Wrong emphasis in same-sex marriage?

[Qoeleth]

I wonder if the question of same-sex marriage is really the important one.

Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.

It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts. Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.

The question is not so much about what is ‘marriage’, but rather if our society will tolerate these acts which abhorrent to all moral laws.

This is not to say we should discriminate against people afflicted with these tendencies. In fact, to prevent them from acting on them, is actually doing them a favour, like not allowing drug users access to harmful and degrading substance abuse.

A good idea?

 

[Hatikvah]

Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.

It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts. Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.

I would not say that it is better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal. Yes, it is a violation of natural and divine law in the eyes of the Christian. However, it does not need to be made illegal. Unlike murder, assault, or theft, homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

While we Christians would see homosexuality as immoral, this should not mean that we need to enforce our morality on others concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

Also, if we should note it, homosexuality is legal in Vatican City (though, of course, gay marriage is not). While it is distinct from the Holy See, it is still run by the papacy and holds to Catholic standards.

 

[Rosebud77]

I would not say that it is better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal. Yes, it is a violation of natural and divine law in the eyes of the Christian. However, it does not need to be made illegal. Unlike murder, assault, or theft, homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

While we Christians would see homosexuality as immoral, this should not mean that we need to enforce our morality on others concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

Also, if we should note it, homosexuality is legal in Vatican City (though, of course, gay marriage is not). While it is distinct from the Holy See, it is still run by the papacy and holds to Catholic standards.

Problem is that as the Israelites knew, it damages the social and especially the family structure that humanity depends on.

In the eye of God, far more than crime and immorality

 

[LiamQ]

…homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

Aside from being gravely sinful and potentially putting a soul at enmity with God?

Hatikvah:

…concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

I can’t agree with this in the slightest. Homosexuality, from a Catholic perspective, is often argued against from the perspective of natural law; and many of the philosophical underpinnings could be utilized by an atheist just as well as they can be by a Catholic.

Homosexuality is contrary to rightly understood human nature and human sexuality, and determining whether something is “rightly understood” in this context requires no Bible and no appeal to divine law whatsoever.

 

[Rhubarb]

I can’t agree with this in the slightest. Homosexuality, from a Catholic perspective, is often argued against from the perspective of natural law; and many of the philosophical underpinnings could be utilized by an atheist just as well as they can be by a Catholic.

Homosexuality is contrary to rightly understood human nature and human sexuality, and determining whether something is “rightly understood” in this context requires no Bible and no appeal to divine law whatsoever.

Natural law arguments tend to rely on either 1. God or 2. Shaky teleological claims. And I’ve found most of the teleological claims are supported in argument by an appeal to the divine. Usually using words like “what it was created for” or “how it was designed”

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Going down the road of making everything that is immoral illegal is the road to a theocracy. There are plenty of things that are immoral that I am sure you would not consider making illegal. Drunkenness is an example. Fornication. Making contraception illegal to use? I’m sorry, but we should be trying to lead people to Christ though love and not with a gun pointed to their head. All that will happen is the gay culture (and all other immoral acts) will move underground and when people are attacked or raped they won’t go to the police because they are afraid.

 

[GEddie]

That bus sailed a long time ago.

The current motto now seems to be, “An it harm no one and hurt no-one’s feelings, it’s all OK.”

Consider that in your example of substance abuse, there is now a drive to legalize that, too.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

Going down the road of making everything that is immoral illegal is the road to a theocracy. There are plenty of things that are immoral that I am sure you would not consider making illegal. Drunkenness is an example. Fornication. Making contraception illegal to use? I’m sorry, but we should be trying to lead people to Christ though love and not with a gun pointed to their head. All that will happen is the gay culture (and all other immoral acts) will move underground and when people are attacked or raped they won’t go to the police because they are afraid.

I wouldn’t mind seeing drunkenness illegal (isn’t it already, at least in public areas?) or fornication for that matter.

Sprawled intoxicated bodies, alcohol-fueled violence and the animalized pursuit of sexual pleasure are part of human life’s dirt floor that should be kept out of sight. IMINWHO

I understand however that in a Western electoral oligarchy of the 2010s, such can never happen. Which is fine, as someone said, conversion should not be by gun.

