Sodomy Law

[UnityofTrinity]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

 

[danmccormack]

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

first check this out … I don’t think states can create such a law anymore.

However, I think that there is a right place for every think and clearly things are not supposed to go in that way, if you catch my drift. Further more if you read the Catholic Catechism paragraphs 2360 and on you will see what the stance is

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

 

[centurionguard]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

Given the Wikipedia secularized version where it states:

Such laws have roots in (“antiquity”), and are linked to religious proscriptions against certain sex acts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

So by this I would surmise man’s justice system doesn’t deem such gross moral sexual acts as morally profane as the Catholic Church sees it and as most other religions see it; but, rather chooses to candy-coat such acts using the politically correct form and seeing such acts as merely unnatural.

Should I be surprised.

I’m sure many informed Catholics have heard and perhaps read the scathing and abhorring ill famed book Rite to Sodomy.

In answer I suggest reading this article: Understanding a Cesspool of Corruption Christ or Chaos. rcf.org/docs/droleskeyriteofsodomy.htm

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I’m not asking whether or not sodomy is moral, but whether or not the justice system should condemn it as as a crime. I oppose it for several reasons:
_ The right of privacy is uphold in America, which give citizens the right to do anything they please (suppose that it doesn’t harm others and is not illegal).
_ Sodomy laws are highly ineffective because there are nobody to regulate or supervise what goes on behind closed door.
_ Sodomy laws can actually encourage more sodomy since people are willing to circumvent laws

 

[devoutchristian]

Of course sodomy should be illegal.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Of course sodomy should be illegal.

Why? Should oral sex be illegal, too? Is the reasoning behind it physical or spiritual?

 

[fpt]

For information, read these threads. Good luck, the debates are very …!!! up to you.

Aren’t there 13 Non-Negotiables, not just 5?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=746168

Why isn’t adultery against the law?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747697

Whats wrong with a theocracy?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748921

 

[devoutchristian]

Should oral sex be illegal, too?

Yes, oral sex is a type of sodomy.

Is the reasoning behind it physical or spiritual?

The reasoning is that it corrupts societal morality.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, oral sex is a type of sodomy.

The reasoning is that it corrupts societal morality.

What would the threshold be that separates an act that should be banned and one that shouldn’t be, even if it’s not completely moral?

 

[devoutchristian]

What would the threshold be that separates an act that should be banned and one that shouldn’t be, even if it’s not completely moral?

Whether or not the act had a negative effect on societal morality. Admittedly it isn’t a clearly defined standard, so the decision on whether any particular act should be prohibited would belong to the prudential judgement of those who were responsible for the common good.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Whether or not the act had a negative effect on societal morality. Admittedly it isn’t a clearly defined standard, so the decision on whether any particular act should be prohibited would belong to the prudential judgement of those who were responsible for the common good.

I think this is the heart of the problem. I find the link between a couple engaging in a little non-vanilla activity in the bedroom to affecting the morality of society to be both tenuous and dubious. There are so many other private activities that can be said to have the same effect – yet people would scoff at making them illegal.

 

[sw85]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

It’s nuanced, and expressed most effectively in Dignitatis Humanae. In a nutshell, it’s that the state does in fact have the right to maintain the moral consensus, but that the proper application of this right will depend on the nature and context of the society which that state governs. A society which sees itself as fundamentally ordered to God through the Church and the state as the author of God’s justice in the world has more leeway to aggressively maintain the moral consensus than does one in thrall to liberalism.

The “right to privacy” isn’t really a Catholic idea except indirectly, so appealing to it isn’t very useful. More specifically, what we believe is that the means used to suppress social evils should be proportionate to the threat, and that behaviors which involve and scandalize others are vastly more threatening than those which don’t. So the state has more authority to punish, say, sodomy than it does masturbation.

I’m not asking whether or not sodomy is moral, but whether or not the justice system should condemn it as as a crime. I oppose it for several reasons:
UnityofTrinity;8869148:

There may be valid prudential reasons to think sodomy laws aren’t OK (i.e., for this particular society, at this particular point in time, etc.). As long as you acknowledge that the state, in principle, has the right to enact them, and that only contingent circumstances can mitigate that right, I think you’re fine.

_ The right of privacy is uphold in America, which give citizens the right to do anything they please (suppose that it doesn’t harm others and is not illegal).

This could easily be reversed, though. The Constitution is amendable and SCOTUS justices die/retire and are replaced all the time.

At any rate, the Constitution is not a Magisterial document, so whatever it says is kind of irrelevant. If it says X is OK, we don’t have to believe X is OK.

