|
1 members (1 invisible),
288
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I believe that we will ALL agree that we do not believe that homosexuals should be thrown in jail.
I believe that we all agree that they should not be the object of hate crimes or *certain* types of discrimination.
I believe that we all agree that homosexuality is a sin, just like many other sins.
I believe that MANY of us also do not believe that homosexuals should parade their particular sin in our faces, and that we should accept it as wholesome. Yes. One clarification, which I think you would agree with. It's the homosexual sex that's sinful. The condition of same sex attraction may or may not be chosen. For some it is, for many it isn't. Those who struggle against that condition, as Wondering correctly observed, are worthy of admiration. How to represent that distinction in secular law is something that stumps me. And *that* is an issue worthy of consideration. Throwing homosexuals into prison or allowing persecution are clearly not the ways to go. But endorsing the "homosexual lifestyle" is also clearly not the way to go, at least according to Christian morals. It's one thing to turn a blind eye to a gay couple that lives together; it's another thing to have "gay marriage," or gay parenting, etc. (Or, am I wrong in those examples?) Is there a middle ground that the secular law can represent: to (as we say) love the sinner but hate the sin ? -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I know this is a hot-button issue that inflames many people. However, I will point out that homosexuality is not the only sin. There are plenty of others around, also. It is the one most shoved in our faces. To calm your nerves I assure you that God opposes all of them. I oppose them to though I sometimes find myself stumbling into one or another. I haven't formed any associations to promote those sins nor have I demanded that anyone accept them either officially or unofficially. Dan, Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty close to you on this issue. The Bible and the rest of Tradition clearly condemn homosexual sex. It's sinful, plain and simple. On the other hand, I have known a fair number of people who told me that they were gay. And, they told me in no uncertain terms that they and other gays have been victimized by verbal and physical abuse, some of it severe (some of it deadly). So, where's the balance? If we imprisoned evey sinner, we would all be in jail. (And, no, I know that you are not calling for that.) On the other extreme, there's the repugnant behavior exhibited at many gay rights parades. I honestly don't know what the balance is for loving the sinner but hating the sin in the secular law when it comes to this issue. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
I know this is a hot-button issue that inflames many people. However, I will point out that homosexuality is not the only sin. There are plenty of others around, also. It is the one most shoved in our faces. To calm your nerves I assure you that God opposes all of them. I oppose them to though I sometimes find myself stumbling into one or another. I haven't formed any associations to promote those sins nor have I demanded that anyone accept them either officially or unofficially. Dan, Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty close to you on this issue. The Bible and the rest of Tradition clearly condemn homosexual sex. It's sinful, plain and simple. On the other hand, I have known a fair number of people who told me that they were gay. And, they told me in no uncertain terms that they and other gays have been victimized by verbal and physical abuse, some of it severe (some of it deadly). So, where's the balance? If we imprisoned evey sinner, we would all be in jail. (And, no, I know that you are not calling for that.) On the other extreme, there's the repugnant behavior exhibited at many gay rights parades. I honestly don't know what the balance is for loving the sinner but hating the sin in the secular law when it comes to this issue. -- John And while we're at it, I've seen a lot of repugnant behavior on TV the last week, and I'm sure through Tuesday, at Mardi Gras "parades" in the South and Central/South America. Talk about "in your face." 
