L
livingwordunity
Guest
A good example is how prostitution is legal in Nevada.
Should homosexual acts be illegal from a Catholic & Government perspective?
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It most certainly is, because again, that’s the way legal rulings are decided and written. The default definition is assumed. Loving is about heterosexual interracial marriage and the 14th amendment as applied to that constitutional principle and not an invented principle or an anchronistic definition which the Court was not considering in its ruling.
Some of you seriously need to learn the way the law works in its formality and its precision.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
you need a refresher course on how to read an appellate case, in particular what facts are critical for the holding and what aren’t.
that the Lovings were heterosexual was never an issue, any presumed rules based on that fact that doesn’t even rise to the level of dicta. the issue in* Loving v. Virgina *was whether the interracial marriage was a felony in VA. if the USSC assumed the ordinary definition of marriage at that time as between members of the same race was always valid, it wouldn’t have ruled for the Lovings.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Straw man. Do you really believe that there are people spying on you in your bedroom?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
you’d be wrong again. in the Loving case being discussed on this thread, the police raided the Lovings’ bedroom hoping to catch them having interracial sex.Straw man. Neither the government nor the Church has ever been spying in anyone’s bedroom (well, at least I’m sure that the Church hasn’t).
J
Julianna
Guest
No. But it seems to be fine with you, if it gets the results you want.Straw man. Do you really believe that there are people spying on you in your bedroom?
and I have to ask another question? “Why so curious?”
M
marymary1975
Guest
You are not correct Elizabeth. The Court never addressed that issue in Loving. It was not about heterosexual marriage. The issue was whether interracial marriage was a felony.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
she’s not familiar with how to read appellate decisions; that is was a normal, heterosexual marriage was not relevant to the ruling.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Straw man. Do you really believe that there are people spying on you in your bedroom?
Another straw man. I never advocated spying on people in their bedrooms.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Legislation making homosexual vice illegal would undoubtedly go a long way in promoting the moral health of any nation because it would put an honour upon it, in addition to qualifying it for the favour of God - " Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14: 34). If vice, especially vice against which even nature herself loudly protests, is not subject to any legal sanctions then this puts a disgrace upon it. Contriwise, if a righteous government gives official public countenance to religion and virtue this will elevate people’s minds and the whole moral tone of the nation. Moreover, the country which promotes religion would surely cause it to prosper spiritually, as well as materially, since God would be well-disposed towards it. In the Old Testament Israel was, in point of fact, a sort of instance of both parts of this observation; they were great when they were good, but when they forsook God, much like we have in the West today, then all about them insulted and trampled upon them. Therefore, it is in the interests of our governments to employ their powers for the suppression of vice and support of virtue.
You know, dear friends, there was a time not so long ago, here in Britian, when there was an immense amount of public antipathy towards homosexual vice and when such unnatural acts were a criminal offence. However, following the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalized private homosexual deviant acts between consenting male adults. The argument that finally seems to have won the day with moralists was the alleged need to differentiate between crimes, which are the proper concern of the legislature, and sins, which are not. However, dear friends, many were and are of the opinion that this arbitrary distinction was a grave error of judgment and that even behind closed doors unnatural deviant conduct should remain the proper concern of the law, for such conduct is manifestly contrary to the public good. It should be blindingly obvious that decriminalizing homosexual aberrant acts incontrovertibly does affect the common good because it allows unnatural and unhealthy vice to proliferate without the threat of any punishment. Whilst legal penalties will never entirely halt homosexual conduct, they undeniably help to do so and in any event are right from a moral standpoint. Moreover, the common good and health of a nation must always be the overriding concern, not the ‘right’ of a few to practice unnatural vice.
It was also, dear friends, very naive for men to think that once homosexual vice had been decriminalized, those who practiced it would just disappear and live happily ever after, never to be heard from again. In all the supposedly progressive thinking of the 1960’s it was conveniently forgotten that man is fallen and thus it would only be matter of time before the homosexual activists would be loudly demanding their ‘gay rights’. This would eventually result in the sort of situations that are all too common today in the post-Christian West. For example, here in Britian guest house proprietors are forbidden by law to ‘discriminate’ against homosexual patrons, notwithstanding that they disapprove of such conduct on the basis of deeply held religious convictions. Evidently their ‘rights’ are inconsequential and their homes are no longer their castles where they decide who enters and who does not. We have also recently witnessed those demanding a change in the policy of the Boy Scouts Association an d so it continues.
By decriminalizing homosexual acts of depravity, dear friends, America and Britain opened up a veritable can of worms and our present plight is jolly desperate and shows no signs of improving, certainly not for God-fearing Christians who can never accept this ‘alternative lifestyle’. Of course the homosexual activists would never rest content with only having their detestable acts decriminalized. At length they would want to give the public social dimension to a personal union the status of ‘marriage’. This along with the demand for homosexuals to be able to assume the roles of ‘parents’, surely represents the ultimate discrimination against normal marriage, ordained by God for the procreation of children and for them to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord. Homosexual unions can never satisfy this end since they are against nature and involve veneral pleasure in such a way as to exclude the possibility of generation.
