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

[Portrait]

The lack of sodomy laws in Catholic England did not cause gay marriage there.

Dear Dakota Roberts,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason, dear friend, why Catholic England did not have homosexual ‘marriage’ is because the religion of Christ was strong and healthy in those times and thus a Christian consciousness pervaded the country. In a climate such as that sodomy laws would have been wholly unnecessary and the very thought of homosexual marriage would have been unthinkable and repulsive. Such is not the case today, which is why such wickedness prevails in our midst and why we urgently require legislation again to halt its spread. The real rot set in during the permissive revolution of the Sixties, when in Britain homosexual vice was decriminalized by statutory law. That decade of decadence has truly bequeathed us dreadful legacy, in more ways than one. So much for that “whole generation with a new explanation”!

We have now come to the point, dear friend, where even the most basic moral laws are considered onerous and where relativistic thinking is the norm. At least prior the 1960’s the Christian consciousness still continued to hold sway and put a check on the spread of vice. St. Paul predicted the process of decline with a frightening accuracy in his Epistle to the Romans (see 1: 18-32), where he shows that a society’s moral and social behaviour is but a reflection of its spiritual orientation. All of the woes that beset our contemporary society can be traced to the loss of the sanctifying influence of Christ’s holy religion and the rise in forces hostile to the cause of good. St. Paul traces the downward spiral from men supressing the truth (that is to say, stifling the true knowledge of God), to increasing degradation, which itself results in idolatry and reaps futility of life in every sphere of human conduct. This is not merely some abstract principle of cause and effect but the judgment of a righteous holy God, giving men up to the fateful consequences of their evil choices. Whilst St. Paul does speak of other forms of wickedness, it is shameful and unnatural homosexual vice to which he gives the greatest prominence. That is, I think, quite significant and should not go unnoticed by us. Alas, today men no longer see the exceeding sinfulness of homosexual vice, as did former generations (tragic loss of moral sense) and are ignorant that it is an ‘abomination’ (Lev. 18: 22) in the sight of our all holy God. What is so very disturbing is that men today seem to be able to speak of homosexual vice - a vice against which even nature herself protests - without blush or shame.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Dear Dakota Roberts,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason, dear friend, why Catholic England did not have homosexual ‘marriage’ is because the religion of Christ was strong and healthy in those times and thus a Christian consciousness pervaded the country. In a climate such as that sodomy laws would have been wholly unnecessary and the very thought of homosexual marriage would have been unthinkable and repulsive. Such is not the case today, which is why such wickedness prevails in our midst and why we urgently require legislation again to halt its spread. The real rot set in during the permissive revolution of the Sixties, when in Britain homosexual vice was decriminalized by statutory law. That decade of decadence has truly bequeathed us dreadful legacy, in more ways than one. So much for that “whole generation with a new explanation”!

We have now come to the point, dear friend, where even the most basic moral laws are considered onerous and where relativistic thinking is the norm. At least prior the 1960’s the Christian consciousness still continued to hold sway and put a check on the spread of vice. St. Paul predicted the process of decline with a frightening accuracy in his Epistle to the Romans (see 1: 18-32), where he shows that a society’s moral and social behaviour is but a reflection of its spiritual orientation. All of the woes that beset our contemporary society can be traced to the loss of the sanctifying influence of Christ’s holy religion and the rise in forces hostile to the cause of good. St. Paul traces the downward spiral from men supressing the truth (that is to say, stifling the true knowledge of God), to increasing degradation, which itself results in idolatry and reaps futility of life in every sphere of human conduct. This is not merely some abstract principle of cause and effect but the judgment of a righteous holy God, giving men up to the fateful consequences of their evil choices. Whilst St. Paul does speak of other forms of wickedness, it is shameful and unnatural homosexual vice to which he gives the greatest prominence. That is, I think, quite significant and should not go unnoticed by us. Alas, today men no longer see the exceeding sinfulness of homosexual vice, as did former generations (tragic loss of moral sense) and are ignorant that it is an ‘abomination’ (Lev. 18: 22) in the sight of our all holy God. What is so very disturbing is that men today seem to be able to speak of homosexual vice - a vice against which even nature herself protests - without blush or shame.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Indeed.

