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

[fix]

I dare you to diagram your first sentence. This is a nod to my superb Catholic education. I didn’t say I thought laws against homosexuality were just or unjust. I simply point out that the way our government is designed, no religion is allowed to dictate its values on the rest of society - and I’m very glad of that fact. I would not want to live in a country like Iran, where Sharia law would severely curb my liberty solely because of my gender. I thank God that I was fortunate enough to be born in a country where I get to choose my religion.

Did we have sharia law when we had anti sodomy laws?

It is not about religious laws.

 

[Julianna]

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.

And I believe the government has no business, nor does anyone else in someone’s bedroom. It’s beyond ridiculous.

 

[Julianna]

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.

Wow! just wow. A “potential”…so you are not even 100% sure. And I thought you knew everything about me. How will Church leaders know? Is there a Vatican Police Dept., making the rounds with you local city cops questioning all Catholics in the town to see if they support “gay marriage”? I don’t think the Church has the time or the labor force needed to accomplish that. It has bigger fish to fry.

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

Yes, there are arguments…however, the government in the US operates differently than the Church. Thus the “separation”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Did we have sharia law when we had anti sodomy laws?

It is not about religious laws.

No, the introduction of the laws in the US came with a Protestant quasi-theocracy that viciously persecuted Catholics.

There weren’t Sodomy laws in Catholic England and while some Catholic countries had it on the books, France for example had no one convicted for it under King Saint Louis IX of France.

 

[Elizabeth502]

marriage is not mentioned in the bill of rights, but the USSC
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

This may be the 47th time anyone on this forum has had to correct this grossly embarrassing falsity.

Loving v. Virgina did no such thing. It affirmed heterosexual marriage as a constitutional right. NOT homosexual marriage. This is the way court rulings work: If a new definition of an existing statute or even a word in common usage is intended by the Court, that is explicitly stated within the ruling. If the Court had intended to expand the definition of marriage (and the “right” thereof) The Court would have so indicated, and without ambiguity. It did not.

Also, please learn the history of the case. Loving v. Virignia restored the original right of heterosexual interracial marriage that had been arbitrarily denied by the State of VA. It was merely a restoration of the historical principle. It was not “new law” or anything of the sort.

The entire case revolved around Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes. All of it. And the couple had actually been married in the District of Columbia, then moved back to Virginia to reside, which is where they encountered trouble. The entire series of rulings on the case involved the unconstitutionality of racial classifications, and nothing else:

“the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Cornell did an excellent job on the history. Way to go, Cornell Law School.

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Did we have sharia law when we had anti sodomy laws?

It is not about religious laws.

My dear Fix,

I have done my very best to present a dispassionate, logical argument explaining why it is unconstitutional to make laws based on religious values. There is a reason for separation of church and state, and I thank God for it.

In summary:

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

Your argument appears to support making homosexual acts illegal, you oppose same sex marriage and adoption on the basis that it is ‘evil’ and harmful to the whole of society. This would be in line with the position of the Catholic Church, and you have every right to believe it, to argue for it, and to raise your children with those values.

However, the USA does not make laws based on religious values. There are laws that coincide with the Ten Commandments: don’t kill, don’t steal. The government did not pass these laws because ‘It is the will of God’, it is because they are necessary to promote peace and support liberty, regardless of race, creed, or gender. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Unitarians, we all have to follow the same laws. You get to believe what you want, as long as everyone else is allowed to do the same. Unitarians believe that if two people are in love and want to be married, they should be allowed to do that - no matter how they dress or which public bathroom they enter. It’s a small price to pay for religious freedom.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

This may be the 47th time anyone on this forum has had to correct this grossly embarrassing falsity.

Loving v. Virgina did no such thing. It affirmed heterosexual marriage as a constitutional right. NOT homosexual marriage.

Where, in Loving v. Virginia - is the word ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ mentioned? Interesting to note:

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving, commenting on the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, Mildred Loving issued a statement in relation to Loving v. Virginia and its mention in the ongoing court case Hollingsworth v. Perry:
“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

 

[Julianna]

My dear Fix,

I have done my very best to present a dispassionate, logical argument explaining why it is unconstitutional to make laws based on religious values. There is a reason for separation of church and state, and I thank God for it.

