Russia- set to pass anti-gay law

[Ridgerunner]

Those laws would be:

The “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring”. Which resulted in enforced sterilisation of Gypsies, as well as anyone who suffered from congenital Mental Deficiency,Schizophrenia, Manic-Depression, Hereditary Epilepsy, Huntingdon’s Disease, Hereditary Blindness, Hereditary Deafness, Alcholism

The “Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals”. Which resulted in the imprisonment in concentration camps of prostitutes, beggars, alcoholics, the ‘work-shy’, the homeless, and those with a travelling lifestyle (i.e. Gypsies).

Both laws came into force in 1933.

And that was before the Nazis got stuck into the Jews.

How anyone can have even the remotest glimmer of respect or sympathy for anything that the Nazis believed (and I have met people who do) is beyond me.

Oh my! We’re not there yet. At least not quite.

Obamacare is well on the way to at least making treatment difficult for any of those chronic conditions you mentioned. But we’re not at the point yet of forcing them to be sterilized. It’s only encouraged and provided for free at the present.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Please tell me that you are not going to suggest that we need to move away from the idea that homosexuals act stictly out of lust or that they can and do fall in love just like straight people.

It’s clear that the catechism understands homosexuality as related to same-sex sexual acts and attractions to those acts. Understanding the acts to be intrinsically disordered, it very logically understands an attraction to such acts as objectively disordered. All that’s pretty clear.

What’s not clear is if the catechism comprehends being attracted to other people of the same sex as being disordered. Because if it does, it doesn’t say so. The catechism addresses itself only to the question of the morality (or in this case, immorality) of same-sex sexual acts and attractions to such acts–it doesn’t actually treat the question of same-sex attraction, i.e., an attraction to someone of the same sex. Consequently, whether or not it’s disordered or sinful or morally impossible to fall in love with someone of the same sex is not covered by the catechism.

So I wonder how you might defend your indirect assertion that it’s impossible for same-sex attracted people to fall in love?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe that this is wrong. Other than the reporter saying that it was “homophobic”…where in the details of what happened do you see…fear of homosexuals…a phobia is not hatred…

I guess you omitted to read the part where one of the suspects admitted carrying out this act because the man admitted to his ‘friends’ that he was homosexual. So they then beat him to death.

The Webster definition of homophobia is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I would say that beating someone to death because they are a homosexual would fall within this definition.

But if you fail to see this crime as a homophobic crime then I guess you won’t accept that any crimes are motivated by homophobia.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

On the contrary, if Russia has other bad laws, the solution is for it to also repeal bad laws, not to refrain from passing good ones.

We know that the morality of an act depends on the uniform goodness of three things:
1–the object
2–the intention
3–the circumstances of the act

In the case of this Russian law, it’s object may be good, but given the political and social climate which currently obtains in Russia, it’s unclear whether the intention or circumstances are good. Consequently, it’s reasonable to conclude that the action of the Russian government in passing such a law is morally questionable at best.

I understand that it’s natural for us to defend those who appear to agree with us, but to do so blindly or merely on principle is not always the most prudent course of action–it can, in fact, be a cause of scandal.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Ridgerunner]

The article doesn’t quote the whole law, so we don’t know what it says in detail. The article cites it as providing the following:

"The bill provides for Russian citizens engaged in the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” to be fined, while foreigners could be arrested and immediately deported.

The law defines the concept as “spreading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive, and making a false statement about the socially equal nature of traditional and non-traditional relationships”.

Now, one can say what one wants about Russians generally, whether the average Russian hates homosexuals or would kill them if they could. I haven’t seen any evidence of that on here yet, but it could be true for all I know. I don’t know what the average Russian actually thinks about it. From a previous post of a purported poll, most Russians appear not to like homosexuality or its overt manifestations, but a relative few would actually do anything violent. I also think Putin himself is a villain and a dictator. But that doesn’t mean this law says anything other than what it says.

Alll this law appears to punish by fine is the above. Unless somebody comes up with better information than the article provides, I don’t see where the prohibited acts are a whole lot different from what the Catholic Church considers grave evils. Some could get one in trouble with the law even here in the U.S., depending on how one did them. Spread “information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children” pictorially and see what happense to you.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The Russian Orthodox have proclaimed Nicoai a Saint and whatever negative is written after is slander.

While I don’t know that what you say here regarding slander is quite accurate (or even defensible in all cases–sometimes saints did morally questionable things and simply pointing to the historical or public record in that regard is not slander, but simple honesty), I just want to point out that Andrew was speaking of the saint’s nephew, not of the saint.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[estesbob]

Those laws would be:

The “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring”. Which resulted in enforced sterilisation of Gypsies, as well as anyone who suffered from congenital Mental Deficiency,Schizophrenia, Manic-Depression, Hereditary Epilepsy, Huntingdon’s Disease, Hereditary Blindness, Hereditary Deafness, Alcholism

The “Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals”. Which resulted in the imprisonment in concentration camps of prostitutes, beggars, alcoholics, the ‘work-shy’, the homeless, and those with a travelling lifestyle (i.e. Gypsies).

Both laws came into force in 1933.

And that was before the Nazis got stuck into the Jews.