 

[Fairwinds]

… 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.

Pax

kindly do not call me a dear friend, or wish me warm anything. no offense, of course. you may address me as “Mr Fairwinds” if you need to maintain formality.

I stripped out the superfluous language to highlight your point. you didn’t say anything about using snitches, peeping toms, mics or cameras, so I assume you don’t mind that either; and speculating on how physical evidence would be collected brings this into even more disgusting terrain.

a society in which the police routinely break down bedroom doors of married couples to enforce sodomy laws is obscene. just obscene. the police conduct is so outrageous you’d never win a conviction.

this isn’t linked to gays, the police in Loving broke into the Lovings’ bedroom hoping to catch them in normal sex.

the cure is magnitudes worse than the crime. that is no place I want to live.

F/

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

The acceptance of anything with consent led to the acceptance of gay sex which led to the acceptance of anything with consent which led to the acceptance of gay sex which led to #InfiniteLoop

Dear Dakota Roberts,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason, dear friend, why Catholic England did not have homosexual ‘marriage’ is because the religion of Christ was strong and healthy in those times and thus a Christian consciousness pervaded the country. In a climate such as that sodomy laws would have been wholly unnecessary and the very thought of homosexual marriage would have been unthinkable and repulsive. Such is not the case today, which is why such wickedness prevails in our midst and why we urgently require legislation again to halt its spread. The real rot set in during the permissive revolution of the Sixties, when in Britain homosexual vice was decriminalized by statutory law. That decade of decadence has truly bequeathed us dreadful legacy, in more ways than one. So much for that “whole generation with a new explanation”!

We have now come to the point, dear friend, where even the most basic moral laws are considered onerous and where relativistic thinking is the norm. At least prior the 1960’s the Christian consciousness still continued to hold sway and put a check on the spread of vice. St. Paul predicted the process of decline with a frightening accuracy in his Epistle to the Romans (see 1: 18-32), where he shows that a society’s moral and social behaviour is but a reflection of its spiritual orientation. All of the woes that beset our contemporary society can be traced to the loss of the sanctifying influence of Christ’s holy religion and the rise in forces hostile to the cause of good. St. Paul traces the downward spiral from men supressing the truth (that is to say, stifling the true knowledge of God), to increasing degradation, which itself results in idolatry and reaps futility of life in every sphere of human conduct. This is not merely some abstract principle of cause and effect but the judgment of a righteous holy God, giving men up to the fateful consequences of their evil choices. Whilst St. Paul does speak of other forms of wickedness, it is shameful and unnatural homosexual vice to which he gives the greatest prominence. That is, I think, quite significant and should not go unnoticed by us. Alas, today men no longer see the exceeding sinfulness of homosexual vice, as did former generations (tragic loss of moral sense) and are ignorant that it is an ‘abomination’ (Lev. 18: 22) in the sight of our all holy God. What is so very disturbing is that men today seem to be able to speak of homosexual vice - a vice against which even nature herself protests - without blush or shame.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Actually the concept of same sex marriage would be incomprehensible not because they couldn’t comprehend the concept of two people of the same sex loving each other (see De spiritali amicitia), but because the concept of marrying someone who you could not beget offspring with as marriage was about begetting children and passing things on to them, furthermore they would find the concept of “marrying for love” a baffling concept as it wouldn’t make logical sense to them.

Do you remember why they eliminated it? It wasn’t so much the “permissive revolution of the Sixties” as what happened to Turing et al.

The decline of marriage in England (perhaps the whole UK) started with the seventh Lambeth Conference which unintentionally dealt grave damage to marriage by condoning people deliberately not having children, the ninth Lambeth Conference made it even worse.

Paul speaking the most about is quite possibly because it was accepted in Greece-Roman societies and so needed to point it out most. Note that to the Greek he had to point out that both the “active” and the “passive” roles were immoral, because he needed to be that specific.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Except of course if you’re a non-RINO republican.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

So, Mildred Love should dictate policy?