Last edited by John K; 02/17/07 07:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
WHOA!!! We are going all over the place here....Let's all stop jumping down each other's throat. I believe that we will ALL agree that we do not believe that homosexuals should be thrown in jail. I believe that we all agree that they should not be the object of hate crimes or *certain* types of discrimination. I believe that we all agree that homosexuality is a sin, just like many other sins. I believe that MANY of us also do not believe that homosexuals should parade their particular sin in our faces, and that we should accept it as wholesome. Now getting to my own pet peeve, which Logos-Alexis said: "the fact that, if the trends continue, the Russians will literally abort and contracept themselves out of existence within a matter of decades?" I take personal offense with this. Family planning and certain types of contraception should NEVER be equated with the blatant murderous sin of abortion. Though I do not expect the Catholics here to agree with me, I remind all that Russia is a predominantly Orthodox country, and that the Orthodox church approaches family planning and types of artificial contraception in a pastoral way and not in the legalistic way of the RC Church. Therefore, for the Orthodox, abortion is ALWAYS A SIN, without exception, and with every absolute, but contraception is not. Now to conclude with my own opinion, that has been festering in me a long time now: I think that if the RC church would stop equating the two this way, and if they would take a more personal and pastoral approach to the reality behind the need for family planning these days, there would be less dissidence, and less pro-choice Catholics. Another comment: JSMelkite said: "Interestingly enough, that would mean even sodomy for married couples used as foreplay (and I have seen such things approved of in very traditional Catholic marriage manuals by Christopher West and others)." First of all, I was not making a statement about this. I was stating the law as it is and why it is. Period. Let's not assume that everything one researches and shares is a personal statement.  Secondly, I find this quite curious. In traditional Orthodox circles this is considered GRAVE sin in marriage, punishable by a period of excommunication, and according to one Monastic Elder I had read, better a husband do this with a street harlot (he wasn't condoning adultery, he was just trying to make a point) than with his wife who is to be held in high esteem, holiness, and respect. Back to Logos-Alexis' comment: Birth control, in the more traditional circles, is tolerated due to circumstance, but for the record, there are penances and periods of short ex-communication which also go along with it. In the other Orthodox churches, it is a matter of pastoral eikonomia, and as it is in the context of marriage, there is usually no penance involved. I needed to comment on Logos-Alexis' comment which I found offensive. This is the Orthodox position, so such comments are out of line in charity. Unless one has fifteen children, please remember Christ's words: He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Please do not engage me in pms about this. I have nothing more to say about it. Sincerely, In Christ, Alice Alice, I am not so sure that everyone here does agree that homosexuals should not be put in jail. But I will let people speak for themselves. What I mentioned regarding sexual practices was something I found in a book by Christopher West (who is Roman Catholic) and was actually told to us by our NFP counselor when my wife and I were in communion with Rome. I wasn't trying to state anything about the Orthodox position. I was just trying to point out that consistent sodomy laws would outlaw things that many conservative Roman Catholics consider acceptable, at least as foreplay. God bless. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
I just want to know how the Russian police plan to enforce an anti-sodomy law. The only places they would know about sodomy are prisons, and those guys are already there. All this would do is extend their stay.
Secondly, how would one wrongly accused of sodomy defend themselves?
And what exactly would be used as proof by a prosecutor?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959 |
[ I believe that we will ALL agree that we do not believe that homosexuals should be thrown in jail.
I believe that we all agree that they should not be the object of hate crimes or *certain* types of discrimination.
I believe that we all agree that homosexuality is a sin, just like many other sins.
I believe that MANY of us also do not believe that homosexuals should parade their particular sin in our faces, and that we should accept it as wholesome. Yes. One clarification, which I think you would agree with. It's the homosexual sex that's sinful. The condition of same sex attraction may or may not be chosen. For some it is, for many it isn't. Those who struggle against that condition, as Wondering correctly observed, are worthy of admiration. -- John Yes, ofcourse I meant that and understand that. You know I am not a judgemental or intolerant type! Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
I just want to know how the Russian police plan to enforce an anti-sodomy law. The only places they would know about sodomy are prisons, and those guys are already there. All this would do is extend their stay.
Secondly, how would one wrongly accused of sodomy defend themselves?
And what exactly would be used as proof by a prosecutor? There was such a law where I live. It required the police to witness the action first-hand, IIRC. It was more of a secondary crime added to the list mostly, much like the police adding the expired registration, insurance, dead tail light, and lack of seat belt to the list when they pulled a person over for speeding. I believe the law's intent was to not encourage the police to root it out, but instead to make it an underground activity that people did not flaunt in public by clearly delineating the societal norms for the area.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 |
Alice,
I assure you I meant no offense. I did not mean to tackle the issue of abortion vs. contraception.
But, as a Catholic, I am bound to believe that contraception is always and at all times sinful. No matter what. I understand the Orthodox position is different, but the Catholic Church is clear on this. I can do nothing but agree and assent to what the Church holds.
Logos - Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959 |
Alice,
I assure you I meant no offense. I did not mean to tackle the issue of abortion vs. contraception.
But, as a Catholic, I am bound to believe that contraception is always and at all times sinful. No matter what. I understand the Orthodox position is different, but the Catholic Church is clear on this. I can do nothing but agree and assent to what the Church holds.
Logos - Alexis Dear Garrett, I understand. 'Nough said..... Regards, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
Maybe I'm toward the more conservative end of the spectrum here but I actually am not sure I necessarily have an issue with having a law against homosexual acts on the books, or against abortion , etc...having a law on the books doesn't necessairly mandate how or if it is enforced at all.
