow to purify himself of some kind of fleshly, sinful inclination. So I think inside of Catholicism we have to admit that we promote some kinds of “punishments” (although not forced labor camps).

I definitely do not want to associate myself with Hitler…I’m not imagining death camps for gays; I’m thinking of a kind of nice prison. It might be more like a resort than anything else. Shovel snow until you’ve overcome your inclinations a little.

Finally, I do see some merit or even a lot of merit in the outlook that “we’ve already tried that.” I think things do progress sometimes. Maybe things are all somehow better than they were long ago, even though it seems that some things have gotten worse.

Re: #1: so because gay people want to have publicly recognized marriages, that means they shouldn’t expect anything in their intimate lives to be private? That makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[nqes7t9]

lemongrass80, thanks for replying. I hope you’ll let me try to criticize your post a bit.

I think your post is jumping to a conclusion – that *nothing *should be private in citizens’ lives, due to the public nature of marriage.

All, I want to again apologize for offending so many people with this post. It’s been a good thread for me to come in contact with other people’s opinions, and I admit it has left me shaken at times and more than I anticipated.

In my defense, however, I did say this in my original post:
“My opinion is that the state *might *be quite helpful in reforming people.” emphasis on might. I did put “might” in that sentence, and I think many people throughout history have thought the same. Lots of countries, places, times, peoples etc have had public, government sponsored, so to say, punishments for those who commit sodomy. I imagine that at least some of those people thought they were doing the best for their countries, places, times, peoples, etc, by punishing those who committed this act.

Probably the same could be said of certain LGBT activists these days – I’m sure at least some of them think they are doing good.

As for people like Dinesh D’Souza and Pat Robertson – I really don’t know about them, except I do recall seeing somewhere on the Internet someone with signs about God hating certain people. I think God loves people, not hates.

Elsewhere on these forums I have encountered a post advocating for scientific research into the causes of homosexuality – would it be acceptable to you, dear reader, if the society pursued such a course? What if the government funded some of that research?

Finally for this post, I’d like to clarify or correct something else that I put in this thead: I recall stating that 1) certain LGBT folks say that gays are not free over their emotions – “you can’t change the way I feel” and 2) if their actions (gay marriage) are based on their unfree feelings, how can they be free to marry? I feel that this line of reasoning also removes their culpability for punishment – if you are not free in your commission of some bad act, then I guess that lessens your culpability.

n

 

[at9009]

Elsewhere on these forums I have encountered a post advocating for scientific research into the causes of homosexuality – would it be acceptable to you, dear reader, if the society pursued such a course? What if the government funded some of that research?

Issue with that is that is there is much about human personality inheritance and interplay that we do not yet understand. How is intelligence inherited? How is personality? How modifiable are those characteristics? etc. Then the questions of what plays a role in attraction vs sexual attraction, what cells are fired, how is this attraction developed, what genes/signals are involved… there is a ton of things that need to be determined before you could go into what causes a person to be attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Until that is better understood, much research is sociological that is based on correlation studies which is speculative at best and lacks any real strength or evidence.

In all actuality, the cause is probably multi-factorial with influence from genetics, embryological development/maternal factors, epigenetics, social factors, environmental factors (plus others most likely) with all these factors requiring to occur in some kind of critical period with some order. Additionally, it’s the individual factor’s importance probably vary from person to person (not to mention the theological views of the fall and how that impacts everything).

Instead we have people saying it must ONLY be genetic while others are saying it must be due solely to social factors (i.e. poor same sex spouse relationship etc). Despite evidence directly supporting either view point. It does seem to both sides are often willing to skew or alter results to support their predrawn conclusions (which always reminds me of this quote: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Finally for this post, I’d like to clarify or correct something else that I put in this thead: I recall stating that 1) certain LGBT folks say that gays are not free over their emotions – “you can’t change the way I feel” and 2) if their actions (gay marriage) are based on their unfree feelings, how can they be free to marry? I feel that this line of reasoning also removes their culpability for punishment – if you are not free in your commission of some bad act, then I guess that lessens your culpability.

n

1/2 What they generally mean is that they can’t choose whom they are attracted to not that once they have the attractions they cannot control their actions. Since most of them don’t have the theological views the Church has of marriage (or have opposing views), they don’t understand why they can’t marry a same sex spouse. Additionally, since culture at large almost idolatrizes marriage (including to some extent Christian culture) the idea of being celibate (which many faith traditions don’t honestly even respect much) seems like an almost impossible task.

1. Just to be clear it is not like a person who is same sex attracted feels compelled to act on their attractions or lack the willpower to abstain from actions should they desire. The issue is many who are same sex attracted (avoiding labels to avoid any particular connotation etc) they don’t see why they should. Society (including christian culture) treats romance, marriage, and nuclear family as the end all be all to happiness and fulfillment while singleness is lonely, dark, and full of emptiness (this is how it is often perceived).