In summary:

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

Your argument appears to support making homosexual acts illegal, you oppose same sex marriage and adoption on the basis that it is ‘evil’ and harmful to the whole of society. This would be in line with the position of the Catholic Church, and **you have every right to believe it, to argue for it, and to raise your children with those values.
**
However, the USA does not make laws based on religious values. There are laws that coincide with the Ten Commandments: don’t kill, don’t steal. The government did not pass these laws because ‘It is the will of God’, it is because they **are necessary to promote peace and support liberty, regardless of race, creed, or gender. ** Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Unitarians, we all have to follow the same laws. You get to believe what you want, as long as everyone else is allowed to do the same. Unitarians believe that if two people are in love and want to be married, they should be allowed to do that - no matter how they dress or which public bathroom they enter. It’s a small price to pay for religious freedom.

Thank you! Great post! Points made!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where, in Loving v. Virginia - is the word ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ mentioned? Interesting to note:

Again, this is not the way legal rulings work. Please learn the law, and how it operates. It operates based on common usage of terms and understanding of terms. You are obviously not a lawyer, nor trained in law, or you would understand this, and you would stop misleading the Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum.

When a Court changes the usage of a term, or is providing a new interpretation of an existing statute, it is explicit. Otherwise, the common contemporary understanding is to be applied.

 

[Jessie5000]

Religion can ban homosexuality or any other thing it wishes as people are free to believe what they chose. Some ban coffee, some dancing…

When it comes to government - they represent all people. In a democracy, the government is to represent people of all faiths and provide rights in an equitable fashion. They need to ensure the rights off muslims, christian, humanists, athiests and everyone regardless of creed, color, or orientation.

Originally, the separation of church and state, was pushed for by christian faiths as they knew what happens when one denomination is favored over another The religious, have their vote and should follow their conscience - but this does not give them a right to have their beliefs forced on others. If we were predominantly a Muslim state, christians would be outraged if the muslims used legislation to force adherence to doctrines not considered traditionally christian.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Again, this is not the way legal rulings work. Please learn the law, and how it operates. It operates based on common usage of terms and understanding of terms. You are obviously not a lawyer, nor trained in law, or you would understand this, and you would stop misleading the Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum.

When a Court changes the usage of a term, or is providing a new interpretation of an existing statute, it is explicit. Otherwise, the common contemporary understanding is to be applied.

You’re correct, I’m not a lawyer. I am related to several, and I have learned a LOT about the fine art of debate from them. Lawyers love to use precedence and they tend to use pieces of arguments to support their logic. That’s why there are judges - people who are educated in the craft and (hopefully) see past the flim-flam and sift through to the truth of the matter. If they don’t, their decisions can be repealed.

You did not answer my question: Where, in Loving v. Virginia - is the word ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ mentioned?

Loving v. Virginia addresses race. It is incorrect to use that case in support or defense of SSM.

 

[Kamaduck]

I think making homosexual acts specifically illegal is wrong, and pushing for a law to be made will only make us look silly/awful and hurt our cause. Also, in America, it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

Divorcing the question from my country’s current political state, I’d say that if you wanted to make a law about it in some other society, you should just outlaw all premarital and extramarital sex, and be done with it. That covers homosexual acts without specifically singling out people with SSA.

I honestly can’t imagine a society where people would stand for that, though. The world is sinful, after all.

 

[CopticChristian]

You’re correct, I’m not a lawyer. I am related to several, and I have learned a LOT about the fine art of debate from them. Lawyers love to use precedence and they tend to use pieces of arguments to support their logic. That’s why there are judges - people who are educated in the craft and (hopefully) see past the flim-flam and sift through to the truth of the matter. If they don’t, their decisions can be repealed.

You did not answer my question: Where, in Loving v. Virginia - is the word ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ mentioned?