How anyone can have even the remotest glimmer of respect or sympathy for anything that the Nazis believed (and I have met people who do) is beyond me.

And these laws are related to the law in Russia in why way? You are the one who brought up the Nazis. Goodwins law strikes again

 

[sw85]

Grace & Peace!

We know that the morality of an act depends on the uniform goodness of three things:
1–the object
2–the intention
3–the circumstances of the act

When we say this “the morality of an act” in that context, what we mean is whether or not an actor acts in a morally upright fashion when he acts that way. But that’s not what is relevant here. I have no interest in Vladimir Putin’s moral culpability for this or anything else, nor am I qualified to judge such a thing, nor are you, nor is anyone else here.

We are, on the other hand, perfectly competent to judge whether or not this bill is within the Russian state’s competency to legislate, because the Church has already defined that for us. The state is charged with maintenance of the common good, one aspect of which is the defense of public morality against aggressors. Therefore, whether or not Vladimir Putin sins, the act in question is morally, in principle, perfectly licit, even if the particular circumstances make it imprudent.

But “imprudent” is not the same thing as “immoral.” What I see here are Catholics objecting to this on moral grounds, i.e., on the grounds that Christian charity obliges the state to refrain from protecting the moral consensus of society, shielding the sensibilities of children, etc. etc., by punishing those who agitate for homosexual in obscene and scandalous ways. This is emphatically not what charity obliges of us. It is a false view of “charity.” Specifically, it is not a Catholic view of charity, it is a liberal view of charity. It has nothing to do with Catholicism. And Catholics are emphatically not free to deny the Church’s teachings re: the legitimate duties of the state in this way.

 

[estesbob]

Homophobia is a hatred or fear of homosexuals.

As for an example, here’s one for you.

rt.com/news/man-killed-homophobia-russia-198/

And I lose respect for people who try to imply that there is actually no such thing as homophobia.

Then clinical definition of “homophobia” is one who fears homosexuals. Given that there are less homophobes in this country than there are homosexuals. However the term has been hijacked by homosexual apologists and now is taken to mean anyone who criticizes homosexuals or opposes normalizing or affirming homosexual behavior. Like racism it is a loaded term who’s sole purpose is to derail or shut down the discussion

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When we say this “the morality of an act” in that context, what we mean is whether or not an actor acts in a morally upright fashion when he acts that way. But that’s not what is relevant here.

I’m not sure you’re right to dismiss the relevance here. The actor here is the Russian state, not Vladimir Putin specifically. Are you arguing that meeting the three standards of moral action is relevant to some actors but not others and that states are exempt from considering these standards?

We are, on the other hand, perfectly competent to judge whether or not this bill is within the Russian state’s competency to legislate, because the Church has already defined that for us. The state is charged with maintenance of the common good, one aspect of which is the defense of public morality against aggressors.

The question, though, is not whether according to Catholic moral teaching the “bill is within the Russian state’s competency to legislate.” It certainly is. The question is whether or not the Russian state acts morally by legislating it.

But “imprudent” is not the same thing as “immoral.”

True, but if the Russian state acts immorally by legislating an otherwise moral bill (because the intention and the circumstances behind the legislation are iffy at best), then we’re not just talking about imprudence, we are, in fact, talking about immorality.

What I see here are Catholics objecting to this on moral grounds, i.e., on the grounds that Christian charity obliges the state to refrain from protecting the moral consensus of society, shielding the sensibilities of children, etc. etc., by punishing those who agitate for homosexual in obscene and scandalous ways. This is emphatically not what charity obliges of us. It is a false view of “charity.” Specifically, it is not a Catholic view of charity, it is a liberal view of charity. It has nothing to do with Catholicism. And Catholics are emphatically not free to deny the Church’s teachings re: the legitimate duties of the state in this way.

You may be correct. It could also be correct that your disagreement with your fellow Catholics here is leading you to prejudice principle over reality–i.e., while you’re absolutely correct on principle that it is within a state’s competency to legislate such bills, I fear that your insistence on principle is obscuring your apprehension of the political realities at play, leading to an appearance that on-the-ground political realities are inconsequential to you. This makes your insistence appear merely academic at best. I don’t think, however, that that’s your intention.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[sw85]

I’m not sure you’re right to dismiss the relevance here. The actor here is the Russian state, not Vladimir Putin specifically. Are you arguing that meeting the three standards of moral action is relevant to some actors but not others and that states are exempt from considering these standards?

I am saying the question at hand has nothing to do with the moral culpability of any particular actor. The question is, rather, whether a law like this is a disordered act. It is not, and it seems to be contrary to Church teachings to say that it is. Yet several Catholics here seem to have no problem saying otherwise, even in the face of the plain words of the teachings of the Church.

The question, though, is not whether according to Catholic moral teaching the “bill is within the Russian state’s competency to legislate.” It certainly is. The question is whether or not the Russian state acts morally by legislating it.

Then we are talking about two different things altogether.

“The Russian state” isn’t a moral actor anyway. Individuals are moral actors, as witnessed by the fact that only individual people have reason and free will and therefore moral responsibility.

