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

[fix]

A law against sodomy doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. It can be something like a fine.

Of all the decades we had anti sodomy laws did we have a theocracy? Did we live under a Stalinist regime that constantly broke open bedroom doors? Did we have neighbor snitching on neighbor?

 

[DexUK]

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.

Your position is repellant, if you don’t mind me saying so.

What two adults do with each other’s bodies in private is entirely up to them provided they do it consensually. We may not like it as Catholics but not everyone shares our specific views on morals.

Would you make it illegal to not attend Church on a Sunday? That’s a mortal sin as far as Catholics are concerned. So will you have roving theological police dragging people out of their houses down to the local church and shoving them through the door?

You would have the law criminalise something that you personally don’t want to do where if others do such things you are not personally affected.

God gave us Free Will to decide whether we want to abide by his laws or not. Other than establishing a standard of behaviour where acts that materially hurt other people are prohibited, it is not for us to police the souls of other people. Since no third parties are materially affected by two persons of the same gender engaging in consensual ‘vile and unnatural homosexual acts’, as you so vividly describe them, you have no business in either legislating for or against them. Your distaste does not equal an imperative to make the acts illegal and subject to forcible arrest and detention. We have moved out of the Dark Ages, thank God, and we’re allowed to make our own moral judgements about such things these days, whether you like it or not.

 

[livingwordunity]

Of all the decades we had anti sodomy laws did we have a theocracy? Did we live under a Stalinist regime that constantly broke open bedroom doors? Did we have neighbor snitching on neighbor?

No, we didn’t. Good point against all of these straw man arguments we keep seeing.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. This will be my final post in this thread, but can I kindly ask that you ponder the following remarks.

However unfashionable it may sound in the irreligious and post-Christian times in which our lot is cast, decriminalizing homosexual vice was one of the most ill-advised decisions by the legislature, both in America and Britain. Incontrovertably, it paved the way for the emergence of many other social problems with which our society is now sadly beset, for example homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption and unfair discrimination against normal people who cannot approve of the homosexual ‘alternative lifestyle’. However, we cannot really be surprised at this, for we have only reaped what we have sowed. The veneer of civilisation is exceedingly thin and unless governments make an attempt to preserve moral standards in our society they will soon very easily deteriorate, as has increasingly been the case since the permissive revolution of the 1960’s.

It is, dear friends, the business of the state to intrude into matters of personal morality, or immorality, if they do not promote the common good of the nation or “exalt righteousness” (cf. Prov. 14: 34). Prior to this misguided legislation decriminalizing homosexual vice, public opinion had been determined within the climate of a healthy Christian morality, which almost by default fostered a proper antipathy towards, not just homosexual vice, but any vice. This was the Christian consciousness in action and we today are morally impoverished by its virtual absence. Sadly, even the contemporary Catholic faithful have been impacted considerably by the relativistic world-view and spirit of the age and thus no longer think with an authentically Catholic mind on a whole range of issues. In many cases a proper spiritual formation is wanting and this results in catastrophic errors of prudential judgment.

Decriminalization of homosexual acts of grave depravity has been the occasion of many problems within our society, dear friends. For one thing it caused the public to loose faith in the laws moral authority; you can change the law, but you cannot change what is innately “right” and “wrong”. That which is inherently “right” must always be upheld by government, irrespective of whether or not it chimes with popular avante garde mindset or seems to have “reason on its side”. Moreover, as we have witnessed all too frequently in recent decades, granting ‘private rights’ usually leads to the desire for public rights and the demand for equality in every sphere of life. People should have realised long ago that homosexual’s would never rest satisfied with merely their private rights and legal sanction for their detestable practices. Therefore unless a can of worm is not to be opened, we must acknowledge that government does have a role as preserver of public order and decency. If it fails or relinquishes this duty the rot will surely soon set in and the moral tone of the nation will diminish as a consequence. Again, who can honestly deny now that decriminalization gave the green light for older homosexual men to prey on and interfere with young vulnerable young men, after all decriminalization now took the spotlight off homosexuals and their hideous vice. Moreover, secular society was now gradually being indoctrinated to rid themselves of any last vestiges of ‘prejudice’ against the alternative homosexual lifestyle and to longer think of such vice as being morally repugnant. After all, such bigoted attitudes belonged to the Dark Ages, from which we had now finally emerged, and had no place in a progressive enlightened Western society.