ICXC NIKA

 

[josh987654321]

I would not say that it is better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal. Yes, it is a violation of natural and divine law in the eyes of the Christian. However, it does not need to be made illegal. Unlike murder, assault, or theft, homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

While we Christians would see homosexuality as immoral, this should not mean that we need to enforce our morality on others concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

I agree, well said.

The only thing I would mention, is that I think it important to differentiate between ‘homosexual’ (someone who suffers from same sex attraction) and ‘The sexual acts of homosexuality’.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Voltrael]

It is not the place of the government to create and enforce rules on sexual behavior, as contrary as that behavior might be to most religious faiths.

 

[Lea101]

I would not say that it is better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal. Yes, it is a violation of natural and divine law in the eyes of the Christian. However, it does not need to be made illegal. Unlike murder, assault, or theft, homosexuality does not harm other persons nor their belongings (at least, in context and with consent from all parties involved).

While we Christians would see homosexuality as immoral, this should not mean that we need to enforce our morality on others concerning such a subjective issue. With something like abortion, the Christian view is more objective because of the reasoning behind it: it need not fall on divine law.

Also, if we should note it, homosexuality is legal in Vatican City (though, of course, gay marriage is not). While it is distinct from the Holy See, it is still run by the papacy and holds to Catholic standards.

Agreed. Making homosexual acts illegal is not wise at all.

Making homosexuality illegal won’t help, really. Usually people who advocate stuff like this are ignorant of homosexuality and lust

There was a similar thread not too long ago-about punishing those who take part in homosexual acts. Maybe OP can read it.

Some sins, especially sexual sins, are better left between the sinner and God.

(By the way, homosexuality was seen as normal in some societies)

 

[Little_Sheep]

I wonder if the question of same-sex marriage is really the important one.

Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.

It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts. Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.

The question is not so much about what is ‘marriage’, but rather if our society will tolerate these acts which abhorrent to all moral laws.

This is not to say we should discriminate against people afflicted with these tendencies. In fact, to prevent them from acting on them, is actually doing them a favour, like not allowing drug users access to harmful and degrading substance abuse.

A good idea?

 

[Lea101]

Aside from being gravely sinful and potentially putting a soul at enmity with God?

I can’t agree with this in the slightest. Homosexuality, from a Catholic perspective, is often argued against from the perspective of natural law; and many of the philosophical underpinnings could be utilized by an atheist just as well as they can be by a Catholic.

Homosexuality is contrary to rightly understood human nature and human sexuality, and determining whether something is “rightly understood” in this context requires no Bible and no appeal to divine law whatsoever.

Don’t think you understand the point.

Two men having consensual gay sex=not hurting anybody.

Yes, their souls are in danger. But that’s between them and God. It’s their choice to reject Him or not. If you have to be arrested/punished for you to not do something immoral…your soul is probably in danger already. Since you aren’t abstaining because you love God and want to obey him, but you just don’t want to get in trouble with the law.

Theft, abortion etc should be illegal bc it hurts someone (abortion=the child). Sexual sins such as watching porn, masturbation, homosexuality etc is better left between God and the sinner.

 

[Voltrael]

Don’t think you understand the point.

Two men having consensual gay sex=not hurting anybody.

Yes, their souls are in danger. But that’s between them and God. It’s their choice to reject Him or not. If you have to be arrested/punished for you to not do something immoral…your soul is probably in danger already. Since you aren’t abstaining because you love God and want to obey him, but you just don’t want to get in trouble with the law.

Theft, abortion etc should be illegal bc it hurts someone (abortion=the child). Sexual sins such as watching porn, masturbation, homosexuality etc is better left between God and the sinner.

There is an argument to be made that it this sort of behavior hurts society in general, but social problems are not generally fixed by passing laws. I believe it’s a cyclical thing, and society will become more “moral” on its own.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Don’t think you understand the point.

Two men having consensual gay sex=not hurting anybody.

Yes, their souls are in danger. But that’s between them and God. It’s their choice to reject Him or not. If you have to be arrested/punished for you to not do something immoral…your soul is probably in danger already. Since you aren’t abstaining because you love God and want to obey him, but you just don’t want to get in trouble with the law.