Furthermore, Loving v Virginia should have been settled by the states, not the courts.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had absolutely no business in telling a state how to run its martial laws.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Thank you! Great post! Points made!

No they aren’t.

 

[Julianna]

No they aren’t.

oh Luigi, that is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Fairwinds;10707000]marriage is not mentioned in the bill of rights, but the USSC, Loving v. Virginia) [overturning a state law banning interracial marriage] held,

The Loving Decision was in direct violation of the Constitution. The plenary powers clause allows states to decide issues of family as with all other topics not mentioned in the Constitution.

The problem with people who want something have to go into the document and twist its meaning all around, whether its an abortion, welfare, or marriage…the list goes and on and on…

And as I recall, the Loving Decision even stated fecundity as justification for over-turning the ban.

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.

To quote Jason Lewis: “If the 14th Amendment applies to behavior, which homosexuality is, then the entire tax code should apply equally to rich and poor alike.”

 

[SuperLuigi]

oh Luigi, that is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions…

That yours is fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with my freedom.

That’s the way it used to be.

 

[Julianna]

That yours is fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with my freedom.

That’s the way it used to be.

I defend your right to disagree… It is not my intent to interfere with your freedom…nor is it your intent to interfere with mine. Ain’t America great!

 

[Fairwinds]

So, Mildred Love should dictate policy?

Furthermore, Loving v Virginia should have been settled by the states, not the courts.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had absolutely no business in telling a state how to run its martial laws.

sure it does… * Loving* states its jurisdictional basis in the first paragraph of opinion. …

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(emphasis added)

there’s the Court’s business. you can disagree, but you’d be wrong.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

The Loving Decision was in direct violation of the Constitution. The plenary powers clause allows states to decide issues of family as with all other topics not mentioned in the Constitution. …

I see this kind of junior constitutional scholar claim all the time. Loving hasn’t been overturned, its good law, everyone living in the actual world accepts it. grousing about it means absolutely nothing. and by nothing I mean zero. nada. el zipsky.

I swear, people treat the Constitution the way protestants treat the Bible. everyone’s an expert, text is taken out of context, arguments made from ignorance.

F/

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The Loving Decision was in direct violation of the Constitution. The plenary powers clause allows states to decide issues of family as with all other topics not mentioned in the Constitution.

The problem with people who want something have to go into the document and twist its meaning all around, whether its an abortion, welfare, or marriage…the list goes and on and on…

And as I recall, the Loving Decision even stated fecundity as justification for over-turning the ban.

To quote Jason Lewis: "If the 14th Amendment applies to behavior, which homosexuality is, then the entire tax code should apply equally to rich and poor alike."

Should the government then forcibly desegregate bathrooms for males and females?

It’s based on a right to privacy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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!

The supreme court has already ruled that homosexual sex is outside the scope of our law. It also noted that such a law cannot be enforced while also respecting the fourth amendment. Yes, in some parts of Africa they implement Leviticus 20:13.

 

[Portrait]

Actually the concept of same sex marriage would be incomprehensible not because they couldn’t comprehend the concept of two people of the same sex loving each other (see De spiritali amicitia), but because the concept of marrying someone who you could not beget
offspring with as marriage was about begetting children and passing things on to them, furthermore they would find the concept of “marrying for love” a baffling concept as it wouldn’t make logical sense to them.

Do you remember why they eliminated it? It wasn’t so much the “permissive revolution of the Sixties” as what happened to Turing et al.

Paul speaking the most about is quite possibly because it was accepted in Greece-Roman societies and so needed to point it out most. Note that to the Greek he had to point out that both the “active” and the “passive” roles were immoral, because he needed to be that specific.

