Wrong emphasis in same-sex marriage?

[Peter_J]

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.

I don’t claim to have answers, but my research has indicated that in the USA, the vast majority of states had anti-sodomy laws throughout the greater part of the 20th century.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Has there been a thread about anti-fornication laws? If not, should we start one?

 

[Mary_Estelle]

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 do you know it isn’t hurting someone just because they are two consenting adults? What if there are families-children-wives-parents or other relatives involved in some away. Would they not be “hurt” or affected in some way???

 

[Hatikvah]

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

Yes, but we cannot force our beliefs on society. Do homosexual actions actually harm a person, physically, in the eyes of a state? Not with the proper consent given (and it is the same with heterosexual actions). Yes, we can say that homosexual actions harm us spiritually and place our relationship with God in jeopardy, but that is no reason to make these actions illegal. Long story short: separation of church and state. If we were to make homosexuality illegal, we may as well be Saudi Arabia and make all these other sins illegal. It is simply… un-American.

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 agree, that is an important distinction. However, I’m referring to the sexual acts of homosexuality (not anyone’s attraction, which is another matter).

 

[Peter_J]

Hatikvah, and everyone else, it seems to me that main question is: What does it mean to be conservative? (I.e. does it mean regarding homosexual acts as immoral and wanting them to be criminalized, or does it mean regarding homosexual acts as immoral but not wanting them to be criminalized?)

 

[MaryT777]

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.

Well said.

 

[FrancescaMaria]

Making people subject to punishment, just because they sin in a different way than the majority of us? That does not seem like a Christian thing to do.

 

[Peter_J]

Making people subject to punishment, just because they sin in a different way than the majority of us? That does not seem like a Christian thing to do.

To some it did/does. Hence my question about what it means to be conservative.

 

[adamhovey1988]

To some it did/does. Hence my question about what it means to be conservative.

This is why I have a hard time with political labels. I am a paleoconservative, paleolibertarian,distributist, classical liberal, Christian Democrat (in the sense I believe in Democracy, in the sense of the American political party), Christian anarchist. Anyway, if South Carolina had laws against sodomy (and I know they used to) I do not think I would oppose it. I just don’t see how they are enforceable. I am (thankfully for us all!) not a political theorist and not a politician.

 

[GEddie]

Has there been a thread about anti-fornication laws? If not, should we start one?

Up to you.

ICXC NIKA

 

[kozlosap]

Making people subject to punishment, just because they sin in a different way than the majority of us? That does not seem like a Christian thing to do.

I agree. We already have way to many people in prison because of antiquated drug laws that are enforced differently depending on what state you live in. Where on earth would find the money to build new prisons in order to hold all the couples that are living together? It had been my understanding that Conservatives want less government control of their lives. How on earth would having bedroom policing be classified as conservative? Sounds like a freaking theocracy to me.

 

[Peter_J]

Anyway, if South Carolina had laws against sodomy (and I know they used to) I do not think I would oppose it. I just don’t see how they are enforceable.

What if they only applied to same-gender couples?

 

[Qoeleth]

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.

To reply to this point (and others with the some thread), it seems that ALL laws are based on preventing immoral acts (against theft, murder, public drunkenness, burning the flag, etc.). People who are not religious also have morality, and every community has morality.

Now, prostitution is illegal in many parts, as is gambling, and swearing at policeman. Some laws are aimed at protecting the fabric of society. This is a case in point, I believe.

 

[Qoeleth]

Under what grounds should it be made illegal?

Do you have proof of this?

What principle?

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?

Lou

It seems that the moral repulsion to homosexual acts is more fundamentally human, and not specifically religious. Indeed, a lot of non-religious people share the same feeling (look at the spontaneous appearance of objections to homosexual culture and activities amongst hip-hop, and other sub-cultures, which are often far from Christian in a conventional sense).

And this is something Christians, Muslims, Jewish Law, etc. all agree about.