What would help is to counter that narrative and show that a celibate life, though hard and sometimes challenging, is not alone, not without love, not without community, and can be full-filling. A lot of this has to do what I feel has been a totally devaluation of friendship (This article is an interesting counter culture view: washingtonpost.com/local/they-met-in-a-1960s-group-house-nearly-50-years-later-theyre-still-roommates/2016/01/29/3ef27e30-a5de-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html)

 

[Lou2U]

lemongrass80, thanks for replying. I hope you’ll let me try to criticize your post a bit.

I hope you’ll let me respond to yours, OP

I think your post is jumping to a conclusion – that *nothing *should be private in citizens’ lives, due to the public nature of marriage.

Two people getting married is public, I agree, but that doesn’t mean what takes place in a marriage should be public knowledge. If two consenting adults want to live in opposite ends of the house, they should be able to do so. If two fully consenting adults want to engage in a certain act, they should be able to do so. If two fully consenting adults want to have an open relationship, they should be able to do so.

All, I want to again apologize for offending so many people with this post. It’s been a good thread for me to come in contact with other people’s opinions, and I admit it has left me shaken at times and more than I anticipated.

I want to thank you for being so polite and respectful throughout this discussion. It’s been good for us all to consider the others viewpoints.

In my defense, however, I did say this in my original post:
“My opinion is that the state *might *be quite helpful in reforming people.” emphasis on might. I did put “might” in that sentence, and I think many people throughout history have thought the same. Lots of countries, places, times, peoples etc have had public, government sponsored, so to say, punishments for those who commit sodomy. I imagine that at least some of those people thought they were doing the best for their countries, places, times, peoples, etc, by punishing those who committed this act.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they were doing what was best for their country.

Probably the same could be said of certain LGBT activists these days – I’m sure at least some of them think they are doing good.

As for people like Dinesh D’Souza and Pat Robertson – I really don’t know about them, except I do recall seeing somewhere on the Internet someone with signs about God hating certain people. I think God loves people, not hates.

Elsewhere on these forums I have encountered a post advocating for scientific research into the causes of homosexuality – would it be acceptable to you, dear reader, if the society pursued such a course? What if the government funded some of that research?

I think the government should be spending that money elsewhere. I don’t see why it matters if homosexuality is something genetic or completely environmental. I don’t think a clear cause will ever be found, anyhow - like I said to another poster on this thread, I have never thought about the fact I was heterosexual, I just am. I can’t imagine that being any different for a person who is homosexual.

Finally for this post, I’d like to clarify or correct something else that I put in this thead: I recall stating that 1) certain LGBT folks say that gays are not free over their emotions – “you can’t change the way I feel” and 2) if their actions (gay marriage) are based on their unfree feelings, how can they be free to marry? I feel that this line of reasoning also removes their culpability for punishment – if you are not free in your commission of some bad act, then I guess that lessens your culpability.

n

Do you mean punished by society or punished by a God? In society, I can’t see why they should be punished for having a same sex relationship. For a God, I’m not going to debate the CC’s position on homosexuality but I don’t think one belief should be held over another, really.

Lou

 

[Rau]

…Two people getting married is public, I agree, but that doesn’t mean what takes place in a marriage should be public knowledge. If two consenting adults want to live in opposite ends of the house, they should be able to do so. If two fully consenting adults want to engage in a certain act, they should be able to do so. If two fully consenting adults want to have an open relationship, they should be able to do so.

The nature of marriage, not just the fact of a marriage, is also “public”. Marriage is a sexual relationship, and so to marry implies engaging in sexual acts. We can’t credibly abstract the sex out of marriage and thus pretend marriage is merely something of an administrative arrangement, thus eliminating objections to SSM.

I think the government should be spending that money elsewhere. I don’t see why it matters if homosexuality is something genetic or completely environmental. I don’t think a clear cause will ever be found, anyhow - like I said to another poster on this thread, I have never thought about the fact I was heterosexual, I just am. I can’t imagine that being any different for a person who is homosexual.

The potential fruits of research are difficult to judge. Homosexuality limits individuals - it compromises the capacity to parent children, and in modern times, sees children brought into the world and then denied parenting by their (biological) parents. It seems reasonable to want to inderststand the mechanisms that lead to this state of affairs. What if the incidence can be reduced - that would seem a good thing.

 

[Thorolfr]

Marriage is a sexual relationship, and so to marry implies engaging in sexual acts. We can’t credibly abstract the sex out of marriage and thus pretend marriage is merely something of an administrative arrangement, thus eliminating objections to SSM.

I can think of a very famous married couple who did not engage in sexual acts. Even the Catholic Church does not require sexual relations for a marriage to be valid.

 

[nqes7t9]

Lou2U, thank you also for your politeness; it’s a balm to my wounds.

I agree with you that just because someone thinks they are doing what’s best (for their country, people, nation, etc), does not necessarily mean that they are doing what’s best.

As for whether I’m talking about punishment by society or punishment by God – I’ll be tricky and say, either. Do you think it’s possible to think about a thing without answering the question, who is causing this thing?

I agree with what Rau is saying in that sex is a part of marriage, and everyone knows and should know it – “that man and woman are married” should lead directly to “those people can have sex with each other.” It’s important knowledge.