Had unnatural homosexual vice remained a criminal offence, dear friends, punishable by a stiff term of imprisonment, this would have clearly semaphored to the activists that homosexual vice would never be tolerated or given legal sanction. Moreover, if we had remained steadfast and unmoveable homosexual conduct would have been checked and we would not be plagued by the unrelenting clamour for ‘gay rights’ in every aspect of life. Most importantly, Western society would be a better and more God-fearing place than it is today, for righteousness always exalts a nation (Prov. 14: 34). Any country that emphatically condemns homosexual vice and makes its practice illegal will surely qualify for the favour of God.
Homosexual deviant conduct bear tragic witness to the disordering of mankind by sin and is objectively unnatural and cannot be regarded as otherwise. Therefore, it surely follows that any nation which decriminalizes such deviant conduct will bring upon itself much woe and many social problems.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Legislation making homosexual vice illegal would undoubtedly go a long way in promoting the moral health of any nation because it would put an honour upon it, in addition to qualifying it for the favour of God - " Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14: 34). If vice, especially vice against which even nature herself loudly protests, is not subject to any legal sanctions then this puts a disgrace upon it. Contriwise, if a righteous government gives official public countenance to religion and virtue this will elevate people’s minds and the whole moral tone of the nation. Moreover, the country which promotes religion would surely cause it to prosper spiritually, as well as materially, since God would be well-disposed towards it. In the Old Testament Israel was, in point of fact, a sort of instance of both parts of this observation; they were great when they were good, but when they forsook God, much like we have in the West today, then all about them insulted and trampled upon them. Therefore, it is in the interests of our governments to employ their powers for the suppression of vice and support of virtue.
You know, dear friends, there was a time not so long ago, here in Britian, when there was an immense amount of public antipathy towards homosexual vice and when such unnatural acts were a criminal offence. However, following the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalized private homosexual deviant acts between consenting male adults. The argument that finally seems to have won the day with moralists was the alleged need to differentiate between crimes, which are the proper concern of the legislature, and sins, which are not. However, dear friends, many were and are of the opinion that this arbitrary distinction was a grave error of judgment and that even behind closed doors unnatural deviant conduct should remain the proper concern of the law, for such conduct is manifestly contrary to the public good. It should be blindingly obvious that decriminalizing homosexual aberrant acts incontrovertibly does affect the common good because it allows unnatural and unhealthy vice to proliferate without the threat of any punishment. Whilst legal penalties will never entirely halt homosexual conduct, they undeniably help to do so and in any event are right from a moral standpoint. Moreover, the common good and health of a nation must always be the overriding concern, not the ‘right’ of a few to practice unnatural vice.
It was also, dear friends, very naive for men to think that once homosexual vice had been decriminalized, those who practiced it would just disappear and live happily ever after, never to be heard from again. In all the supposedly progressive thinking of the 1960’s it was conveniently forgotten that man is fallen and thus it would only be matter of time before the homosexual activists would be loudly demanding their ‘gay rights’. This would eventually result in the sort of situations that are all too common today in the post-Christian West. For example, here in Britian guest house proprietors are forbidden by law to ‘discriminate’ against homosexual patrons, notwithstanding that they disapprove of such conduct on the basis of deeply held religious convictions. Evidently their ‘rights’ are inconsequential and their homes are no longer their castles where they decide who enters and who does not. We have also recently witnessed those demanding a change in the policy of the Boy Scouts Association an d so it continues.
By decriminalizing homosexual acts of depravity, dear friends, America and Britain opened up a veritable can of worms and our present plight is jolly desperate and shows no signs of improving, certainly not for God-fearing Christians who can never accept this ‘alternative lifestyle’. Of course the homosexual activists would never rest content with only having their detestable acts decriminalized. At length they would want to give the public social dimension to a personal union the status of ‘marriage’. This along with the demand for homosexuals to be able to assume the roles of ‘parents’, surely represents the ultimate discrimination against normal marriage, ordained by God for the procreation of children and for them to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord. Homosexual unions can never satisfy this end since they are against nature and involve veneral pleasure in such a way as to exclude the possibility of generation.
Had unnatural homosexual vice remained a criminal offence, dear friends, punishable by a stiff term of imprisonment, this would have clearly semaphored to the activists that homosexual vice would never be tolerated or given legal sanction. Moreover, if we had remained steadfast and unmoveable homosexual conduct would have been checked and we would not be plagued by the unrelenting clamour for ‘gay rights’ in every aspect of life. Most importantly, Western society would be a better and more God-fearing place than it is today, for righteousness always exalts a nation (Prov. 14: 34). Any country that emphatically condemns homosexual vice and makes its practice illegal will surely qualify for the favour of God.