Loving v. Virginia addresses race. It is incorrect to use that case in support or defense of SSM.

loving vs virginia is about race, true. If you read the case…found here…

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

and then look up skinner vs oklahoma and maynard vs Hill you will find

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Here skinner vs oklahoma defines that right as “the right to marry and procreate”…heterosexual.

The right to marry is not the right to marry as stated simply in loving vs virgina, referencing skinner vs oklahoma an in skinner vs oklahoma, it is the right to marry and procreate, designating marriage as heterosexual…because procreation as you see is part of the right…“marriage and procreation” not marriage alone otherwise the sterililty of the man in question would not have been relevant and it was.

Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation.

maynard vs hill is about man/wife/children and heterosexuality is implied for no man/man, woman/woman can procreate and provide children and marriage and procreation are not relevant to any homosexual union and do not in any way provide survival of the race.

 

[tarboy]

Hi,

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

I have heard that in some parts of Africa they will murder you if you are homosexually acting out. Please let me know from a moral Catholic and USA Government perspective.

Thanks!

It’s a fallacy to think that the law fully encompasses our moral boundaries, and that thinking is a factor in much sin - where people think that anything legal is also OK.

So many bad things are legal but not moral, for a Catholic

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

loving vs virginia is about race, true. If you read the case…found herelaw.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
and then look up skinner vs oklahoma and maynard vs Hill you will find

Here skinner vs oklahoma defines that right as “the right to marry and procreate”…heterosexual.

The right to marry is not the right to marry as stated simply in loving vs virgina, referencing skinner vs oklahoma an in skinner vs oklahoma, it is the right to marry and procreate, designating marriage as heterosexual…because procreation as you see is part of the right…“marriage and procreation” not marriage alone otherwise the sterililty of the man in question would not have been relevant and it was.

maynard vs hill is about man/wife/children and heterosexuality is implied for no man/man, woman/woman can procreate and provide children and marriage and procreation are not relevant to any homosexual union and are do not in any way provide survival of the race.

Dearest Coptic, it is a joy to spar with you once again. Truly, your intellect and passion is representative of the debate I seek here on CAF, in my pursuit of personal growth.

In this particular thread, I am not arguing for or against SSM - only the constitutionality of making laws based solely on religious values (see post 165).

If I were to argue like a lawyer (Elizabeth502 encouraged me to study law), I might point out in your post:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,”…

that statement seems to exclude women, and could be twisted into supporting SSM - at least for 2 men. Thank goodness I’m not a lawyer…

All joking aside, the only point I argue (and refuse to concede) in this thread, is the value of the separation of church and state. To breach this constitutional edict would severely curb the liberty of everyone that held opposing religious views. We can see the evidence of this in English history when Catholics were wrongly persecuted during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Queen Mary burned heretics, and the many times throughout history it has been dangerous simply to be born Jewish, not to mention Sharia law in Islamic countries like Iran.

If Americans value the concept of liberty, we must support liberty for everyone. The price we pay for religious freedom is allowing everyone to have religious freedom.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dearest Coptic, it is a joy to spar with you once again. Truly, your intellect and passion is representative of the debate I seek here on CAF, in my pursuit of personal growth.

In this particular thread, I am not arguing for or against SSM - only the constitutionality of making laws based solely on religious values (see post 165).

If I were to argue like a lawyer (Elizabeth502 encouraged me to study law), I might point out in your post: that statement seems to exclude women, and could be twisted into supporting SSM - at least for 2 men. Thank goodness I’m not a lawyer…

All joking aside, the only point I argue (and refuse to concede) in this thread, is the value of the separation of church and state. To breach this constitutional edict would severely curb the liberty of everyone that held opposing religious views. We can see the evidence of this in English history when Catholics were wrongly persecuted during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Queen Mary burned heretics, and the many times throughout history it has been dangerous simply to be born Jewish, not to mention Sharia law in Islamic countries like Iran.

If Americans value the concept of liberty, we must support liberty for everyone. The price we pay for religious freedom is allowing everyone to have religious freedom.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,”…

I am sure that this has nothing to do with rights of anyone other than to say “man” is construed and understood as humanity…note the end of the paragraph

Marriage is one of the **“basic civil rights of man,” **fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, **a person **of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

if you read further you will see

All** persons **born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

while the word “man” is used it is implied man and woman because equal protection is noted and procreation by necessity implies man and woman.

don’t read too much into the words.

