Posted on 06/29/2003 7:32:53 AM PDT by Polycarp
Jelly, you are exactly correct.
Why do some posters on this forum have to be so blind, as they can not(or will not) look at both sides of the picture.
I love this forum. There are some great, interesting, educational debates.
That is until the initials GW show up. Then you had better agree with the bots, or you will not be welcome here. Regards
Your opinion may disagree, but every monotheistic religion in the world has very clear guidelines as to moral and immoral sexual behavior. You may not like this or agree with it, fine, but the scriptures of the world are clear.
Universal religious law also condemns the inter-religious and inter-racial relationships I mentioned.
That's your uninformed opinion, and untrue. Most religions advise people of faith to marry other people of similar faith or at least spiritual values, to protect peoples' faith, not out of sectarianism (at least that is the purpose). As far as inter-racial relationships, "love others as you wish others to love you" and "treat others as you wish to be treated" give your statement the lie.
What the ---?? Did you read my post carefully? Please re-read my post agagin and tell me what you disagree with.
From post #7:
Because their unnatural, sickening depravity, which has throughout history been condemned (usually with death), symbolizes liberation from the laws of God. And this is universal religious law, not only Christian, but Judaic, even Islam in the Koran, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh.I disagree with underpinning condemnation of an unnatural sex act with universal religious law. Universal religious law also condemns the inter-religious and inter-racial relationships I mentioned.
If, for example, your objection to homosexual acts is based on Leviticus, then please explain to me which other parts of Leviticus should or should not be law in your state, or across the United States of America?
And did I mention race??
No, I did since it was obviously absent from your consideration of the ramifications in the topic being discussed.
Please be specific here - what are you actually saying?
If homosexual acts and/or relationships should be illegal, and enforceably so, there should be a better argument than - "ick" - or that it goes against some percentage of the citizenry's mores, or amalgamation of religious beliefs. That's a distinguishing characteristic from our social structure than, for example, an Islamist one.
What is the cost to our society in medical terms by not prosecuting homosexuality? (numbers of new diseases, numbers that become ill, $$ in government/insurance programs spent)
What is the cost to our society in social/legal acceptance? (property rights, inheiritance, extended legal and medical coverage, tax revenues, etc.)
There are arguments addressing these issues and others. However, the only ones put forward by conservatives tend to be - "ick", against MY religion and slippery slope. Obviously that's not winning the argument and does not even convince me that those hold the moral high ground.
I may not have expressed my point well. I don't disagree that homosexuality is nearly "universally" condemned in religion - that does not translate into a valid compelling interest in secular law.
As far as inter-racial relationships, "love others as you wish others to love you" and "treat others as you wish to be treated" give your statement the lie.
Could you explain to me how this applies only to differences in race, but not to religion or sexual orientation?
What do you think of Feingold's interrogation? Unbelievable. My husband was in Orlando during Gay Days (and I suppose I should make clear he was on business - LOL) - and I didn't even want him to go to Disney. I'm no gay-basher by a long shot, but I've witnessed a couple of those kinds of gatherings and they seem to bring out the worst in some people. Definitely no place for little children...which is sad, especially since they're the ones you'd assume the park is primarily there for.
Racial differences are benign bodily characteristics that have nothing to do with behavior. A person is unable to change his race (Michael Jackson notwithstanding!). It is neutral. To hate someone because of his race is wrong, although not a punishable act because it is thought only. But to discriminate against a class of people because of their race is criminal because all people of a certain race are not alike, it is not a behavior, and it is not chosen. This is obvious and you know it as well as I do.
Sexual behavior is completely different: it is behavior, it is chosen (as is all behavior) and therefore it can be stopped or started - or changed, and it is not neutral. There is a vast amount of information on the deleterious effects of homosexual behavior on individuals, and society as a whole. I have read it here on FR and if you haven't seen it you haven't looked.
Considering religion, that is also chosen - but it is consciousness, not necessarily behavior, although differing behaviors are associated with various religions (attending religious services on certain days, etc). To hate someone because of their religion is also wrong, but is not a crime unless people are suppressed or otherwise harmed because of their religion (for instance, the Nazi treatment of Jews). If members of a religion perform acts that they claim are their religious duty (such as killing Americans in the name of Jihad) then such acts leave the realm of religion and enter into the realm of criminal acts or acts of war, and then are treated as such.
Additionally, love doesn't necessarily mean that all behaviors are loved. When you love someone it doesn't necessarily mean you approve of everything that person does.
I have tried to reply to your comments seriously, although your comments seemed not to warrant such weight. But there are others reading these back and forths.
Comment: Once again. Make the conduct illegal.It was up until the 1970's. Then, reinstitute; the whip, the lash and the knout, the dunking stool and the pillory. In cases of sodomy on a minor, death by hanging. However, the aformentioned is not tolerant and it would require a bit of spiritual strength.
I can see that, and it's appreciated.
although your comments seemed not to warrant such weight.
I apologize if my comments don't meet your expectations or criteria for serious discussion, I'll try harder below.
We seem to have moved off of universal religious law as a foundation for criminalizing homosexual relationships that include homosexual acts. I think that brings us closer to agreement.
I agree with your statements on race and religion.
There is a vast amount of information on the deleterious effects of homosexual behavior on individuals, and society as a whole. I have read it here on FR and if you haven't seen it you haven't looked.
I have seen it. I have not heard it presented as the conservative case for criminalizing homosexual acts. I am often troubled when conservatives turn to the state to enforce preferred behavior rather than using social persuation or coertion. I would rather win the debate on abortion/sexual behavior/marraige than use the power of the state to mandate it.
Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routing is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct.Law vs. MoralityWilliam Hickling Prescott*
"It is that when the state does gain widespread intrusive legal authority in the lives of the citizenry, the citizenry will begin to be guided not by its moral conscience and common sense but by the sole consideration of whether what people are doing is OK with the law-makers."
"When we get away from the simple negative principles of a just human community -- don't kill, don't assault, don't rob, don't rape and such, meaning, basically, that we should all live together peacefully -- and start regimenting the details of human life, people are no longer similar at all, quite the contrary. Maybe some should and some should not smoke. Maybe some should and some should not go to church. Maybe some should and others should not paint certain kinds of pictures or play certain sports or purchase SUVs or talk with the animals. Only at some very basic level are we all -- or virtually all of us -- alike. We become differentiated rather quickly as it concerns the details of our lives -- some are parents, some teachers, some tall, some women, some young, some athletes, some Roman Catholics, some Jews, some Moonies and some even agnostics or atheists."
"Not only will this generate completely artificial practices and bans but it will also take our minds off what is really important, namely, figuring out on our own how we should conduct ourselves in our lives. We now will be inclined to focus not on morality or ethics but on public policy and law."
I'm not sure if St. Thomas would appreciate your efforts to achieve moral consensus through the imposition of secular (ceremonial) law.
Aquinas argued that if civil laws laid too heavy a burden on the "multitude of imperfect people," it would be impossible for such laws to be obeyed and this, in turn, could lead eventually to disregard for all law.
Unenforceable laws are worse than no laws at all. And without a sufficient consensus, no law is enforceable. Civil laws, therefore, can demand no more than society itself can agree upon. To change a law, one must change the consensus that supports the old law and opposes the new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.