Homosexual deviant conduct bear tragic witness to the disordering of mankind by sin and is objectively unnatural and cannot be regarded as otherwise. Therefore, it surely follows that any nation which decriminalizes such deviant conduct will bring upon itself much woe and many social problems.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
F
fix
Guest
You paint a correct picture. In the USA the SC over turned a anti-sodomy ruling and we have “gay” marriage today. There is a relationship among all these issues. It is not that ant-sodomy laws are the specific answer it is part of a larger puzzle that all fits together.
I predict your post will not be received well. Our consciences are not formed by Catholic thought but by pop culture and post modern relativism.
Keep up the good work.
N
ngill09
Guest
Why stop at homosexuality? Why not make masturbation and premarital sex illegal as well?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
in Loving vs. Virginia, the police broke into a married couple’s house and stormed their bedroom to enforce a morals law. are you good with that?
F/
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear fix,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Indeed, properly formed consciences rather than progressive consciences are the urgent need of the hour, given the times in which our lot is cast.
It deeply saddens me, dear brother, that many contemporary Catholics, especially among the youth, do not think with an authentically Catholic mind but are more driven by the ideology of popular culture and relativism. This applies to a whole range of issues, I am afraid to say.
God bless and thankyou for your splendid efforts on these boards.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
F
Fairwinds
Guest
do you think the police should enforce anti-sodomy laws using peeping toms as snitches to obtain search/arrest warrants?
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
No, we have gay marriage today because of heterosexuals degrading and debasing marriage to the point where the societal defintion has been so radically perverted that with this new definition it actually makes senses to allow any two adults to marrying, including two people of the sex.
The lack of sodomy laws in Catholic England did not cause gay marriage there.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
This is false and very dangerous. You are assuming that marriage is a cultural fiction and purely human product: something we might do in our spare and lesuire time, as it were; however, marriage is a positive enactment of human nature. It is primordial and pre-historical. Like all justice, it is a postive realization of something within our nature: i.e, marriage is natural. It exists, then, in the objective order of reality: it has an essence and characteristics that are necessary and proper to it (and, for that reason, there are things also necessarily opposed to it (or its essence)). I most certainly can demand, e.g., that a Jew, Muslim or Unitarian acknowledge or at least not resist the necessary truth that 1 + 1 = 2; and moreover deny him any right to try to deny that truth by an abuse of positive law, or try to teach my children that the proposition 1 + 1 = 3 is equal to, or just as good or true as, the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2.
Our natural or God-given rights flow from the objective order (a.k.a reality): they flow from the rational order or nature and their essence or principles can be known by reason. If we reduce rights to a purely arbitrary and subjective affair then we do in fact undermine and even deny the very basis and validity of our rights. Marriage, like our natural rights, is an expression of our nature: it precedes us. Again, it has its own qualities and characteristics: there is a reason a marriage is not, e.g., a cat and a cat is not a marriage.
F
fix
Guest
No, the acceptance of “gay” sex as normal has helped usher this new morality that says anything goes slapped with the banner of “consent”. Yes, heterosexual deviants acts have helped pave the way but the point is the farther we fall the worse it gets.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Fairwinds,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
First, dear friend, it is very important that we distinguish between things which essentially differ, otherwise we are likely to err. The state of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law criminalizing interracial marriage was manifestly inequitable and indefensible. Therefore, it was indeed right to put an end to all ‘race-based’ legal restrictions upon marriage. However, unjust gender discrimination is plainly not on a par with a grave moral disorder such as unnatural homosexual deviant acts. Once a government decriminalizes homosexual vice it opens the door to so called ‘gay marriage’ and adoption, as well as effectively removing the restraint on the growth of immorality. Men are given the green light to indulge their unnatural lusts because they have been declared lawful by the government, who have woefully failed to supress a vice that clearly does not promote the common good.
Second, dear friend, if legislation criminalizing unnatural homosexual vice was ever again to be part of statutory law, then obviously it would have to be rigorously enforced, otherwise it would be pointless having it in the first place. Moreover, in any number of cases it is sometimes very necessary for the police to use forcible entry to arrest suspects and find evidence on which to file any charges, thus why should they not be able to raid a house if they have strong reasons for believing that those within are committing illegal homosexual practices? This only sounds Draconian to us today because we have been fed a steady stream of propaganda by the homosexual lobby, justifying their ‘alternative lifestyle’, but this would have probably not have occurred had we never decriminalized homosexual vice in the first place.
How far we have come here in Britain since 1967, when homosexual acts of depravity were first made legal between consenting male adults. How, dear friend, the debate has moved on from considering the age of consent to homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption, with any opposition to homosexual behaviour being bracketed with racialism, sexism, ageism and just about everything else that is deemed ‘politically incorrect’ by our morally confused post-Christian age. Truly, we have sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind and by decriminalizing unnatural homosexual vice America and Britain have disgraced themselves in the eyes of the world.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
- Status