 

[Lou2U]

It seems that the moral repulsion to homosexual acts is more fundamentally human, and not specifically religious. Indeed, a lot of non-religious people share the same feeling (look at the spontaneous appearance of objections to homosexual culture and activities amongst hip-hop, and other sub-cultures, which are often far from Christian in a conventional sense).

And this is something Christians, Muslims, Jewish Law, etc. all agree about.

But do you have any proof of this? And why should we make such acts illegal? Should we make it illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in these acts? Should we make any acts which are not procreative and unitive (as per the CC’s teaching) illegal? How do we gather proof that these acts have taken place?

I disagree that we should make such acts illegal. Things we find immoral or distateful should not also be illegal just because we dislike them. Not all Christian denominations share the same stance on such acts, and neither do other religions. Why should we prioritise one over the others? And what about those who don’t have any religion?

Lou

 

[Qoeleth]

But do you have any proof of this? And why should we make such acts illegal? Should we make it illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in these acts? Should we make any acts which are not procreative and unitive (as per the CC’s teaching) illegal? How do we gather proof that these acts have taken place?

I disagree that we should make such acts illegal. Things we find immoral or distateful should not also be illegal just because we dislike them. Not all Christian denominations share the same stance on such acts, and neither do other religions. Why should we prioritise one over the others? And what about those who don’t have any religion?

Lou

By your thinking, we should legalize drugs, pornography, gambling, bestiality, polygamy, swearing in public, etc.

All laws (even laws against murder), spring from concepts of morality. Since Western countries are based on Christian culture, it is right that their laws reflect the values of this culture.

 

[Peter_J]

But do you have any proof of this? And why should we make such acts illegal? Should we make it illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in these acts? Should we make any acts which are not procreative and unitive (as per the CC’s teaching) illegal? How do we gather proof that these acts have taken place?

I disagree that we should make such acts illegal. Things we find immoral or distasteful should not also be illegal just because we dislike them. Not all Christian denominations share the same stance on such acts, and neither do other religions. Why should we prioritize one over the others? And what about those who don’t have any religion?

Lou

My experience suggests (admittedly without any kind of formal survey) that a lot of conservatives fall somewhere in the middle on the question of anti-sodomy laws.

That is to say, they don’t believe that we absolutely *need *to have laws against homosexual acts, but they do believe that conservative (straight) Christians have the prerogative to decide whether to pass such laws or not.

 

[lemongrass80]

It seems that the moral repulsion to homosexual acts is more fundamentally human, and not specifically religious. Indeed, a lot of non-religious people share the same feeling (look at the spontaneous appearance of objections to homosexual culture and activities amongst hip-hop, and other sub-cultures, which are often far from Christian in a conventional sense).

And this is something Christians, Muslims, Jewish Law, etc. all agree about.

Fun fact for you- it’s been shown again and again that one of the most popular forms of pornography for straight women is woman-on-woman.

So maybe a repulsion of homosexual acts is not so ingrained as you think.

 

[eamonnroma]

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.

Of course heterosexuals are also at risk from Aids and STDs.

 

[Lea101]

How do you know it isn’t hurting someone just because they are two consenting adults? What if there are families-children-wives-parents or other relatives involved in some away. Would they not be “hurt” or affected in some way???

? Are we going to punish a guy for breaking someone’s heart? Are we going to punish a mother for having an affair because it made her children sad? Are we going to punish a guy because he had pre marital sex and that hurt his parents? Are we going to punish a woman because she became an atheist?

That’s really not a good reason to make this illegal. Straight people also ‘hurt’ others, gay people aren’t the only ones capable of that. Unless you are all for making every sin that upsets families illegal (which is also absurd), it just looks discriminatory towards the lgbt community.

And if a person is “more upset” about a family member/etc being gay than other mortal sins…it just shows that the person needs to work on his/herself and their view on homosexuality. More often than not, it’s because said person is disgusted at it because it’s “different”. Which is absurd too!