Dear Dakota Roberts,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Given the religious climate that prevailed in medieval Catholic England, dear friend, I think it admits of no serious doubt that the notion of homosexual marriage/vice would have been considered morally repugnant. However, it is certainly true, as you state, that entering into a ‘union’ in which there was no possibility whatsoever of engendering offspring by *normal *carnal copulation, would have been jolly perplexing as well

The three year long enquiry here in Britain known as the Wolfenden Report, had concluded as long ago as 1957 that outlawing homosexual vice was an infringement of civil liberties. Moreover, dear friend, as with many progressive thinkers today, it erroneously believed that private morality, or immorality, was “not the law’s business”. Sadly, apart from one member of the Wolfenden committee, it did not seem to occur to them that by decriminalizing homosexual acts of depravity, even in private, would effectively be condoning or licensing licentiousness, and a most vile and unnatural licentiousness at that. How could ill-advisedly passing such legislation promote the public good of the nation and foster a climate where virtue could flourish? Unfortunately, but hardly surprising, even the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Fisher, supported Wolfenden’s recommendation to decriminalise homosexual vice.

Notwithstanding the Wolfenden’s conclusions, dear friend, it would be another ten years before the actual law decriminalizing homosexual vice between consenting male adults would be passed (Sexual Offences Act 1967). In the late 1950’s the Christian consciousness held considerable sway in British society and public opinion was still largely determined within the climate of Christian morality. However, with the emergence of the Sixties moral revolution this was, alas, destined to change and there can be no doubt that the permissive circumstances of those times was favourable to a change in the law. This decadent decade was, as we all know, a time of sexual awakening and experimentation and men started to talk about the supposedly 'repressive atmosphere" of the 1950’s. The avante garde in society triumphantly and jubilantly declared that we were at long last coming out of the ‘dark ages’ and entering halcyon days of love, joy and peace. Nevertheless, this was the age which gave us legalised abortions (Abortion Act 1967), the pill, the mini-skirt, drug addicted hippies and much else that was jolly unpleasant as well. Thus given the abatement of the Christian consciousness and the increasing progressive and subversive ideology, the time was surely ripe for decriminalizing homosexual vice. Indeed, I venture to say that this misguided change in the law could not have occurred prior to the late Sixties, such was the moral climate and public antipathy against this depraved conduct.

In the Roman’s 1 passage, dear friend, St. Paul is bringing to our attention the moral degeneracy of the ancient world and this is exhibited in the awful catalogue of sexual vice, which pagan religion, so far from restraining, actively promoted. Homosexual vice was chief among these and the most ruinous to society, hence his elaboration upon it.

What our godless generation needs again to grasp is that the increasing prevalence of homosexual perversion, which is complacently regarded by the avante garde as an ‘alternative lifestyle’, is a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon a civilisation which boasts in its post-Christian character. There is a lowered public opinion on morality which urgently needs raising and we need to return to “the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein” (Jer. 6: 16).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

kindly do not call me a dear friend, or wish me warm anything. no offense, of course. you may address me as “Mr Fairwinds” if you need to maintain formality.

I stripped out the superfluous language to highlight your point. you didn’t say anything about using snitches, peeping toms, mics or cameras, so I assume you don’t mind that either; and speculating on how physical evidence would be collected brings this into even more disgusting terrain.

a society in which the police routinely break down bedroom doors of married couples to enforce sodomy laws is obscene. just obscene. the police conduct is so outrageous you’d never win a conviction.

this isn’t linked to gays, the police in Loving broke into the Lovings’ bedroom hoping to catch them in normal sex.

the cure is magnitudes worse than the crime. that is no place I want to live.

F/

Hello Fairwinds,

Thankyou for your response and may I proffer my sincere apologies for any offence occasioned by my post.

It is common for the police to rely upon informants and even your proverbial Nosy Parker or busybody who just cannot cease from meddling in the affairs of others. Now I freely admit that these people are often very unpleasantly ingratiating sort of people, especially a policeman’s nark or informer, but if no one committed any criminal offences they would soon be out of business. Besides, we often say here in Britain that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, which is, of course, perfectly true, as is the contrary.