Any country that decriminalizes homosexual vice is heaping up for itself much trouble and cannot expect God to look with favour upon it, for it has disgraced itself and become a reproach. My earnest prayer, dear friends, is that one day, when governments come to their senses and repent, homosexual vice may once again become a criminal offence, helping to reverse the iniquity of the last forty years or so. Please God may it be so - “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people”. Righteousness is the very prop that we need at the present time, for without it we shall sink ever further into the lowest depths of moral degradation, even as ancient Rome did in the zenith of her glory. Our nations laws must promote the common good and support the spread of Christ’s holy religion, thus it must needs supress vice and encourage virtue if it is to be exalted.

God bless and goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Fairwinds]

…
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…

bedroom snitches and peeping toms and a strike team to arrest a married couple having anal sex.

I don’t know what’s more obscene, that police raid scenario or that fact that you and your friends enjoy the possibility.

maybe this is all a show for you and that’s what’s important. there would be zero convictions for that crime.

 

[fix]

No, we didn’t. Good point against all of these straw man arguments we keep seeing.

The only thing that has changed is that most now follow an ideology of relativism and hyper individualism.

 

[ngill09]

This thread is surreal.

 

[fix]

This thread is surreal.

I know. Why would anyone be against outlawing unnatural acts?

 

[ngill09]

I know. Why would anyone be against outlawing unnatural acts?

Like using a computer?

 

[ngill09]

By all means, let the Catholic Church in the United States make outlawing homosexuality part of their teaching. See how long they remain relevant.

 

[CopticChristian]

By all means, let the Catholic Church in the United States make outlawing homosexuality part of their teaching. See how long they remain relevant.

The relevance is that people come to CAF, an apologetic website, to explain and defend the Faith…and post opposition, criticism, and ask no questions.

How relevant is that?

I don’t believe that the Church teaches that Homosexuality should be outlawed, understanding that this thread is about that, JP II spoke of a participatory Theonomy, hoping that people ascend to the truth…and that is what the Church teaches.

 

[fix]

Like using a computer?

How is that unnatural?

 

[fix]

By all means, let the Catholic Church in the United States make outlawing homosexuality part of their teaching. See how long they remain relevant.

It is not part of Her teaching, but why is being “relevant” important to you?

 

[livingwordunity]

no, we can’t. I’m opposed to the police raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors to enforce sodomy law, he supports the tactic.

Straw man.

1. When has it ever happened that police were “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors” because of a sodomy law?
2. You ignore the fact that I said that the law can apply equally to everyone. In other words, I didn’t single anyone out. Punishment equality.
3. I never said that a law such as this should involve “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors”.

I didn’t say you supported breaking down bedroom doors it, although I’m surprised at your lax notion of enforcement. sodomy isn’t that important a crime?

You said that sodomy laws would mean that police would be “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors”. You can’t provide any example of when that has ever happened?

 

[livingwordunity]

By all means, let the Catholic Church in the United States make outlawing homosexuality part of their teaching. See how long they remain relevant.

Straw man. No one said that the Church teaches that homosexual acts should be outlawed. The thread says what if, so people have been giving their personal opinions has you have given yours. But as far as being “relevant” the Catholic Church is relevant, even to non-Catholics, because she is an unmoving point of reference for objective morality. As we are now seeing with all the confusion over moral questions, outside of the Catholic Church no one can know good from evil. While government laws flip-flop back and forth with no real concept of morality, and people are tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, the Catholic Church stands firm like a rock.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

[reduced due to post length limit]

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

I am unsure if they could comprehend the concept of gay marriage enough to the point where they could feel moral repugnation. As to homosexual vice there are fundamentally no sexual things they could do* that heterosexuals could not do. Additionally gay males do changes substantially over time for example in the gay community in the US in the 1960s people who engaged in anal sex were looked down and the amount engaging in it at any time in their life was probably under 5% whereas today it is 75% engage in it in a lifetime (note that this means over a quarter will never engage in it, also this disproves the claim that it is the sine qua non of gay sex).