Theft, abortion etc should be illegal bc it hurts someone (abortion=the child). Sexual sins such as watching porn, masturbation, homosexuality etc is better left between God and the sinner.

How can I explain how the bolded statement is untrue without getting into to much detail.
Sexual acts involve the most vulnerable parts of the body. The skin layers are very thin. A consensual act between a man and a woman is just safe enough to give pleasure but avoid damage to soft tissue. When things like multiple partners, prostitution, rough sex or especially sodomy between men happen, things start to ‘tear’. Very tiny microscopic, but enough to transmit STDs.

You may not be very familiar with the HIV outbreak in the gay men’s community in the 1980’s. Many people died. This is just one example of how it does carry the risk of harm because it is unnatural.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I wonder if the question of same-sex marriage is really the important one.

Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.

It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts. Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.

The question is not so much about what is ‘marriage’, but rather if our society will tolerate these acts which abhorrent to all moral laws.

This is not to say we should discriminate against people afflicted with these tendencies. In fact, to prevent them from acting on them, is actually doing them a favour, like not allowing drug users access to harmful and degrading substance abuse.

A good idea?

This is simply unenforceable. End of story.

 

[pensmama87]

One problem I see with this kind of thing is that only particular sins get targeted, which can give the false impression that sins are only bad if you get caught.

I suppose we should ask the OP if we should criminalize the sins he is prone to committing.

Also, considering the horrible conditions of prisons, with lots of additional sins by inmates and wardens including sexual assault, is imprisonment really going to help people become chaste?

 

[Lea101]

How can I explain how the bolded statement is untrue without getting into to much detail.
Sexual acts involve the most vulnerable parts of the body. The skin layers are very thin. A consensual act between a man and a woman is just safe enough to give pleasure but avoid damage to soft tissue. When things like multiple partners, prostitution, rough sex or especially sodomy between men happen, things start to ‘tear’. Very tiny microscopic, but enough to transmit STDs.

You may not be very familiar with the HIV outbreak in the gay men’s community in the 1980’s. Many people died. This is just one example of how it does carry the risk of harm because it is unnatural.

Ok so what about sex between lesbians?
Should unprotected sex be illegal?
Rough sex?
Anal sex between straight couples?

You see, it is just not a good enough reason to make it illegal.
And it’s not on the same scale as other crimes, which was my point, albeit not clear enough. I can admit that lol

But basically even though there is a risk of STDs, it is still consensual, the men involved are aware (or should be aware) of the risk. If I asked to be punched and I got hurt, it’s not illegal, but if I didn’t, it’s assault (terrible example, and I know it’s going to backfire )

So yeah, while it does pose a risk, it doesn’t make it okay to make it illegal. Plus STDs also spread amongst straight couples.

I do know that gay men who have sex/others who have anal sex/etc cannot donate blood in some areas because of this risk. That I can understand

Edit: i know you are against it as well, was talking about it generally/towards op

 

[CB_Catholic]

Sodomy has been on the books as being illegal and criminal for years in most states, yet the laws have rarely been enforced unless it involved force or rape or beastiality or involved children. What makes you think that criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults would be any more enforceable?

 

[Lou2U]

I wonder if the question of same-sex marriage is really the important one.

Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.

Under what grounds should it be made illegal?

It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts.

Do you have proof of this?

Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.

What principle?

The question is not so much about what is ‘marriage’, but rather if our society will tolerate these acts which abhorrent to all moral laws. This is not to say we should discriminate against people afflicted with these tendencies. In fact, to prevent them from acting on them, is actually doing them a favour, like not allowing drug users access to harmful and degrading substance abuse.

How would you prove these acts? How would you prevent people from acting on them? Should we arrest them before they start these acts, to prevent it from ever happening? How do we know who’ll start to want to commit these acts?

A good idea?

Not in the slightest. Once you start enforcing ‘morality’, things go completely out the window. Whose morality should we follow? Christian morality? Which denomination? Maybe it should be Muslim morality, or Jewish, or Hindu or Sikh? Why should one be favoured over another? Why should people who subscribe to no religion have that religion’s morality enforced on them?

This wouldn’t be able to happen, for all the questions I showed above. IMO, it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. It isn’t like bestiality or drug/substance abuse and it’s fairly offensive to compare it to that.

Lou