You may be correct. It could also be correct that your disagreement with your fellow Catholics here is leading you to prejudice principle over reality–i.e., while you’re absolutely correct on principle that it is within a state’s competency to legislate such bills, I fear that your insistence on principle is obscuring your apprehension of the political realities at play, leading to an appearance that on-the-ground political realities are inconsequential to you. This makes your insistence appear merely academic at best. I don’t think, however, that that’s your intention.

I am not in any position to dictate to Russians what is in the best interest of their nations, so I have no prudential position on it. My intention is simply that some people here know that the position they are espousing is not a Catholic one but a liberal one, and that this is an error that needs to be repented of.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

We know that the morality of an act depends on the uniform goodness of three things:
1–the object
2–the intention
3–the circumstances of the act

In the case of this Russian law, it’s object may be good, but given the political and social climate which currently obtains in Russia, it’s unclear whether the intention or circumstances are good. Consequently, it’s reasonable to conclude that the action of the Russian government in passing such a law is morally questionable at best.

I understand that it’s natural for us to defend those who appear to agree with us, but to do so blindly or merely on principle is not always the most prudent course of action–it can, in fact, be a cause of scandal.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Is it objectively good

or

objectively evil

to teach children as the law states…

The law defines the rather nebulous concept as “spreading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive, and making a false statement about the socially equal nature of traditional and non-traditional relationships”.

Which is it? Objectively evil or Objectively good?

 

[mitex]

I still like my Lithuania idea… Ban same-sex marriage, adoption, and homosexuality promotion while at the same time banning unjust discrimination and violence against homosexuals. Russia should follow the lead of the Lithuanians.

 

[CopticChristian]

I still like my Lithuania idea… Ban same-sex marriage, adoption, and homosexuality promotion while at the same time banning unjust discrimination and violence against homosexuals. Russia should follow the lead of the Lithuanians.

Get on the phone and Call Putin…

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Absolutely not. The Church calls that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358).

Do you think that Putin is considering how he can foster a culture of respect, compassion, and sensitivity towards homosexuals?

Putin is not a RC Who cares?

 

[CopticChristian]

Putin is not a RC Who cares?

Perfect. Is this consistent with Russian Orthodox thoughts and beliefs?

On 2000-AUG-15, the Church “adopted a strictly conservative social policy platform that contained harsh criticisms of homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and artificial insemination. The social policy platform was adopted at jubilee-year meeting of the Council of Bishops, an assembly of top Orthodox clergy, held at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior.” This is the church’s first “formal pronouncement on contemporary social issues” since the fall of the USSR. 1

The policy statement included the following:

“The Holy Bible and the Church doctrine unequivocally condemn homosexual ties as a perverse distortion of the God-given nature of the human being.”

Homosexuality is “a sinful injury to human nature.” (We assume that they are referring to homosexual behavior here, and not homosexual orientation or feelings.)
Homosexuality is to be “treated by sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance and the reading of the Holy Scripture.”

“…people advocating homosexual practices should not be allowed to carry out teaching or educational work with children or young people or take positions of authority in the army or in penitentiary institutions.” We suspect that the term “advocating” here refers to persons who promote the belief that homosexual behavior is normal and natural for that minority of adults who have a homosexual orientation.

They oppose same-sex marriage.

“Discussions about the so-called sexual minorities in the modern society tend to recognize homosexuality not as a sexual perversion, but only as one of the ‘sexual orientations’, one that has an equal right for public demonstration and respect. Bearing pastoral responsibility for people with homosexual inclinations, the church at the same time decisively opposes attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and even more, a subject of pride and an example to be followed.” 2,3

 

[devoutchristian]

Putin is not a RC Who cares?

Brendan is twisting the Church’s teaching to fit his ideology.

 

[CopticChristian]

I guess you omitted to read the part where one of the suspects admitted carrying out this act because the man admitted to his ‘friends’ that he was homosexual. So they then beat him to death.

The Webster definition of homophobia is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I would say that beating someone to death because they are a homosexual would fall within this definition.

But if you fail to see this crime as a homophobic crime then I guess you won’t accept that any crimes are motivated by homophobia.

The Webster definition of homophobia is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I disagree…I have an irrational fear of whatever…then

I avoid…aversion, avoid…
Discriminate…I say things, write things, deny things

Are you suggesting that a phobia, knowing that you have an aversion to, want to get away from you then murder?

I believe you are stretching the word “phobia” beyond fear to other than fear…

I fear big MMI guys wanting to beat me up…I avoid them…I don’t kill them…

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Perfect. Is this consistent with Russian Orthodox thoughts and beliefs?

Yes, the church is very strict and conservative. I should know my dad is a priest

Brendan is twisting the Church’s teaching to fit his ideology.

I just don’t understand people sometimes :banghead: Russia is not the west. They are tired of the unmoral everything is a gray area, that the west is shoving down peoples throat. I for one am tired of it also

 

[devoutchristian]

I just don’t understand people sometimes :banghead: Russia is not the west. They are tired of the unmoral everything is a gray area, that the west is shoving down peoples throat. I for one am tired of it also

Despite being rejected by the Church, liberalism is still adhered to even by many Christians.