Should homosexual acts be illegal from a Catholic & Government perspective?

[livingwordunity]

you’re in favor of suppressing sodomy. how do you propose prosecuting married couples who practice this in their bedroom?

Does the government have to have someone spying in the bedroom at the time that a rape happens in order to prosecute someone for it? That’s why I indicated that you keep arguing against a straw man.

Definition of STRAW MAN
1
: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

Source:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Julianna]

Does the government have to have someone spying in the bedroom at the time that a rape happens in order to prosecute someone for it? That’s why I indicated that you keep arguing against a straw man.

Source:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

rape is non consensual.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I disagree completely. You are granting prematurely an unproven premiss; namely, that SSA is biological and not, e.g., strictly psychological (which is the opinion, e.g., of the Catechism). The latter, having to do with our thoughts, may or may not include moral culpability. We are not to entertain sinful thoughts. It per force leads to evil habits and vitiates our will power and character. It is degrading. To entertain the thought of homosexual activity is to entertain a crime. Moreover, an individual can victimize themselves and two individuals can voluntarily victimize each other: homosexuality is not a so-called “victimless crime”. Homosexuality is in the first instance a crime against one self and a crime against the sanctity or goodness of the human mind: well before it is acted upon with another it is inherently criminal insomuch as it is deeply and intriniscally lawless. It is a revolt against nature: not merely biologically but psychologically too: I mean the validty of the human mind, which is designed to seek out, contemplate and entertain the truth. Deliberately entertaining sinful thoughts -especially those so plainly contrary to nature and simple reason- will lead to spiritual blindness or darkness.

This is incorrect, the Catechism does not claim it is not biological.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Rather than debate nature -v- nurture aspects of sexuality, let’s stick to the topic of the thread: Re: Should homosexual acts be illegal from a Catholic & Government (specifically USA) perspective?

The main points: By ‘homosexual acts’ are you including any form of (beyond platonic) physical affection between same sex people - or - is it the specific acts (generally oral/anal copulation). The later argument is fraught with peril: plenty of straight people enjoy those acts, and more to the point (it is my understanding): the church does not condemn these acts as long as it results in traditional coitus that might lead to pregnancy.

The other half of the issue is the concept of liberty. Generally speaking, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, people can do whatever they want. The problem with dictating morality is you might not agree with the values of those in power. I don’t see this happening in the USA.

 

[Elizabeth502]

plenty of straight people enjoy those acts, and more to the point (it is my understanding): the church does not condemn these acts as long as it results in traditional coitus that might lead to pregnancy.

Wrong. The Church condemns anal intercourse for all, including heterosexuals.

That said, I don’t see how any specifically Catholic morality can be enforced anywhere (including a government somewhere that is theoretically, ofificially Catholic). Just note that Church opposition to same-sex-“marriage” is not related to “morality,” per se, but rather to the institution of marriage, the common good, the health of society, the respect for the tradiitonal institution of marriage as singularly having honor and worth approval, and for the affirmation of a child’s natural right to a male father and a female mother.

I know that the thread topic is not the latter, I just would like to reinforce that important distinction which the Church herself makes. She has not tried to legislate or reintroduce anti-sodomy laws in the civil realm.

 

[livingwordunity]

rape is non consensual.

The point wasn’t about whether or not something is consensual.

The question went something like “wouldn’t the government have to be there in the bedroom to know that sodomy took place in order to prosecute it?”

So I brought up the fact that the government doesn’t have to be present in the bedroom to prosecute someone for the crime of rape.

 

[Fairwinds]

The point wasn’t about whether or not something is consensual.

The question went something like “wouldn’t the government have to be there in the bedroom to know that sodomy took place in order to prosecute it?”

So I brought up the fact that the government doesn’t have to be present in the bedroom to prosecute someone for the crime of rape.

with rape there’s a victim, and a complaining witness. and rape kits to collect evidence from a hospitalized victim. in your version of state enforced morality, there are no victims (except your offended sense of morality) no complaining witnesses, no way to know that crime has occurred unless there are peeping tom snitches and cameras and mics. now, it may be that this is what you want to have, in which case you should admit it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Rather than debate nature -v- nurture aspects of sexuality, let’s stick to the topic of the thread: Re: Should homosexual acts be illegal from a Catholic & Government (specifically USA) perspective?

The main points: By ‘homosexual acts’ are you including any form of (beyond platonic) physical affection between same sex people - or - is it the specific acts (generally oral/anal copulation). The later argument is fraught with peril: plenty of straight people enjoy those acts, and more to the point (it is my understanding): the church does not condemn these acts as long as it results in traditional coitus that might lead to pregnancy.

The other half of the issue is the concept of liberty. Generally speaking, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, people can do whatever they want. The problem with dictating morality is you might not agree with the values of those in power. I don’t see this happening in the USA.