If you’re single, seeking marriage, and thinking of a person as a potential spouse, the question, “are you married?” ought in my opinion to be one of the first questions you need to have answered. Because if that person is already married, you definitely want to look elsewhere. Not to do so would cause social chaos (adultery, etc).

n

 

[hu324b]

As long as everyone else is punished for every sin they commit also as you would punish this person for sodomy and that you are free of sin yourself ( no chance of that!).

 

[Strydersroom]

Lou2U, thank you also for your politeness; it’s a balm to my wounds.

I agree with you that just because someone thinks they are doing what’s best (for their country, people, nation, etc), does not necessarily mean that they are doing what’s best.

As for whether I’m talking about punishment by society or punishment by God – I’ll be tricky and say, either. Do you think it’s possible to think about a thing without answering the question, who is causing this thing?

I agree with what Rau is saying in that sex is a part of marriage, and everyone knows and should know it – “that man and woman are married” should lead directly to “those people can have sex with each other.” It’s important knowledge.

If you’re single, seeking marriage, and thinking of a person as a potential spouse, the question, “are you married?” ought in my opinion to be one of the first questions you need to have answered. Because if that person is already married, you definitely want to look elsewhere. Not to do so would cause social chaos (adultery, etc).

n

Social chaos? I’m afraid it’s time to end this thread in my opinion as it really is going off the deep end. News flash, sex is not just a part of marriage and confined to straight married Christian couples. In fact it might be there most popular activity in the world done a majority of times purely for pleasure. But for whatever the reason it’s absolutely insane to even imagine any kind of punishment for what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. Basically it’s none of your business.

 

[Lou2U]

The nature of marriage, not just the fact of a marriage, is also “public”. Marriage is a sexual relationship, and so to marry implies engaging in sexual acts. We can’t credibly abstract the sex out of marriage and thus pretend marriage is merely something of an administrative arrangement, thus eliminating objections to SSM.

Right, it does imply sexual acts. It doesn’t, however, imply which sexual acts which is why I disagree that sodomy should be illegal - how do we know? The answer is, we shouldn’t.

The potential fruits of research are difficult to judge. Homosexuality limits individuals - it compromises the capacity to parent children, and in modern times, sees children brought into the world and then denied parenting by their (biological) parents. It seems reasonable to want to inderststand the mechanisms that lead to this state of affairs. What if the incidence can be reduced - that would seem a good thing.

What do you mean by reduced? Searching to see if there is a gene for homosexuality is one thing. Actively doing something to change that gene is something else.

Lou2U, thank you also for your politeness; it’s a balm to my wounds.

I agree with you that just because someone thinks they are doing what’s best (for their country, people, nation, etc), does not necessarily mean that they are doing what’s best.

As for whether I’m talking about punishment by society or punishment by God – I’ll be tricky and say, either. Do you think it’s possible to think about a thing without answering the question, who is causing this thing?
nqes7t9;14040225:

As you know I’m Agnostic, so I don’t necessarily believe in a “who” is causing something. I know that Catholics believe that God will punish those who engaged in sodomy. I don’t think that this belief should be put onto society - because (without meaning to sound offensive) it is a belief, and there are others beliefs which would contradict it. I don’t think one religion should be prioritised over another.
nqes7t9;14040225:

I agree with what Rau is saying in that sex is a part of marriage, and everyone knows and should know it – “that man and woman are married” should lead directly to “those people can have sex with each other.” It’s important knowledge.

If you’re single, seeking marriage, and thinking of a person as a potential spouse, the question, “are you married?” ought in my opinion to be one of the first questions you need to have answered. Because if that person is already married, you definitely want to look elsewhere. Not to do so would cause social chaos (adultery, etc).

n

I would ask someone if they were already married. If I were looking to get married, I’d want to know that they could be honest, committed and trustable at the very least.

Lou

 

[Rau]

Right, it does imply sexual acts. It doesn’t, however, imply which sexual acts which is why I disagree that sodomy should be illegal - how do we know? The answer is, we shouldn’t.

Marriage is linked to Sexual intercourse. I also don’t see merit in making sodomy illegal. My point was about the inappropriateness of same sex “marriage”. A narriage where sexual intercourse is impossible by virtue of the sexes of the participants makes no sense. That other sexual acts are to be substituted is understood.

 

[minkymurph]

Sodomy is a sin not a crime. People aren’t punished for adultery, loose morals, cursing or lying ( except under oath ).

I agree.

I have read other posts by you on on this thread true to faith, and agree with your line of reasoning. We cannot create a society where individuals are punished for doing anything we believe God says they should not do, and create laws that make every perceived sin a crime. Where would it end?

I recently heard a radio broadcast were a man had complained to the police he saw a group of women acting immodestly. His argument was the bible says woman should act modestly. Hence he called the police. The group of women were out on a hen night and carrying an inflatable penis. When the man contacted the police not surprisingly they weren’t that interested.

If we were to make sodomy a crime, what punishment should those who commit sodomy receive? Prison were sodomy is a regular occurrence?