Do you believe the government has a moral obligation to outlaw and systematically eliminate prostitution?

The problem with forcing people back into the closet in an era where marriage is based on love is that you are going to cause many more broken families as people either try to hide either from the law or from themselves. We would simply be trading one even for another which hurts even more people, innocent ones at that.

What happened to Alan Turing et al. set a ball in motion that would have hit the pins with or without the social changes of the 1960s as it turned sodomy from some vile thing that only evil people would do to something respectable people and even a war hero might do.

It is not more prevalent, merely much more visible, there is a difference.

*there are a few, but they so rare as to be irrelevant.

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

I concur, no fault divorces and contraception/abortion have cause truly awful things like heterosexuals brutally sodomising marriage until gay marriage is actually conceivable, oh also I blame Rousseau, if he was never born we quite possibly wouldn’t have this mess.

Of all the decades we had anti sodomy laws did we have a theocracy? Did we live under a Stalinist regime that constantly broke open bedroom doors? Did we have neighbor snitching on neighbor?

No, only bad people like those who married those of a different race got neighbours snitching on them.

This thread is surreal.

You should have seen the one on should we execute homosexuals (it got deleted, it is quite possible the moderators themselves were appalled).

You said that sodomy laws would mean that police would be “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors”. You can’t provide any example of when that has ever happened?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

 

[livingwordunity]

You should have seen the one on should we execute homosexuals (it got deleted, it is quite possible the moderators themselves were appalled).

I didn’t see the thread, but CAF should be given credit for deleting such a thread. How do you know a thread like that was created by a Catholic? It could have been an atheist trying to be a troll. The question of whether or not sodomy can be illegal doesn’t have to mean going to an extreme of a death penalty. It’s a false dichotomy to say that if we have anti-sodomy laws that it would have to mean the death penalty. And as I’ve said, an anti-sodomy law can be applied in a way that doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, but isn’t that how the anti-sodomy laws were in the past anyway? Unless I’m mistaken, sodomy was a term that was legally applied to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. And there are public health reasons for having anti-sodomy laws.

**Fast Facts about AIDS **

“Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States .” - CDC

“Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.” – CDC

“From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 20%.” – CDC

“Fighting HIV among African Americans is not mutually exclusive with fighting HIV among gay and bisexual men. Efforts to reduce HIV among Blacks must confront the epidemic among Black gay and bisexual men as forcefully as existing efforts to confront the epidemic among other groups.” - Obama

“Roughly three-fourths of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States are among men, the majority of whom are gay and bisexual men.” - Obama

“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama

“CDC reports that HIV diagnoses among young gay men (ages 13-24) of all races and ethnicities rose between 2001 and 2006.” – Obama

Objection:
“But that’s not fact with AIDS/HIV worldwide where most of the cases are heterosexual.”

Answer :
That’s ignoring the proportions. There are more heterosexuals with AIDS because there are more heterosexuals. Homosexuals only make up about 2% of the population. One of the primary ways AIDS got into the heterosexual population is because of bisexual men. According to the CDC and President Obama…

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC

“Given the starkness and the enduring nature of the disparate impact on gay and bisexual men, it is important to significantly reprioritize resources and attention on this community. The United States cannot reduce the number of HIV infections nationally without better addressing HIV among gay and bisexual men…Even though gay and bisexual men comprise only two percent of the U.S. population (4 percent of men)” – Obama (bold emphasis given in Obama’s 2010 Whitehouse report)

“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama

“Gay and bisexual men comprise the majority of people with HIV who have died in the United States.” - Obama

“1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don’t Know” - WebMD

Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology

 

[fix]

I am unsure if they could comprehend the concept of gay marriage enough to the point where they could feel moral repugnation. As to homosexual vice there are fundamentally no sexual things they could do* that heterosexuals could not do. Additionally gay males do changes substantially over time for example in the gay community in the US in the 1960s people who engaged in anal sex were looked down and the amount engaging in it at any time in their life was probably under 5% whereas today it is 75% engage in it in a lifetime (note that this means over a quarter will never engage in it, also this disproves the claim that it is the sine qua non of gay sex).