There can be no prosecution or conviction without evidence and thus the police will sometimes have to resort to sources that many would regard as distasteful and even perhaps unacceptable, but this has always happened. Here in Britian, back in the 1970’s, there was a popular TV series called The Sweeney, which was based on the work of Scotland Yard’s real life Flying Squad, and was said to be very true to life in many respects. Frequently, vital information and details would be obtained from narks regarding pending criminal activity, for example a heist, so the Sweeney could catch them in the very act and make arrests. Moreover, sometimes they would forcibly enter some premises and say to those within, “we’re the Sweeney and you’re nicked”. From what I remember it was all jolly gritty stuff and its leading characters did not pull any punches, however it did, as I said, reflect quite accurately the dangerous work of their real life counterparts. Apologies for the nostalgic digression, but the fact remains that informants will always play a part in the detection of crime, whatever that crime might be.

Were homosexual depraved acts ever to become unlawful again here in Britian, which sadly is most unlikely though not impossible, I would have no objection to the police raiding a house where two men were suspected to be committing vile and unnatural homosexual acts. The law has to be enforced and the police would similarly raid premises if it was thought that the occupants were dealing in drugs or using the property as a brothel. Sorry but I fail to see that any of this is "obscene or “outrageous”, for no one is forcing men to engage in criminal activity contrary to statutory law. Moreover, law abiding citizens would not, I think, have any problem in living in a society where this sort of stuff sometimes takes place to either apprehend criminals or prevent the perpetration of crime.

Have already commented upon the Loving case previously and stated that it is not on a par with committing unnatural homosexual vice.

God bless.

Portrait

Pax

 

[livingwordunity]

Hello Fairwinds,

Thankyou for your response and may I proffer my sincere apologies for any offence occasioned by my post.

It is common for the police to rely upon informants and even your proverbial Nosy Parker or busybody who just cannot cease from meddling in the affairs of others. Now I freely admit that these people are often very unpleasantly ingratiating sort of people, especially a policeman’s nark or informer, but if no one committed any criminal offences they would soon be out of business. Besides, we often say here in Britain that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, which is, of course, perfectly true, as is the contrary.

There can be no prosecution or conviction without evidence and thus the police will sometimes have to resort to sources that many would regard as distasteful and even perhaps unacceptable, but this has always happened. Here in Britian, back in the 1970’s, there was a popular TV series called The Sweeney, which was based on the work of Scotland Yard’s real life Flying Squad, and was said to be very true to life in many respects. Frequently, vital information and details would be obtained from narks regarding pending criminal activity, for example a heist, so the Sweeney could catch them in the very act and make arrests. Moreover, sometimes they would forcibly enter some premises and say to those within, “we’re the Sweeney and you’re nicked”. From what I remember it was all jolly gritty stuff and its leading characters did not pull any punches, however it did, as I said, reflect quite accurately the dangerous work of their real life counterparts. Apologies for the nostalgic digression, but the fact remains that informants will always play a part in the detection of crime, whatever that crime might be.

Were homosexual depraved acts ever to become unlawful again here in Britian, which sadly is most unlikely though not impossible, I would have no objection to the police raiding a house where two men were suspected to be committing vile and unnatural homosexual acts. The law has to be enforced and the police would similarly raid premises if it was thought that the occupants were dealing in drugs or using the property as a brothel. Sorry but I fail to see that any of this is "obscene or “outrageous”, for no one is forcing men to engage in criminal activity contrary to statutory law. Moreover, law abiding citizens would not, I think, have any problem in living in a society where this sort of stuff sometimes takes place to either apprehend criminals or prevent the perpetration of crime.

Have already commented upon the Loving case previously and stated that it is not on a par with committing unnatural homosexual vice.

God bless.

Portrait

Pax

 

[fix]

The acceptance of anything with consent led to the acceptance of gay sex which led to the acceptance of anything with consent which led to the acceptance of gay sex which led to #InfiniteLoop

Negative. The political and cultural push for legitimizing deviancy has led to more deviancy.

 

[livingwordunity]

in some parts of Africa they implement Leviticus 20:13.

A law against sodomy doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. It can be something like a fine. And perhaps the money can go to a charity such as to help homeless children.