For instance in my State in Australia abortion has actually never been formally decriminalised, but is NEVER prosecuted and is conducted quite openly, and the attitude to drug offences is similar; right now we're having a big debate here about formally removing abortion form the criminal code, whilst I think that our current scenario is a nice balance;
one of the problems we have got into in the west is about how lay people (politicians) can on the one hand obey Vatican II and implement "Catholci Action" for want of a better word in their lives, whilst on the other hand preserving this concept of seperation of church and state; I think a scenario like ours of having a law on the books, but considerable discretion in how it is implemented is not a bad balance;
however if this was a balance unachievalble in Russia (as probably) then I would fall in with other posters.
But just my plug for a way of imbedding Christian principle in legislation in at least a symbolic way.
Ned
BTW: to clarify, yes, I would not disapprove if our current symbolic prohibition on abortion stayed in force, and even if it became "less symbolic".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
I have another concern that I think is relevant to this discussion. In the context of a secular state I get very concerned when government thinks it can legislate concerning consensual acts between adults. If the government can outlaw homosexual acts, then, theoretically at least, they could mandate the use of contraception. Think about China's policy that each couple is legally allowed to have only 1 child. So, after you've had 1 child, you're basically required to contracept or abstain. This could happen right here in the USA. I don't think it's likely to happen anytime soon, but it's a possibility I can imagine. There is such little regard for life in this country as it is. Children have come to be seen as financial liabilities, and having large families is frowned upon in many circles. How many times do you hear married couples of child-bearing age talk about not being able to afford children? I hear it quite a bit. This sort of thinking is pervasive and it is not inconceivable that this mentality could ultimately lead to legislation that limits how many children a couple can legally have. I feel quite certain that this is something that everyone on this forum would oppose.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
I absoloutely agree, but in a way I wonder if that supports my last post, in a kind of inverse way; that the whole idea of sepeartion of church and state is inherently problematic; the church Ryan refers to being of course the church of the almightly dollar already inhabits the political sphere without much competition.
Having recognised that many current lawmakers are influenced by a faith position of their own, that of promoting an upwardly mobile standard of living driven by market factors, the necessity for CHristian ploiticians to somehow bring to bear their own faith in their activities as a counterbalance is made more clear; whilst this presentws dilemnas of its own which have been throroughly discussed in this thread, the alternative, as seen in the case of CHina (a nation driven by the market, whatever it's supposed Marxist credentials), shows the extent to which the sublimatuon of human sexuality to " the church of the secular" dimishes the respect for humanity in an entire society, and CHristians should have the courage to attempt to somehow make real statments about their principles, even in legislation, in the face of that alternative.
Ned
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I absoloutely agree, but in a way I wonder if that supports my last post, in a kind of inverse way; that the whole idea of sepeartion of church and state is inherently problematic; [ . . .] Ned and Ryan, I tend to agree. And I wonder out loud: Doesn't the separation of church and state depend upon people sharing a fundamental, basic moral code? And if enough people change their moral code, isn't that the basis of the pressing moral controversies in the law? In other words, when everyone pretty much shared the same Judea-Christian code of morals, the law reflected that and there was no problem in defining certain issues as right or wrong. Now, however, a lot of people have different moral codes -- secular humanist codes versus traditional religious codes-- and the conflict in the law reflects this division in society. The problem with secular democracy is when societies divide in their fundamental ways of understanding morals and human behavior. Then, majority rule breaks down or becomes controversial because the different factions are living in the same country but in different conceptual universes about what is moral. We speak the same language, we dress the same way, we dwell on the same land, and we claim the same nation, but our minds and hearts are living in different universes. Or, at least, that is how it sometimes seems when it comes to the different conceptual worlds we occupy on moral issues, on how we see and understand reality itself and the meaning and purpose of life. I�m groping for understanding here, thinking out loud. But, does it seem to anyone else that we are becoming two different peoples within the same nation, the religious and the secular; and that is the Basic Divide which plays out in all these other debates on law, morals, and so on ? -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 79
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 79 |
I also do not want them under hate law protection. Then you clearly don't understand how terrifying it can be for a gay person to leave their home at certain times and in certain places.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 |
I also do not want them under hate law protection. Then you clearly don't understand how terrifying it can be for a gay person to leave their home at certain times and in certain places. Then you clearly don't realize just what "hate crime" legislation really is: the government's ability to determine the gravity of an offense based on the perpetrator's alleged intention. Furthermore, if it can be demonstrated that the perpetrator attended a church at which the pastor was anything less than 100% pro-gay, he could be implicated as well. In other words, hate crime = thought crime
|
|
|
|
|