_ Sodomy laws are highly ineffective because there are nobody to regulate or supervise what goes on behind closed door.

That’s not the point. No one wants to create a police state. The point is to create a network of social expectations and obligations, of which laws are only one aspect.

_ Sodomy laws can actually encourage more sodomy since people are willing to circumvent laws

I don’t see any reason to believe that’s true.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

I wouldn’t worry about laws prohibiting or promoting sodomy.

Love God. Live right. Pray. Trust in His loving mercy. Do these things and the world around you becomes much better.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it needs to be criminal; many sins are between that person and God. Also the extremely common uneven enforcement of such laws probably qualifies as unjust discrimination.

 

[fix]

The state has authority to decide when to prosecute. They make these decisions every day. Cannot see why that is unjust?

 

[Augustus24]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

Heterosexuals can commit acts of sodomy as well. Oral sex was/is seen as sodomy. Should oral sex between a heterosexual married couple be illegal?

 

[fpt]

We are on a catholic forum what means that each catholic lay person:

Has to purify its own thoughts, who can be indirectly or directly touched by the heresies and / or the ideologies concerning the human nature with all the corollaries, and concerning the functions and the roles of the State with all corollaries (the civil law of State, the penal law of State, or both of them).

Thus, each catholic lay person has to refuse these heresies ---- the puritanism, the neo-puritanism, the fideism, the quietism, the jansenism, the neo-jansenism, the catharism, the neo-catharism, the moralism, the judgmentalism, the externalism, the rigorism, the anti-personalism, the anti-phenomenologism, the pharisianism or pharisaism, the evangelical fundamentalisms, the mormonism, the victorianism, the neo-victorianism, all the protestantisms…etc ----
and
these ideologies ---- the communism of State, the socialism of State, the nazism of State, the fascism of State, the totalitarism of State, the tyranism of State, the clanism of State…etc ----

in order to identify in link with the global teaching of the catholic church:
**
what should stay in the sphere of morality and not enter of the other spheres;**

what should enter and stay, only, in the sphere of the civil law, and not enter of the penal sphere;

what should enter in the sphere of the penal law and also enter in the civil spheres (both for public sanctions --jail or money for the State – and money for the victims --“penal victim and civil victim” --);

For to do this job, each one needs to purify its own soul with all corollaries, and to do a analysis of the catholic doctrine in the details and with all the subtleties, for discerning: the fact of identifying the good spheres, in the catholic sense.

The chariarization of State, even “in the christian way”, is morally wrong, socially unfair, and legally dangerous for the human nature because the nature of catholicism is very different.

Otherwise, it is not a catholic way. The theory of the tolerance of some private sins is the rule.

 

[fpt]

My understanding of the catholic social doctrine about homosexuality:

The State has no power to redefine the marriage (a natural institution and a natural contract): no right, no authority and no power of changing the natural acception of what is the true marriage wanted by God (natural moral law in the classical acception in all societies, the universality of marriage by the universal anthropology – man and woman --);
Thus, the civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” for the same sex persons (a pseudo-marriage, a pseudo couple, a false couple, a pair of sodomites, a pair of lesbians, yes the word couple is wrong, only the word “pair” is the good one, in the real and objective philosophy.);

The promotion of homosexuality in school (the primary school, the secondary school, the Grammar school) should be banned by the civil law of State; The homo-education and the homosexuality do not have to be normalized and banalized by the public school and by the governement;

The promotion of homosexuality at the College (at the University) should be avoided, should not be promoted as a normality;

The objection of conscience about that has to be garanteed by the laws of State: the refusal for the catholic structures to be an actor of the adoption in favor of the pair of the same sex persons, the refusal of natural and religious catholic wedding for those pairs, the acceptance of some “discriminations” in link with the sexual orientation, the wrong moral personal behaviors…etc;

The penal laws of State do not have to criminalize the homosexual acts of the same sex persons, who are consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home, in private place. It is not the business of State of visiting the sodomical beds ;

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The state has authority to decide when to prosecute. They make these decisions every day. Cannot see why that is unjust?

Grossly uneven enforcement of a law is unjust and that’s probably what would happen.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

What is the practical purpose of enforcing such a law in a secular society? I just don’t see it. It’s invasive, costly and needless.

sw85:

At any rate, the Constitution is not a Magisterial document, so whatever it says is kind of irrelevant

A part of me agrees with you. The other part is saying, “Oh, so the non-Catholics WERE right to freak out when John F. Kennedy was elected!”