Do you believe the government has a moral obligation to outlaw and systematically eliminate prostitution?

The problem with forcing people back into the closet in an era where marriage is based on love is that you are going to cause many more broken families as people either try to hide either from the law or from themselves. We would simply be trading one even for another which hurts even more people, innocent ones at that.

What happened to Alan Turing et al. set a ball in motion that would have hit the pins with or without the social changes of the 1960s as it turned sodomy from some vile thing that only evil people would do to something respectable people and even a war hero might do.

It is not more prevalent, merely much more visible, there is a difference.

*there are a few, but they so rare as to be irrelevant.

I concur, no fault divorces and contraception/abortion have cause truly awful things like heterosexuals brutally sodomising marriage until gay marriage is actually conceivable, oh also I blame Rousseau, if he was never born we quite possibly wouldn’t have this mess.

No, only bad people like those who married those of a different race got neighbours snitching on them.

You should have seen the one on should we execute homosexuals (it got deleted, it is quite possible the moderators themselves were appalled).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Yes, it is everyone’s fault but the homosexual apologists. Got it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I didn’t see the thread, but CAF should be given credit for deleting such a thread. How do you know a thread like that was created by a Catholic? It could have been an atheist trying to be a troll. The question of whether or not sodomy can be illegal doesn’t have to mean going to an extreme of a death penalty. It’s a false dichotomy to say that if we have anti-sodomy laws that it would have to mean the death penalty. And as I’ve said, an anti-sodomy law can be applied in a way that doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, but isn’t that how the anti-sodomy laws were in the past anyway? Unless I’m mistaken, sodomy was a term that was legally applied to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

I saw long time posters participate in it and support it, I believe several people got banned because of that thread along with others being suspended. I had merely been pointing out to the person that there have been even more surreal threads on similar topics.

The term itself indeed does apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals however in Texas the law only criminalised it between two people of the same sex, some states were like this and in others while sodomy was illegal it was only enforced on sodomy between two people of the same sex while heterosexuals were rarely if ever punished for it except in divorce court where the woman would use it as grounds for divorce or perhaps to simply to get more money out of him. So the truth is that while de jure it may have been equal it was de facto discrimination.

Yes, it is everyone’s fault but the homosexual apologists. Got it.

WHere did I say that it was everyone’s fault except the homosexual apologists.

 

[livingwordunity]

I saw long time posters participate in it and support it, I believe several people got banned because of that thread along with others being suspended. I had merely been pointing out to the person that there have been even more surreal threads on similar topics.

The term itself indeed does apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals however in Texas the law only criminalised it between two people of the same sex, some states were like this and in others while sodomy was illegal it was only enforced on sodomy between two people of the same sex while heterosexuals were rarely if ever punished for it except in divorce court where the woman would use it as grounds for divorce or perhaps to simply to get more money out of him. So the truth is that while de jure it may have been equal it was de facto discrimination.

Even if people have been on here for a long time that doesn’t mean that we know who they are or where they are on their personal spiritual journey. Someone can go from practicing to non-practicing Catholic and back again, they can lose faith and come back while being a member on here. We are all anonymous on here. I can only speak for myself. And my point is that an anti-sodomy law doesn’t have to mean the death penalty. America had anti-sodomy laws all the way up until recently, and no one was ever put to death over it. So the death penalty objection is a straw man. America is at no risk of becoming Africa. But like I was saying, there are also public health reasons for having anti-sodomy laws.