 

[Fairwinds]

This may be the 47th time anyone on this forum has had to correct this grossly embarrassing falsity.

Loving v. Virgina did no such thing. It affirmed heterosexual marriage as a constitutional right. NOT homosexual marriage. This is the way court rulings work: If a new definition of an existing statute or even a word in common usage is intended by the Court, that is explicitly stated within the ruling. If the Court had intended to expand the definition of marriage (and the “right” thereof) The Court would have so indicated, and without ambiguity. It did not.

Also, please learn the history of the case. Loving v. Virignia restored the original right of heterosexual interracial marriage that had been arbitrarily denied by the State of VA. It was merely a restoration of the historical principle. It was not “new law” or anything of the sort.

The entire case revolved around Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes. All of it. And the couple had actually been married in the District of Columbia, then moved back to Virginia to reside, which is where they encountered trouble. The entire series of rulings on the case involved the unconstitutionality of racial classifications, and nothing else:

“the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Cornell did an excellent job on the history. Way to go, Cornell Law School.

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

do not misrepresent my words.

I responded to someone who said marriage wasn’t in the bill of rights by correcting the poster and citing* Loving *to show that the right is found in the constitution.

I didn’t misrepresent* Loving*, I stated that it concerned an interracial marriage parenthetically at the first reference, so either read my posts more carefully or refrain from the ad homs, preferably both.

if you are an attorney you know how the USSC operates, it will usually decide a case on the narrowest possible factual and legal grounds, here, interracial marriage. Loving can’t stand for the proposition that marriage must mean heterosexual marriage because that issue was not before the court nor was a finding of such necessary for the decision. if Loving defined marriage as only between men and women, this dispute and this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

that said, the principles of Loving will be used by advocates of same sex marriage who claim that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right with the definition of marriage left to the states. where there’s no definitive rule, reasoning by analogy is how every competent attorney makes an argument at the appellate level.

relying on headnotes and or a syllabus is borderline incompetent legal practice.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

You’re correct, I’m not a lawyer. I am related to several, and I have learned a LOT about the fine art of debate from them. Lawyers love to use precedence and they tend to use pieces of arguments to support their logic. That’s why there are judges - people who are educated in the craft and (hopefully) see past the flim-flam and sift through to the truth of the matter. If they don’t, their decisions can be repealed.

You did not answer my question: Where, in Loving v. Virginia - is the word ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ mentioned?

Loving v. Virginia addresses race. It is incorrect to use that case in support or defense of SSM.

you’re partially right. we use legal precedents and rules of interpretation because that’s how its done in the US. Loving is not about heterosexual marriage, and it does not define what marriage is. it does say that marriage is a constitutional right that is what pro-gay marriage advocates will use. so in a forum that does count, you need a better argument that axiomatic assertions that Loving doesn’t apply.

FYI almost all judges are former lawyers.

F/

 

[fix]

No, the introduction of the laws in the US came with a Protestant quasi-theocracy that viciously persecuted Catholics.

There weren’t Sodomy laws in Catholic England and while some Catholic countries had it on the books, France for example had no one convicted for it under King Saint Louis IX of France.

Thanks for the blather. What does the justice of anti sodomy laws have to do with Protestants persecuting Catholics?

You at least admit that Catholic countries had such laws for centuries. Nothing unjust about it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Thanks for the blather. What does the justice of anti sodomy laws have to do with Protestants persecuting Catholics?

You at least admit that Catholic countries had such laws for centuries. Nothing unjust about it.

This thread is on it in the US, in England where the US gets it’s laws from they were put into place by a schismatic to persecute Catholics, his daughter who was Catholic promptly repealed it.

In France the laws were introduced from paganism. The first major instance of it being used by Catholics was the persecution of the Knights Templar which was a) done for money and b) they were innocent, use of this led to witch hunts.

I personally am not in favour of introducing things just because pagans, heretics, schismatics, apostates and the avaricious have done so.