See post #11 on traditional American values and history of sodomy law in the Anglophone world.

Wrong. The Church condemns anal intercourse for all, including heterosexuals.

That said, I don’t see how any specifically Catholic morality can be enforced anywhere (including a government somewhere that is theoretically, ofificially Catholic). Just note that Church opposition to same-sex-“marriage” is not related to “morality,” per se, but rather to the institution of marriage, the common good, the health of society, the respect for the tradiitonal institution of marriage as singularly having honor and worth approval, and for the affirmation of a child’s natural right to a male father and a female mother.

I know that the thread topic is not the latter, I just would like to reinforce that important distinction which the Church herself makes. She has not tried to legislate or reintroduce anti-sodomy laws in the civil realm.

Indeed.

There is a reason why St. Thomas Aquinas said what he said regarding prudence, the state and prostitution.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am so glad you know what it in my heart…what is the point of God knowing then?

I don’t have to know what’s in your heart to point out the potential for mortal sin. Church leaders have asked on several occasions for people who support so-called “gay marriage” to refrain from receiving Communion.

The request is really quite clear.

Church and state are separate for a reason, and this is a great example.

No, it isn’t There are plenty of secular arguments out there why marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I said I don’t support the government using peeping tom snitches. do you?

I made it quite clear in my post I was talking about so-called “gay marriage”, not snitches who would violate private property.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Cool, bro. Let’s criminalize Catholicism since that would never affect me. Of course, I don’t know who is or isn’t a practising Catholic, but we’ll just arrest anyone who claims to be a Catholic.

Freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights; marriage is not.

I do not support bans on sodomy.

 

[livingwordunity]

with rape there’s a victim, and a complaining witness. and rape kits to collect evidence from a hospitalized victim. in your version of state enforced morality, there are no victims (except your offended sense of morality) no complaining witnesses, no way to know that crime has occurred unless there are peeping tom snitches and cameras and mics. now, it may be that this is what you want to have, in which case you should admit it.

What if the rape victim was also murdered and there were no other witnesses or physical evidence? Do you think just because the government wasn’t actually there in the bedroom to witness it happen they wouldn’t be able to prosecute it even with a confession by the one who did it?

 

[Fairwinds]

Freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights; marriage is not. …

marriage is not mentioned in the bill of rights, but the USSC, Loving v. Virginia) [overturning a state law banning interracial marriage] held,

… The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man. fundamental to our very existence and survival …

Loving held this is a right guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

I’m not arguing for gay marriage, but pointing out the issue is more nuanced.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

What if the rape victim was also murdered and there were no other witnesses or physical evidence? Do you think just because the government wasn’t actually there in the bedroom to witness it happen they wouldn’t be able to prosecute it even with a confession by the one who did it?

I don’t know how you’re using the word “confession”, its a term of art, and, if I remember, you haven’t used it in the specific way the legal system does. if I recall correctly, you want to convict anyone who says he or she had anal sex.

about confessions only:

At Thibodeaux’s 1997 trial, the prosecution built its case around his confession to the rape and murder. There was no physical evidence linking Thibodeaux to the crimes, and though Crystal was found undressed, they found no semen on her body and no other physical evidence that she had been raped.

after 15 years on death row Thibodeaux was released in 2012 because he was, in fact, innocent…

law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4004

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t know how you’re using the word “confession”, its a term of art, and, if I remember, you haven’t used it in the specific way the legal system does. if I recall correctly, you want to convict anyone who says he or she had anal sex.

about confessions only:

after 15 years on death row Thibodeaux was released in 2012 because he was, in fact, innocent…

law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4004

There are also people who are wrongly convicted with witness testimony against them. But you didn’t disprove my point that a person can be convicted with a confession alone.

 

[Fairwinds]

There are also people who are wrongly convicted with witness testimony against them. But you didn’t disprove my point that a person can be convicted with a confession alone.

because you don’t have a point. I’ve asked you three or four times now what you mean by “confession”. and you won’t answer.

 

[livingwordunity]

because you don’t have a point. I’ve asked you three or four times now what you mean by “confession”. and you won’t answer.

I mean when someone says “I did it”. I don’t know why you are trying to make something so simple as difficult as Chinese Math.

 

[Fairwinds]

I mean when someone says “I did it”. I don’t know why you are trying to make something so simple as difficult as Chinese Math.

because that’s not a confession that you could get a conviction from. period, bottom line. you’re arguing from ignorance.

 

[livingwordunity]

because that’s not a confession that you could get a conviction from. period, bottom line. you’re arguing from ignorance.

Then the confession that can get a conviction is the one that I mean. Done, goodnight.

 

[Fairwinds]

Then the confession that can get a conviction is the one that I mean. Done, goodnight.

that’s a textbook example of fallacious circular reasoning.